Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

kennas said:
What's his agenda?

To look after shareholders?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Correct! If PIF unit holders go away and don't claim the $50m facility which is rightfully ours and due and payable now by OCV, and WC don't claim the $147.5m that was stolen from us by the former directors of MFS, then there is more left for OCV share holders if they hold the slightest of hope of the company being salvageable.

His loyalty is to OCV shareholders not PIF unit holders.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:
Intriguing isn't it. Love to see a counter from WC.

Maybe it's a call for us to contact them because they have a solution?

Question to ponder: is ASA's interests opposed to the interests of unlisted private equity like PIF.
Click to expand...

I have thought about why WC has not come back with a counter in the media.

I believe it is because the vote is so heavily in her favour that she will let the numbers do the talking when the vote is finalised this coming week.

She is problably flat out in court too to try and prevent OCV from being liquidated by the PTQ and protecting our interests.

Love or hate her, you have to admire the woman's ability to just accept criticism and just roll with the punches. Must be an easier way to make a buck.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maverick2802 said:
Correct! If PIF unit holders go away and don't claim the $50m facility which is rightfully ours and due and payable now by OCV, and WC don't claim the $147.5m that was stolen from us by the former directors of MFS, then there is more left for OCV share holders if they hold the slightest of hope of the company being salvageable.

His loyalty is to OCV shareholders not PIF unit holders.
Click to expand...
I am still at a loss as to why some PIF holders think this is a good article? The Shareholders Association's role is to look after OCV shareholders I thought. I would have thought representing some unitholders would be a conflict of interests but I might just not be comprehending the article correctly. I am totally confused!!!:screwy: Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Folks,
It doesn't matter if you are shareholders or unit holders, Australian Shareholders Association is composed of investors like you & I to give us a voice in this jungle. Their aim is to protect the interest of investors, pure & simple.
So please keep an open mind.:banghead:
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

BootsnAll said:
Folks,
It doesn't matter if you are shareholders or unit holders, Australian Shareholders Association is composed of investors like you & I to give us a voice in this jungle. Their aim is to protect the interest of investors, pure & simple.
So please keep an open mind.:banghead:
Click to expand...

I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you:mad:
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maverick2802 said:
I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you:mad:
Click to expand...
Well I would be feeling a tad foolish if I was the COE of the ASA if JH ends up with an overwhelming FOR vote by the very same unitholders or maybe it was the gun pointing squarely at investors heads that influenced the end result. Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:
I am still at a loss as to why some PIF holders think this is a good article? The Shareholders Association's role is to look after OCV shareholders I thought. I would have thought representing some unitholders would be a conflict of interests but I might just not be comprehending the article correctly. I am totally confused!!!:screwy: Seamisty
Click to expand...

Hi all,
I guess it's all very much academic now, Octaviar will be put into voluntary administration after 5PM today. Noteholders voted to wind up the fund yesterday. Jenny Hutson is still vigorously pursuing our $147 million with hope for as good an outcome as is now possible.

Cheers.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

This may be a dumb question: How much double/triple/etc counting is in the indices? If listed company A owns X shares in listed company B then isn't the value of the X shares of company B counted twice in any index that both A&B are on. This will have an amplifying effect on the rises and falls of the indices.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Just a gentle reminder for all you folk out there to reread that article by the ASA which was in the Australia B4 you go to bed tonight Have a good night / Dane //
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

great dame said:
Just a gentle reminder for all you folk out there to reread that article by the ASA which was in the Australia B4 you go to bed tonight Have a good night / Dane //
Click to expand...

I suppose it might be more effective than counting sheep!:sheep:
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Please all note that Lonsec has yesterday released a Research Report that recommends that Unit Holders vote in favour of the 3 resolutions.


This is from an independant research house.


Regards,

Buffy99
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hello All

Now that things have finally settled down on the forum we need to consider what the future holds.

The outcome of the Octaviar administration saga will be the most significant event for PIF unitholders - simply because it will represent the largest single immediate increase in our unit value - depending on what we get back.

From the sketchy reports in the financial media it seems that Octaviar has in the face of pressure from PTQ advised the Court that it will invoke voluntary administration. It also seems that the PTQ secured a restraining order against Octaviar doing so before 5PM today. Not having the benefit of knowing the legal argument behind this I can only presume that the PTQ will seek to appoint its own Receiver ahead of Octaviar's voluntary administrator.

The heirachy of wind-up is quite complex and can involve administrators, managers, receivers and finally liquidators. It is well worth going to http://www.delisted.com.au and reading the powers and duties of each.

But back today's events - By voluntarily going into administration Octaviar could hope the Administrator (after an initial assessment and with the agreement of creditors) may opt for a Deed of Arrangement whereby Octaviar could over a specified period try to trade out of the situation and/or get creditors to agree to accept a certain level of return to conclude the debt.

This seems to be the substance of what Octaviar has been proposing to creditors all along. However the PTQ as it has already demonstrated it will not sanction any such arrangement by continued court action, and possibly the restraining order which would allow sufficient time for the PTQ as a major creditor to have it's own receiver appointed.

What happens next? It is possible to have a company in administration and at the same time have a receiver/liquidator appointed to act in the interests of a creditor or creditors.

This has happened in the case of the Donnovan Oats Hanaford Mortgage Corporation in Port Macquarie, where Price Waterhouse Coopers is the Receiver Manager voluntarily appointed by DOHMC, and a fund creditor has had the Supreme Court appoint a separate Liquidator.

In the case of Octaviar we will not know for a while if the PTQ will still get the upper hand, or how our RE will manage this situation on our behalf. If Octaviar and the other creditors are willing to accept PIF's claim on the $147.5 M we have a good chance to strike a deal. However, if say the PTQ or other creditors decide to reject or legal claim for the $147.5M ( I can not see how they could reject the $50M SF claim) this will mean WC will have to complete the Supreme Court action (obviously at cost to PIF) so as to have a court decision to back the $147.5M claim. This may take time.

I'm not sure what PIF unit holders can do about this but pray we get a good deal. And also remember the OCV shareholders who may see very little in the final wash up as creditors rank above shareholders.

Marcom
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maverick2802 said:
I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you:mad:
Click to expand...

I think the article was spot on. It dealt with all the issues that accompany the yes vote and how the investors lose out as a result of those changes.

The biggest problem that the NO side has in this situation, is the wording that they use. The word LIQUIDATION should be avoided at all costs. There is so much fear and innuendo that comes from the word.

I dont believe the PIF, in this matter has to be liquidated according to the normal course of a liquidation. Normally liquidation is basically selling off everything as fast as possible and paying out what is left.

If you put the redemptions that have been delayed to one side. The fund should be able to continue to trade with no problems. So therefore it does not have to be a liquidation in the ordinary sense. As projects are completed, assets are disposed of etc funds can be returned to investors. This could even happen immediately.


I believe the reason the yes vote will get up is because of marketing (Crap idea but a few enticing bells and whistles (buy back - although rather useless when look at facts, distribution coming up - should be able to be done regardless etc.)

As opposed to the no vote which is the better alternative for many reasons. But they have allowed it to be labelled as a vote for liquidation. And have allowed WC/yes sayers to go about saying that you need another re ready to step into their shoes straight away. Also they have not come up with another possible constitutional change (it would have been very easy to formulate a plan and distribute it). And the NO vote has waited for the last week to get the media on board (after many have voted).
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

newwwtrader said:
I think the article was spot on. It dealt with all the issues that accompany the yes vote and how the investors lose out as a result of those changes.

The biggest problem that the NO side has in this situation, is the wording that they use. The word LIQUIDATION should be avoided at all costs. There is so much fear and innuendo that comes from the word.

I dont believe the PIF, in this matter has to be liquidated according to the normal course of a liquidation. Normally liquidation is basically selling off everything as fast as possible and paying out what is left.

If you put the redemptions that have been delayed to one side. The fund should be able to continue to trade with no problems. So therefore it does not have to be a liquidation in the ordinary sense. As projects are completed, assets are disposed of etc funds can be returned to investors. This could even happen immediately.


I believe the reason the yes vote will get up is because of marketing (Crap idea but a few enticing bells and whistles (buy back - although rather useless when look at facts, distribution coming up - should be able to be done regardless etc.)

As opposed to the no vote which is the better alternative for many reasons. But they have allowed it to be labelled as a vote for liquidation. And have allowed WC/yes sayers to go about saying that you need another re ready to step into their shoes straight away. Also they have not come up with another possible constitutional change (it would have been very easy to formulate a plan and distribute it). And the NO vote has waited for the last week to get the media on board (after many have voted).
Click to expand...

Hi Newwwtrader,
I completely agree with your opinion that the No vote is the better alternative.
GO THE NO !!!!
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Buffy99 said:
Please all note that Lonsec has yesterday released a Research Report that recommends that Unit Holders vote in favour of the 3 resolutions.

This is from an independant research house.
Regards,
Buffy99
Click to expand...

The following {quoted in Part} appeared in an article on the Crikey website.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080401-Avenues-connection-to-troubled-MFS-.html 13/07/2008

QTE - Further, a report prepared by investment firm Lonsec noted that investors should expect to recover 95 cents in the dollar. However, that's assuming MFS stands by a $50 million support facility. Given MFS’s current situation, PIF unitholders won’t be holding their collective breath.
Auditor PwC was even less optimistic about PIF’s prospects, noting that there was uncertainty as to whether PIF will be able to continue operating as a going concern.
As with everything MFS, there seem to be double doses of clumsiness and conflict permeating the MFS Premium Income
debacle.UNQTE
Presumably Lonsec based report on MFS-PIF trading their way out of trouble. I wonder what Lonsec's recovery expectations now are, given recent and not so recent developments in the PIF scene. Babihutan
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The information in this post refers to Resolution 3 only.
The explanatory memorandum says page 16 that resolution 3 will be an ordinary resolution (50% of those that vote) but the Corporations Act requires a change of RE to be an extraordinary resolution (50% of all unit holders).
Will be interesting to see the actual votes received for this resolution and even more interesting if the ‘For’ votes meet the requirements of an ordinary resolution but not an extraordinary resolution.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi all. I started looking at this thread quite sometime ago and quit responding and looking after 2 days due to the content. Bit of a pity it didn't get closed down then to sort things out rather than a week or so before the vote. I also e-mailed my name/address to the AG and got no response.

I sent my vote in the other day however I'm regretting one thing now. I'm all for WC to try and resurrect this fund and start paying some sort of a return with the hope that in 3-5 years they can restore a unit value to a dollar. It's my feeling that going down the long term road is better than a wind up that will get eaten away in fees and time etc.

My regret though is the NSX thing. I see the point of providing a marketplace for short term invsetors to get out if they want, but it should be exactly that - a short term period or an added option. If the value of the fund increases as per WC plans than the fund should be able to redempt once it's liquid. This should/could be reviewed based on finacial statements etc every 6 months or so.

Can anyone add more insight to this. Is there a way to make sure that the NSX is not the only way to redempt?? Especially for long term investors.

If you respond please do so only on what I've asked as I've already read the negative/positive stuff.

regards
 

Similar threads

System
MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
446
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
966
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Garpal Gumnut
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Sean K
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
qldfrog
qldfrog
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
Top