Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[sugar3157]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

ASIC Notice see HERE


AD08-09 Premium income fund

Friday 12 September 2008


ASIC commenced proceedings yesterday in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).

ASIC is seeking an order restraining Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM) as the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with a meeting of unit holders scheduled for 18 September 2008.

ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain WIM’s agreement to adjourn meeting.

ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting.

The proceedings will be heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008.

Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...

 

[PIFholder]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...

I agree Sugar.
Why aren't the headlines ASIC has commenced proceedings against Octaviar? I'd much rather get the $147 million + support $50m back. If ASIC gets an adjournment who pays for the meeting costs - pretty sure you can't get your money back on a meeting that is 24 hours away? Pretty sure that ASIC isn't going to fund a new meeting, so it will end up being fund money - i.e. our money that is spent.
Do we get a payment in October if this meeting adjourns? or does this just drag on until no one can take it any more - no cash payments, no exit mechanisms .... .

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Looks like Kalinda Cobby has got friends in high places in ASIC. Wish she would get them to help in paying us the $197.5m that is owed and stolen from us rather than being a hinderance.

I hope that the judge hearing this on the 17th will dismiss this as nothing more than a feeble attempt by a minority group of investors peddling their own little agenda.

ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions. Who is going to inform us of this information? PIFI, Kalinda, ASIC who?

Have we not been informed enough? Has WC not fielded thousands of calls by unit holders in this campaign? Do those unit holders that have voted for all the 3 resolutions to be passed not posses the sufficient intelligence necessary to absorb and process that information and vote accordingly?

This is a democratic vote, why should 5% of investors overule the wishes of 95% of the unit holders that have voted. Let this process continue and let the majority decide. By the 17th the exact numbers will be presented to the court, I think that will clearly demonstrate that it is not close and unit holders are indeed informed.

I hate what PIFI is doing, they are selfish and only care about themselves and stuff what the majority of us want. Hopefully they will be put in their place very soon, they really are alienating themselves and making the majority very mad.

 

[Rance]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

ASIC Notice see HERE


AD08-09 Premium income fund

Friday 12 September 2008


ASIC commenced proceedings yesterday in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).

ASIC is seeking an order restraining Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM) as the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with a meeting of unit holders scheduled for 18 September 2008.

ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain WIM’s agreement to adjourn meeting.

ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting.

The proceedings will be heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008.

AMAZING! Now I'm convinced the people at ASIC are dumb! What a WOFTAM (Waste of Effing Time and Money)!

What additional info is required "to make informed decisions"? It's all there in black and white. Maybe there are some unit holders who can't read......

Rance

 

[Rance]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maybe there are some unit holders who can't read......

....or comprehend!!

Rance

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

....or comprehend!!

Rance

...or just wreckless and wish to further destabilise the lives of unitholders by their destructive actions! We should sue PIFI for any costs brought to the fund by the adjournment of this meeting, if it turns out that way!! I hope you are all soooooo proud of what you are doing, this will divide majority investors and PIFI forever!!!!!!.

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Certainly not good news, but not all that surprising. On my #2576 11 Sep. I said, "Michael West's SMH article is weeks too late. For months many of us have called for ASIC to check things out. (Is he subtly suggesting that the vote be called off?) etc".

It would seem that Question 3 may be the one troubling ASIC. It's quite likely that PIF investors unfamiliar with this thread might just say Yes to that question without understanding the ramifications. Why ASIC have left their run so late is anybody's guess. WC, with all their legal resources, might have headed off the present Question 3 problem by having being more explicit. We just seem to be shoved back to square one every time there's a chink of light. The media reports of the 17 Sep. proceedings will make for interesting reading. We'll learn what ASIC are really on about. Again, a potential blow to WC public relations.

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maveric 2802 said "This is a democratic vote, why should 5% of investors overule the wishes of 95% of the unit holders that have voted".

The fact is PIFI's 30 members represent 0.003% of unitholders.

This sort of thing is why the previous Government was going to amend the 100 shareholder rule to call a meeting in the Corporations Act - but the election intervened.

Yes, this potentially could lead to a delay of the meeting and potentially a delay in us receiving any "capital" distribution, and cost the fund more. If this happens PIFI might well be exposed to legal action for breach of Privacy laws in relation to their mail out and even litigation with regard to additional costs to the fund. All because of one reason - they are an Incorporated body. And I bet they do not have any insurance and therefore each member is PERSONALLY LIABLE.

This is exactly why the PIF Action Group did not incorporate.

As far as ASIC is concerned, we are all a little guilty because of all the complaints and letters to politicians we sent has put enormous political pressure on ASIC to be seen to be doing something - and their typical response is to weigh in on the least important issue!

Really, ASIC has been handed details of the $147.5 dud loans transaction (its's the basis of the Supreme Court action involving breaches of the Corporations Act, PIF Constitution and Compliance Committee and WC is reqiured by the Act to advise ASIC) and they do NOTHING!

Next time someone spruikes about the effectiveness of corporate regulation in Australia try not to laugh.

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...

She will not walk away, in fact I think this will make her even more determined so that this PIFI never messes with our fund again:nono:

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi GD,
This page with give you the option to lodge a complaint online or download the form and post:
http://fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/How+to+complain+to+ASIC?openDocument

Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:

 

[great dame]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:

WELL SAID ????

 

[JohnH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

WELL SAID ????

Do we hear you correctly GD???

 

[mgr2118]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Following is extract from todays' Courier Mail relating to the embattled RAPTIS GROUP.


"Meanwhile, high-profile Gold Coast finance and tourism group Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, on Monday faces losing an eight-month battle to stay afloat when administrators are expected to be appointed. It owes creditors more than $1 billion.

Administrators could be appointed as early as today.

The Public Trustee of Queensland has sought Brisbane Supreme Court orders since early June for the appointment of a liquidator to Octaviar over $351 million owed to 560 listed note holders.

A majority of big creditors, including Challenger Management Investments, OPI Pacific Finance and Wellington Capital, would instead welcome the appointment of administrators because they believed it would provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets. "


My question is why is WC advocating the appointment of an administrator to "provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets" when it relates to Chris Scott and his fortunes (within Octaviar), but it is inferred (in no uncertain terms) that WC would liquidate (irrespective of the results for the PIF unitholders).

As an observer of all the plots and stories that seem to be circulating at this time, I find this opposite tact both confusing, and somewhat disturbing.

Maybe someone on the forum may be able clear this up?

 

[newwwtrader]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:

I agree ASIC should have done something earlier. But they didnt. You dont like that they didnt act, but now that they are, you dont like that either.

It would simply seem that you are not happy that they are doing something because it does not correspond with what you think is right.

The fact that this may have been instigated by the minority (that we do not know) should not matter. Presumably they are just seeking to make sure that everyone makes an informed decision.

I think most would agree that the information forwarded by WC was not as clear as it could be. This is obvious by the posts here. If ASIC can do something that clears any ambiguity up that must be a good thing.

Also you say that it is unasked by the majority. Well couldnt it just be the culmination of all the complaints and requests for help? Also how would anyone really know what the majority want? Im sure people who voted yes would have called asic in the past.

Also in relation to people acting in their own interests - do you expect them to act in other peoples interests? Of course not. Each person should vote to what they think is best. I someone thinks something is wrong, they have as much right as any other person to do any act to achieve the outcome that they feel is the best. This applies to both sides in this case.

Someone who wants a no vote should do all they can to achieve that result, likewise a yes vote.

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

ASIC acts in matters that don't really concern them, yet is nowhere to be seen with the the big issues that are a lot harder than simply to adjourn a valid unit holder's meeting. WTF????

Besides what is their problem here, I don't understand??? This is a democratic vote that the FOR resolution has to achieve a constitutional requirement of a 75% majority. I mean where is the 'grey' area if WC gets that 75% and then some? AARGHHHHH

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I agree ASIC should have done something earlier. But they didnt. You dont like that they didnt act, but now that they are, you dont like that either.

It would simply seem that you are not happy that they are doing something because it does not correspond with what you think is right.

The fact that this may have been instigated by the minority (that we do not know) should not matter. Presumably they are just seeking to make sure that everyone makes an informed decision.

I think most would agree that the information forwarded by WC was not as clear as it could be. This is obvious by the posts here. If ASIC can do something that clears any ambiguity up that must be a good thing.

Also you say that it is unasked by the majority. Well couldnt it just be the culmination of all the complaints and requests for help? Also how would anyone really know what the majority want? Im sure people who voted yes would have called asic in the past.

Also in relation to people acting in their own interests - do you expect them to act in other peoples interests? Of course not. Each person should vote to what they think is best. I someone thinks something is wrong, they have as much right as any other person to do any act to achieve the outcome that they feel is the best. This applies to both sides in this case.

Someone who wants a no vote should do all they can to achieve that result, likewise a yes vote.

Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::IF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.:::::::One would assume next weeks intervention is a direct result from this or can the 95% of unitholders in favour of WC look forward to more hindering/delaying tactics by others trying to achieve outcomes they think in our best interests? Seamisty

 

[zixo]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

If theres one thing I've learnt in this whole deceptive debacle. It is that I will never invest money with anyone again regardless of how assuring or bulletproof the PDS is.

I'll give that advice to everyone free.
If people stupidly think that asic will represent the small investors. They are dead wrong
In my dealings with ASIC I've learnt they are are total waste of time and space. ASIC are not regulators or watchdogs but only tend to assume the role of undertaker once the companies have gone sour after continual incessant pleading from Investors. They have the power of transparancy and disclosure for investigation and in living history have not once used them.

Octaviar are the criminals and the management past and present continue to walk free

when it comes to ASIC Its a story of too little too late. Oxygen Theives.

 

[PIFholder]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

My question is why is WC advocating the appointment of an administrator to "provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets" when it relates to Chris Scott and his fortunes (within Octaviar), but it is inferred (in no uncertain terms) that WC would liquidate (irrespective of the results for the PIF unitholders).

As an observer of all the plots and stories that seem to be circulating at this time, I find this opposite tact both confusing, and somewhat disturbing.

Maybe someone on the forum may be able clear this up?

My understanding of this from reading the creditor document on the website was that:

liquidation/liquidation of Octaviar meant 11 cents (their calculation) in the dollar and WC would have to prove the $147.5m claim in the courts
not winding up/continuing Octaviar meant that the creditors could try to come to some arrangement which I think was 22.5 cents or a long term position with Octaviar and that that agreement included the $147.5 claim without having to go to court as well as the $50m support facility.

So not winding up Octaviar meant more money for PIF I think - happy to be corrected. Apparently Challenger was opposing the winding up too - they've got $90m in claims too.

Liquidation or administration of Octaviar makes Chris Scott's shares (and all the other shareholders too) look pretty grim and I know that there are a lot of PIF people who have OCV shares too. Pretty sure that you can't relist on the ASX if in admin/liq which means that money will be flushed away:bonk:. Guess we'll know on Monday what happens in court

 

[newwwtrader]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::IF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.:::::::One would assume next weeks intervention is a direct result from this or can the 95% of unitholders in favour of WC look forward to more hindering/delaying tactics by others trying to achieve outcomes they think in our best interests? Seamisty

I take it from this comment and others that in a way many are/were expecting ASIC to ride on in a shiny horse and miraculously make your money reappear. Or failing that at least do something to get back the money from the loan things (around $140+ million).

My answer to people who hope to see that happen is quite simply "you're dreaming". Its not going to happen. Octaviar is broke. There is no money. That money is gone.

One can only assume that the issues are in relation to the vote. To say that they are seeking to undo months of hardwork is a little incorrect. More like a month. It has only been a little over a month since the Explanatory Memorandum was issued.

If they have a problem with certain things in that, you cannot say they have been tardy in acting upon that. It was not like they could have acted on issues which did not exist prior to the release of the document. Further, the various newspaper articles today suggest that there has been discussions between ASIC and WC and they were unable to come to an agreement.

 

[Juan Mortyme]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Re: ASIC ----

One can only assume that the issues are in relation to the vote. To say that they are seeking to undo months of hardwork is a little incorrect. More like a month. It has only been a little over a month since the Explanatory Memorandum was issued.

If they have a problem with certain things in that, you cannot say they have been tardy in acting upon that. It was not like they could have acted on issues which did not exist prior to the release of the document. Further, the various newspaper articles today suggest that there has been discussions between ASIC and WC and they were unable to come to an agreement.

I have been told by WC that they are under constant scrutiny from ASIC. The whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released. Perhaps Michael West should have asked for a comment from ASIC and the majority of investors in the PIF who have chosen to support WC before offering unprofessional financial advise which could result in a far worse financial outcome for unitholders. A very poorly researched article with dodgey content in my opinion. Seamisty

Seamisty, did WC tell you exactly what ASIC were scrutinizing? You say that the "whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released". Did WC tell you whether it was approved? :headshake Judging from ASIC's request from the intervention of the Qld Supreme Court, I assume not.