Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[DepressedDad]

Eek. Seamisty, please don't ever go away! We just don't join in the discussion because we are lowly plebs with nothing to offer compared to your (and the others) brilliance. I have nothing to report but please don't confuse my silence with disinterest. I think you & the other contributors are just amazing and are very grateful. I look every day for new posts and report back to my Dad who doesn't have the internet and just loves that so much is being done to flush out the baddies! Please please post every snippet & opinion you think of.

 

[NOR]

SEAMISTY I....WE NOT ONLY LOOK UP YOUR THREAD Ist WITH GREAT INTEREST EACH DAY .ILOOK UP TO YOU..... WE ..PIF..NEED U DONT THINK OF GOING AWAY

 

[simgrund]

Eek. Seamisty, please don't ever go away! We just don't join in the discussion because we are lowly plebs with nothing to offer compared to your (and the others) brilliance. I have nothing to report but please don't confuse my silence with disinterest. I think you & the other contributors are just amazing and are very grateful. I look every day for new posts and report back to my Dad who doesn't have the internet and just loves that so much is being done to flush out the baddies! Please please post every snippet & opinion you think of.

Good Day DD,
Myself and many will enjoin in a chorus of energetic appreciation for the input by seamisty and many others into this thread over this long waiting period.
May I propose a monthly roll call by the "silent ones" to show our alertness to these inputs.
Just a "hello, I am not dozing now" will do. Or a facsimile reflecting your personal sense of participation.

April 11 may provide the jolt with the second cent finding its way back to Daddy and Mummy.

Regards,

 

[seamisty]

SEAMISTY I....WE NOT ONLY LOOK UP YOUR THREAD Ist WITH GREAT INTEREST EACH DAY .ILOOK UP TO YOU..... WE ..PIF..NEED U DONT THINK OF GOING AWAY

Thanks DD and NOR, I'm not going anywhere soon, still much work to be done!! This cesspit is deeper than I ever imagined possible. Seamisty

 

[DepressedDad]

Good Day DD,
Myself and many will enjoin in a chorus of energetic appreciation for the input by seamisty and many others into this thread over this long waiting period.
May I propose a monthly roll call by the "silent ones" to show our alertness to these inputs.
Just a "hello, I am not dozing now" will do. Or a facsimile reflecting your personal sense of participation.

April 11 may provide the jolt with the second cent finding its way back to Daddy and Mummy.

Regards,

OK. Good idea. Once a month I'll pop my bob's worth in & I'm sure I'll represent many many others reading with great interest and hoping our tireless workers won't burn out before justice is done. Yes, it has been a long road but I've always felt informed about every little thing that happens just because of this forum. (I know nothing significant will happen now without me knowing.)

Without it we would have been discarded like dirty dishcloths as was intended. My Mum has died but my Dad (86) will be very buoyed by the next miserly return of HIS money. He sold a nice comfortable house for $400,000 (his hard life's worth) back a few years ago and bought a relocatable in a basic village for $300,000 just to free up $100,000 to invest, as he was impossible to feed himself and live on the pension. Yep, you guessed it. Jenny had other ideas for his entire life savings. Ideas that revolved around her & her friends getting rich with no regard or conscience for quality of life for the pensioners they targeted. But they (b)lunderestimated our sharp seamisty & co. and I'm counting on that being their downfall.

Also, to note, is that my Dad has cronies who also invested in this fund, so information I send along the village drums ripples out to many far & wide, and they have friends too. So PLEASE feel the love Seamisty and team. Not a day passes without these posts brightening many people's lives.

 

[seamisty]

I am just trying to get my head around what official role David Burke has in the grand scheme of day to day operational activities related to our Fund.
8 May 2008
'Following this restructure of the Board, Craig Chapman has resigned as an executive director andbeen appointed the Company’s CEO. Chris Scott remains an executive director with David Burke and Barry Cronin remaining as non executive directors.'

From this previous media article::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-adviser-had-benefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html
But in May the following year the rejuvenated MFS board was discussing a new PIF-related conflict of interest. It was with none other than the fund's current responsible entity - Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital.

The public examination into the collapse of MFS heard yesterday how concerns over Ms Hutson's various MFS-related roles came to a head when she was handed control of the depleted fund.

Advertisement: Story continues below Gavin Thompson, SC, acting on behalf of the liquidators of Octaviar Investment Noteholders and Octaviar Investment Bondholders, revealed that Ms Hutson had been formally appointed as an adviser to the MFS board soon after she had successfully lobbied for Chris Scott and his associates to become directors of the company. In this role she attended board meetings in April.

The former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson was asked if the board had been concerned about potential conflicts of interest over the fact that Ms Hutson, as an adviser to MFS, had been privy to information about the internal audit investigation of the company.

''I'm not sure that was the source of the conflict,'' Mr Anderson said.

He said he imagined the issue of conflict arose over the fact that she had lobbied on behalf of Mr Scott - who she had been involved with at travel firm S8 before it was acquired by MFS - and his associates. Then, after the three had been appointed as directors, the board was selling an asset of MFS to her ''when she had been an adviser to MFS''.

Mr Thompson said Ms Hutson also knew that Mallesons were insisting upon a change of responsible entity of PIF and were threatening to appoint a receiver if that did not occur. He asked Mr Anderson if Wellington Capital's move would have been informed by that.

''Yes, I'm sure she had the benefit of that knowledge,'' Mr Anderson said.

Ms Hutson's relationship with MFS turned around very quickly from a prickly start. In late February 2008 she launched a savage attack on the MFS chairman Andrew Peacock, saying he had failed in his duties in allowing a fire sale of company assets like Stella.

At the time she was acting as an adviser to Mr Scott, who became a significant shareholder in MFS after selling S8 to the company in 2006. Ms Hutson had been chairman of S8.

On March 18 Mr Scott joined the MFS board along with David Burke and Craig Chapman. Within two weeks Wellington Capital was signed on as an adviser to the board alongside the law firm Freehills and Korda Mentha's 333 Capital.

On May 2 Mr Scott and Mr Chapman were appointed executive directors of MFS after the resignation of chief executive Craig White.

A week later MFS, now known as Octaviar, granted Wellington Capital an option to buy Octaviar Investment Management - the responsible entity for PIF. This option was exercised the following month.::


Does anyone know exactly if David Burke is on the PIF payroll? No mention of him in the EM as being on the team? Probably my next question to Wellington Capital as I have failed to find any reason as to why David Burke continues to lurk around PIF owned assets on a regular basis at our expense while he is supposedly engaged with his not for profit enemagram activities. That relocated church at 'Andelaine' sure looks a picture!! Well worth the drive! Any PIF investors in the area should pop in and have a look 3233 NERANG-MURWILLUMBAH ROAD NATURAL BRIDGE QLD 4211.


Absolutely stunning location. Some nice upkeep equipment there also.

Stay tuned, Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Thanks DD, sadly there are just too many in the same situation of having to compromise their lifestyles, myself included, as a result of past and present management of our Fund. And unfortunately that compromise extends outside of the peramiters of PIF investors, the flow on effect continues to garner contempt by ALL affected for those responsible for their current predicament. Seamisty

 

[ACB]

Class action and ALF

I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.

 

[flatback]

NOR thank you for making the effort to post on this thread. I was asked earlier today by another active fellow PIF investor to post some PIF info and I said NO because I felt I had bored/compromised and worn out other PIF investors etc. Just for the PIF record, of which I take extremely serious about for keeping future reference, I was contacted by WC today regarding some of my previous enquiries/concerns on behalf of PIF investors in relation to the on going litigation between Forest Resort developers and the former RE of our Fund (which I understand are also the same directors as our current RE). While our current RE assures me that we do not have anything to worry about re this litigation as it is 'unsubstantive' I remain extremely concerned, because I understand that the RE is indemnified, former or current, from any legal claims against our Fund. Any successfull litigation/compensation ruled against the PIF IS PAID from our assets!!!

Sorry if I continue to be a nuisance but I probablly will not go away!! Seamisty

Hi Seamisty i'm not contributing i know, though i am watching whats going on, and you and duped are keeping us well informed keep up the good work the pair of you.flatback

 

[simgrund]

Re: Class action and ALF

I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.

Yes, yes ACB. Well done! There is a definite turnarout in WellC's support for CA and the document whitewash. Let's welcome these positive zigzags and extend our Facebook invitations to WC team.
But ALF??? How can you waver so far off course, ACB? Even with possibility of liquidation, PIF is well ahead of the grim fate with ALF once we are in their intractable, inflexible and irreversible grip. Less than 0.03 % of holding and salivating at 33% recovery fee from yet to be initiated actions? Will they be third, after ASIC and WC, to file claim for $147.5?
I am signing up on REJECT, REJECT, REJECT billboard.

Cheers

 

[seamisty]

Re: Class action and ALF

I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.

It is my understanding that 'on June 24th 2009 WC agreed with the applicants to permit, facilitate and co-operate in good faith to make available for examination by nominated representatives of the applicants during normal business hours the books and the records of the Fund in the custody, possesion or control of Wellington evidencing or recording the related party transactions entered into by or on behalf of the Fund'

I understand that in exchange for the full co-operation by WC as current RE of the PIF, WIM as previous RE of the PIF (later changed to MIL) would be dropped as a named respondant in the Class Action. As you can see below that there must have been a breakdown in that agreement between WC and the CA lawyers as Managed Investments Limited still remains a respondant.



18 Feb 2010 - Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors - Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009 ('Class Action'). WC and WIM filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have the former RE (WIM) discontinued as a respondent of the Class Action pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Ltd and the Applicants of the class action. WC state in an NSX announcement released 22 Feb 2010 “Justice Perram declined the discontinuance and the former RE (WIM) remains a Respondent in the class action and the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applications of the class action is at an end.” WC are saying that because WIM is a respondent in the Class action WC as RE of the PIF will not assist the class action even though WC deny there is any conflict of interest “The notice of motion filed by WC should be dismissed with costs.”

WC as RE of the PIF further stated in correspondence to a unitholder dated 4 March 2010 they are not going to cooperate with the class action due to a dispute between the former RE (MIL) and the applicants’ legal team. Extract from the letter: "there was clearly a dispute between the former responsible entity and the legal representatives for the applications in the class action....The agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants' legal representatives is at an end as a result of the dispute.”


ACB, even if WC did not have the documents in their possesion as RE of the PIF one would assume that WC would have access to all PIF related documentation? In the latest PIF investor update WC state 'Wellington Capital Limited, as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, does not have and has neverhad documents in its possession that are necessary for the lawyers to argue the case other than the five volumes of material provided in July 2009.
Documents that may be relevant are held by Bentleys Corporate Recovery, liquidators of the former MFS companies'

Well I find it a bit confusing. How can WC assist the lawyers now when WC maintains it couldn't previously


I personally do not regard the ALF PIF offer as even remotely tempting but perhaps WC realises that PIF investors are becoming even more disenchanted with their performance and that is why we received an investor update before it was due, another 1 cent of our capital returned, an approach to the lawyers offering assistance re the CA, a strategy, a total of two years of management fees (which indicates to me that the Fund may be all over by then???) Or has WC managed nicely enough with operating expenses and registry service fees?

Anyway, hope this helps and remember it is my interpretation which does not mean I am 100% correct. Seamisty

 

[Towbar]

Sincerely many thanks to you Seamisty,& the many other communicators on this thread,without you we would be completely in the dark. I log on to this website daily,& look forward to all your comments.

 

[selciper]

ACE - Our situation is complicated enough without adding an extra layer of complexity by voting for ALF. Better to stay where we are and keep our eyes open. However, Wellington would be deluding themselves if they considered a rejection of ALF as being a vote of confidence in their performance..

 

[seamisty]

Sincerely many thanks to you Seamisty,& the many other communicators on this thread,without you we would be completely in the dark. I log on to this website daily,& look forward to all your comments.

Thanks Towbar, Flatback and others. I sincerely was not looking for brownie points but am heartened to know there is appreciation out there, I know how time consuming it can be to research and post and appreciate efforts from Duped, Marcom and everyone else also. It is really important to keep this thread alive and I look forward to the possibility that one day we will get the opportunity to put faces to names in the event that we have something positive to celebrate. We sure deserve some good news and at the very least, future investors who do their research will be well informed of those responsible for our current situation. I do know from personal contact that it is not just PIF investors that follow this thread, but many others who have been affected in some way by past/present experiences with Wellington Capital and other related business associates. Quite mind boggling actually and would make a GREAT movie. I have also determined from all of this that being a lawyer does not mean that one is in any way held in higher regard or esteem and no matter how many letters of the alphabet can be acredited to ones name does not mean that they possess a superior intellect. No offense to other lawyers who are actually honest and I know you are out there, hey I even work with some!! Well, b dust aside, I feel PIF investors will eventually witness some form of justice as the crooks are on notice as far as I am concerned. Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

ACE - Our situation is complicated enough without adding an extra layer of complexity by voting for ALF. Better to stay where we are and keep our eyes open. However, Wellington would be deluding themselves if they considered a rejection of ALF as being a vote of confidence in their performance..

Could not have said it better selciper and I strongly suspect WC sense they are not the prefered flavour, hence the flurry of NSX announcements. Unfortunately, general concensus of opinion is suspicion rather than gratitude. Everyone who has contacted me has basically said, "Does WC think we are stupid"? Having been ripped off by MFS/OCV and the majority now acknowledging they were conned by WC, PIF investors are extremely wary. Thats why WC religiously monitor this thread, despite what they would have PIF investors believe!! Another saying that has just been invented 'Knowledge is a very important tool, and can be used to the advantage of those who possess it, not to those who think they can opress it' !!!

Seamisty

 

[selciper]

Interesting to read that this criminal matter in the UK is being handled by the London Serious Fraud Office. Is ASIC our equivalent?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/exsydney-man-in-london-court-on--86m--fraud-charge-20110410-1d8vv.html

 

[selciper]

The UK"s Serious Fraud Squad has a website.

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/victims/indiv...-fraud-or-corruption-directly-to-the-sfo.aspx

 

[zixo]

I'm curious to know if there is anyone who reads this thread, given all the mounting facts and information which has been withheld through WC, which have a legal obligation to disclose information. Does anyone still think J.H and Wellington Capital have ever been working in the best interests of the unit holders?

Perhaps our WC endorsed "elected" representatives would like to comment?

 

[seamisty]

07.04.2011
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_12104.html
ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG: Investor meetings closed

Zurich, April 7, 2011: The Management of the ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) recently finished their public and private investor meetings in Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin and Zurich (Switzerland). CEO James Byrnes and Director Michael Pakula talked about the ALF the ALF business model, the planned investments and answered any questions related to ALF. One of the discussed topics was the recent share price reduction. CEO James Byrnes: “Like almost every shareholder I am extremely disappointed with the company’s share performance. As my family, via Kingsley Finance Co Limited, are the largest shareholder I know only too well the level of discomfort shareholders are experiencing with the current share price.” Byrnes said that he believes as ALF settles the acquisitions they are currently planning, investor confidence will return and new buying will also help to return the share price to fair market values to the profit of all shareholders.

The management was impressed by the reasonable amount of constructive criticism and suggestions of the audience, which the management will adopt. “We establish new processes and ensure measures so that we don’t make the same mistakes twice”, Byrnes promised.

Self critical he commented on the communication and the slow process related to the bonus shares. Therefore a clarifying press release will follow soon.

8.04.2011

ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG: Information on the Release of Bonus Shares to Shareholders
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_12112.html

 

[marcom]

For those who also invested in the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund, now with Balmain Trilogy, some information about a rival suitor and the major investor:

Battle over First Mortgage Fund
Scott Rochfort
April 11, 2011

A fresh squabble has erupted over the carcass of the City Pacific-founded (and still frozen) First Mortgage Fund, with a rival fund management group beginning its offensive to dump Balmain Trilogy as the responsible entity of the stricken mortgage fund.

Sydney's One Investment Group, which has already picked up the management rights over several former Allco and Everest Babcock & Brown funds, was locked in an arm wrestle last week with Balmain Trilogy after it ordered the register of the unit holders in the fund.

After already talking to some disgruntled FMF unit holders for months, One Investment has said Balmain Trilogy breached Corporations Law by not handing over a ''delimited text file'' of the register that could easily be opened by a spreadsheet program.

The fund manager has said it was handed over an incomplete copy of the register after paying $550 to the responsible entity, Trilogy Funds Management.

The co-founder of One Investment, Frank Teale, said: ''It is my opinion that Trilogy are refusing to comply with the Corporations Act in order to protect their position as responsible entity of the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.''

Teale has also raised concerns that Balmain Trilogy has not been properly operating the register of the fund since winning control of the fund from City Pacific in 2009. ''They actually haven't been maintaining the register,'' he said.

As part of his bid to win over unit holders in the fund, whose value has more than halved to $413 million, One Investment is proposing to cut management fees from 1.5 per cent to 1 per cent of the gross assets of the fund. In an effort to temper unit holder unrest, Balmain Trilogy returned 4 ¢ in the dollar on the units, originally worth $1 each last October. It collected about $8 million in fees in its first year overseeing the FMF.

FORGIVING KIND

At least the investor to have suffered the largest loss from the First Mortgage Fund remains philosophical. The Churches of Christ in Queensland, which has 14 million units in the fund, has kept its cool even though it has lost more than $10 million.

''In common with other financial institutions, our investments have suffered as a result of the global financial crisis, and we need perceptive management to optimise future returns,'' the church group said in its 2010 annual report.

The church's investment fund, the Centenary Development Foundation, was forced to take write-downs on four different investments last year.

The church group said in its annual report: ''Some funds that CDF invested in were related to property development loans and mortgage-backed securities and were adversely affected by the global financial crisis. A small number of these funds have been frozen and have remained illiquid whilst proper assessment of underlying value has been made.''

Despite its ill-fated foray into the fund, the Churches of Christ in Queensland still has a solid balance sheet, with $160 million in net assets at the end of last financial year.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/battle-over-first-mortgage-fund-20110410-1d9g1.html