Yes its great stuff!
Does anyone know if ASIC were present to see our very own EGM "auditions" last Thursday?
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
Yes its great stuff!
Does anyone know if ASIC were present to see our very own EGM "auditions" last Thursday?
- Joined
- 6 December 2009
- Posts
- 64
- Reactions
- 0
Now look here Jenny. You've been a very very naughty girl losing 600 million dollars off these poor people's fund. Now don't do it again.
Greg
Now there's a thought.............. maybe the ATO might find an examination interesting!!
Do are submitted votes sent for the 'meeting that didn't happen' count at the next one?
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Well, ALFie may huff and puff but his registration with Takeovers Panel will stay like a branding rod across his forehead.
Zixo, that coffee assignment is still on, O'K.
Be well,
''....The judgment should also give ASIC the courage to go in hard after auditors and lawyers who sign off on books and give companies and boards advice.....''
''...It seems that ASIC under the former chairman Tony D'Aloisio preferred to go down the enforceable undertakings and settlements route. This outcome is cheaper, but it doesn't don't deal with the problem and doesn't act as a big enough disincentive for bad behaviour. At best, such approaches are a cop-out for the regulator, which doesn't have to mount a case, and the true criminality of the accused is never tested.
More importantly, it cheats the law of precedents, creates a lack of transparency (because settlements and enforceable undertakings are created behind closed doors), and it makes it hard for companies to get a consistent line.
Let's hope the Centro win gives Medcraft and ASIC the courage to keep testing the courts.
aferguson@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...ss-medcraft-20110627-1gmop.html#ixzz1QSzyT1jw
We have been HOPING and HOPING...
for YEARS...
''...It seems that ASIC under the former chairman Tony D'Aloisio preferred to go down the enforceable undertakings and settlements route. This outcome is cheaper, but it doesn't don't deal with the problem and doesn't act as a big enough disincentive for bad behaviour. At best, such approaches are a cop-out for the regulator, which doesn't have to mount a case, and the true criminality of the accused is never tested.
More importantly, it cheats the law of precedents, creates a lack of transparency (because settlements and enforceable undertakings are created behind closed doors), and it makes it hard for companies to get a consistent line.
Let's hope the Centro win gives Medcraft and ASIC the courage to keep testing the courts.
aferguson@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...ss-medcraft-20110627-1gmop.html#ixzz1QSzyT1jw
We have been HOPING and HOPING...
for YEARS...
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/mystery-rebel-group-joins-tug-of-war/story-fn6ck2gb-1226082293753
Mystery rebel group joins tug of war
Who distributed the crudely drafted notices recently to some of the nearly 11,000 investors in the struggling Premium Income Fund remains a mystery.
The authors only identify themselves as the PIF Reaction Group, with no names or addresses, but it's clear they support the current fund manager, Brisbane merchant bank Wellington Capital, which is now fighting an increasingly complex and protracted takeover bid engineered by disgruntled investors under the banner of the PIF Action Group.
These rebel unit holders allege that Wellington has made a hash of overseeing the $264 million fund, which has continued to haemorrhage value and post huge losses over the past three years.
They want Sydney-based Castlereagh Capital to step in as responsible entity and have launched a well-financed campaign to tip out Wellington.
Matters came to a head last week with two court battles and a controversially aborted meeting but irate investors vow to regroup on July 14 to finish the job. There were allegations that Wellington stacked that meeting and more legal skirmishes now appear inevitable.
Like a political campaign, both sides have tried to woo investors by lauding their own record and rubbishing their opponent. Wellington CEO Jenny Hutson has distanced herself from the PIF Reaction Group, insisting she had nothing to do with their mailouts......"
"both sides have tried to woo investors by lauding their own record and rubbishing their opponent."
That paints PIFAG in a similar bad light to its opponents. How does Mr Anthony Marx propose PIFAG DOES arrange for unit holders rights to be exercised without drawing such, less than favourable, words from the likes of him.
Mystery rebel group joins tug of war
- Anthony Marx
- From: The Courier-Mail
- June 27, 2011 12:00AM
Who distributed the crudely drafted notices recently to some of the nearly 11,000 investors in the struggling Premium Income Fund remains a mystery.
The authors only identify themselves as the PIF Reaction Group, with no names or addresses, but it's clear they support the current fund manager, Brisbane merchant bank Wellington Capital, which is now fighting an increasingly complex and protracted takeover bid engineered by disgruntled investors under the banner of the PIF Action Group.
These rebel unit holders allege that Wellington has made a hash of overseeing the $264 million fund, which has continued to haemorrhage value and post huge losses over the past three years.
They want Sydney-based Castlereagh Capital to step in as responsible entity and have launched a well-financed campaign to tip out Wellington.
Matters came to a head last week with two court battles and a controversially aborted meeting but irate investors vow to regroup on July 14 to finish the job. There were allegations that Wellington stacked that meeting and more legal skirmishes now appear inevitable.
Like a political campaign, both sides have tried to woo investors by lauding their own record and rubbishing their opponent. Wellington CEO Jenny Hutson has distanced herself from the PIF Reaction Group, insisting she had nothing to do with their mailouts......"
"both sides have tried to woo investors by lauding their own record and rubbishing their opponent."
That paints PIFAG in a similar bad light to its opponents. How does Mr Anthony Marx propose PIFAG DOES arrange for unit holders rights to be exercised without drawing such, less than favourable, words from the likes of him.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp
Litigation update – Federal Court Proceedings
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has filed an
Amended Application, Statement of Claim and affidavits in support in the Federal Court in Brisbane.
The application is made under section 1324 of the Corporations Act for orders concerning the validity of the
Notice of Meeting sent by the Premium Income Fund Action Group Incorporated, Peter Grenadier and
Charles Hodges dated 16 May 2011.
The orders being sought are as follows:
a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011
issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid.
a declaration that the defendants contravened s 252G of the Corporations Act;
a declaration that the second and third defendants contravened s 671B of the Corporations Act;
a declaration that the meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June
2011 was:
inquorate;
dissolved pursuant to clause 10.6 of the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund;
a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium
Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the
meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid;
an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from
proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of
meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011
The matter will be heard before Justice Dowsett in the Federal Court in Brisbane on 6 July 2011
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.
Litigation update – Federal Court Proceedings
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has filed an
Amended Application, Statement of Claim and affidavits in support in the Federal Court in Brisbane.
The application is made under section 1324 of the Corporations Act for orders concerning the validity of the
Notice of Meeting sent by the Premium Income Fund Action Group Incorporated, Peter Grenadier and
Charles Hodges dated 16 May 2011.
The orders being sought are as follows:
a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011
issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid.
a declaration that the defendants contravened s 252G of the Corporations Act;
a declaration that the second and third defendants contravened s 671B of the Corporations Act;
a declaration that the meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June
2011 was:
inquorate;
dissolved pursuant to clause 10.6 of the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund;
a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium
Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the
meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid;
an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from
proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of
meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011
The matter will be heard before Justice Dowsett in the Federal Court in Brisbane on 6 July 2011
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
A simlpe question in court on 6 July should sort this out. Who did WC give access to the mailing list. The flyers are critical of Castlereagh and ALF so you can rule these parties out. Who has access to the list in the WC office? Best guess is it is another David Burke spectacular - this way JH can say " Wellington CEO Jenny Hutson has distanced herself from the PIF Reaction Group, insisting she had nothing to do with their mailouts......"
I want to see her say that on oath in court!
I want to see her say that on oath in court!
I would like all interested unit holders to say focussed and wait until after the 6 July, 2011. Remember there are two sides to every story. It does not mean that the first person to tell a story always has a claim to the alleged right story.
So true Charles - I think in this case the expression "porky" is doubly meaningful!
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Centro class action boosted by court decision: IMF
June 28, 2011 - 10:41AM
A multi-million dollar class action against shopping centre owner Centro will be boosted by a Federal Court decision against the company's directors, the claimants say.
Publicly listed litigation funder IMF and law firm Maurice Blackburn are leading the action on behalf of hundreds of investors seeking an estimated $200 million in damages due to alleged deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure obligations.
The allegations are levelled against Centro Properties Group, Centro Retail Group, and their auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and relate to conduct from August 2007 to February 2008.
Advertisement: Story continues below
On Monday, the Federal Court found eight Centro directors breached the Corporations Act by failing to properly disclose the terms of billions of dollars worth of short-term debt in 2006/07 annual reports.
That decision provides further support for those involved in the class action against Centro Properties, Centro Retail and PricewaterhouseCoopers, IMF said on Tuesday.
Maurice Blackburn also welcomed the Federal Court ruling.
"The Federal Court decision reinforces the class action case," senior associate Martin Hyde said.
Hearings in the class action are due to begin in the Federal Court in Melbourne in March next year.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cent...ecision-imf-20110628-1go8b.html#ixzz1QX1TzZMQ
June 28, 2011 - 10:41AM
A multi-million dollar class action against shopping centre owner Centro will be boosted by a Federal Court decision against the company's directors, the claimants say.
Publicly listed litigation funder IMF and law firm Maurice Blackburn are leading the action on behalf of hundreds of investors seeking an estimated $200 million in damages due to alleged deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure obligations.
The allegations are levelled against Centro Properties Group, Centro Retail Group, and their auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and relate to conduct from August 2007 to February 2008.
Advertisement: Story continues below
On Monday, the Federal Court found eight Centro directors breached the Corporations Act by failing to properly disclose the terms of billions of dollars worth of short-term debt in 2006/07 annual reports.
That decision provides further support for those involved in the class action against Centro Properties, Centro Retail and PricewaterhouseCoopers, IMF said on Tuesday.
Maurice Blackburn also welcomed the Federal Court ruling.
"The Federal Court decision reinforces the class action case," senior associate Martin Hyde said.
Hearings in the class action are due to begin in the Federal Court in Melbourne in March next year.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cent...ecision-imf-20110628-1go8b.html#ixzz1QX1TzZMQ
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
And a short piece on the high flying NSX borse:
PLEASE EXPLAIN
It does not take much of a trade to get a price query from the Newcastle Stock Exchange. The bourse pounced on the Newcastle-based Illuminator Investment Company on Friday, seeking an explanation over the trade of $400.05 worth of shares.
The trade, at 15 ¢ a share, was well down on the previous trade at 35 ¢ a share. ''Is the company aware of any price information concerning it that has not been announced, which, if known, could be an explanation for recent trading in the securities of the Company?'' thundered the NSX in its three-page query to Illuminator's chairman, Steven Pritchard.
Pritchard, who happens to be a former NSX chairman and also heads the Newcastle office of the broker who conducted the trade, appeared puzzled in his response yesterday, pointing to the company's net asset backing of 37.9 ¢ a share.
''We know of no reason why the shares would trade at less than half this price,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/ohalloran-dines-out-on-a-century-20110627-1gnfk.html#ixzz1QX2Rq2xD
PLEASE EXPLAIN
It does not take much of a trade to get a price query from the Newcastle Stock Exchange. The bourse pounced on the Newcastle-based Illuminator Investment Company on Friday, seeking an explanation over the trade of $400.05 worth of shares.
The trade, at 15 ¢ a share, was well down on the previous trade at 35 ¢ a share. ''Is the company aware of any price information concerning it that has not been announced, which, if known, could be an explanation for recent trading in the securities of the Company?'' thundered the NSX in its three-page query to Illuminator's chairman, Steven Pritchard.
Pritchard, who happens to be a former NSX chairman and also heads the Newcastle office of the broker who conducted the trade, appeared puzzled in his response yesterday, pointing to the company's net asset backing of 37.9 ¢ a share.
''We know of no reason why the shares would trade at less than half this price,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/ohalloran-dines-out-on-a-century-20110627-1gnfk.html#ixzz1QX2Rq2xD
Attached is an article from the Australian Financial Review Friday 24 June 2011 entitled "Investors Miffed after PIF farce". Click on the attachment below for the full article.
It was great to meet some of my fellow investors at the meeting in Sydney on Thursday and nice to put faces to names. Be sure to turn out again on July 14th! I'll be there God willing.
Cookie1
It was great to meet some of my fellow investors at the meeting in Sydney on Thursday and nice to put faces to names. Be sure to turn out again on July 14th! I'll be there God willing.
Cookie1
Regarding the next meeting for the election of a chairman, I believe you need a minimum number of investors representing a certain number of units in the fund for the meeting to proceed.
Question - If I was to turn up at the meeting is it possible somehow that I can represent my own units as well as a representative of the units held by my mother who cannot be present.
We have both voted in favour of Castlereagh, and given the actions of Wellington I am now determined to take a more proactive role in helping defeat them.
Question - If I was to turn up at the meeting is it possible somehow that I can represent my own units as well as a representative of the units held by my mother who cannot be present.
We have both voted in favour of Castlereagh, and given the actions of Wellington I am now determined to take a more proactive role in helping defeat them.
They are until there is another submission to a court having all proxies declared null and void and for the process to start again I suspect. I think it is very important to keep reviewing this forum as well as Castlereagh's web site for any early indictaions to make sure
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Thanks Cookie1.
Hutson is quoted as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded as it should have, there would have been a quorum and final resolution" and "It is extremely disappointing that unit holders who have chosen to participate do not have a final outcome today". Really, Jenny? "Extremely disappointing"?
Then why the application to the Federal Court on 21 June and amended application today for:
"a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011 issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid." [emphasis added]
Why, if Hutson really does care about unit holders getting an outcome, is the Hutson lead WC seeking (in those same proceedings) to prevent the meeting proceeding in July by applying to the Federal Court for:
"a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid;" [emphasis added]
"an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011" [emphasis added]
I just can't seem to find the consistency between what the AFR heard from Hutson after the meeting and her WC's actions just a few days before AND after talking to the AFR. Anyone? Perhaps the learned Journalists at the AFR can explain?
AFR quotes Hutson as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded as it should have" [emphasis added]. This of course, IMLO, is Hutson's opinion. This is the same person that lead WC to spend PIF money on a fruitless challenge against Pearl's acquisition of the Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage. And the same person who according to the Courier Mail on June 21 "disagreed with the court's interpretation". Then of course are all the deliverables she offered at the roadshows in 2008.
All these opinons are all wonderful and great for e.g. making WC supporters feel better about WC's performance, but do they contribute anything at all to returning capital to the PIF unit holders? Perhaps any WC supporters here can enlighten me?
Umm, errr, could it be that all these opinions are simply: wrong? Hmmm perhaps Packer's boys from Arctic capital weren't really such tough negotiators after all? They just weren't so easily lead? I wonder what Enneagram personality type the AFR is? The same as the remaining WC supporters?
Hutson is quoted as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded as it should have, there would have been a quorum and final resolution" and "It is extremely disappointing that unit holders who have chosen to participate do not have a final outcome today". Really, Jenny? "Extremely disappointing"?
Then why the application to the Federal Court on 21 June and amended application today for:
"a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011 issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid." [emphasis added]
Why, if Hutson really does care about unit holders getting an outcome, is the Hutson lead WC seeking (in those same proceedings) to prevent the meeting proceeding in July by applying to the Federal Court for:
"a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid;" [emphasis added]
"an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011" [emphasis added]
I just can't seem to find the consistency between what the AFR heard from Hutson after the meeting and her WC's actions just a few days before AND after talking to the AFR. Anyone? Perhaps the learned Journalists at the AFR can explain?
AFR quotes Hutson as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded as it should have" [emphasis added]. This of course, IMLO, is Hutson's opinion. This is the same person that lead WC to spend PIF money on a fruitless challenge against Pearl's acquisition of the Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage. And the same person who according to the Courier Mail on June 21 "disagreed with the court's interpretation". Then of course are all the deliverables she offered at the roadshows in 2008.
All these opinons are all wonderful and great for e.g. making WC supporters feel better about WC's performance, but do they contribute anything at all to returning capital to the PIF unit holders? Perhaps any WC supporters here can enlighten me?
Umm, errr, could it be that all these opinions are simply: wrong? Hmmm perhaps Packer's boys from Arctic capital weren't really such tough negotiators after all? They just weren't so easily lead? I wonder what Enneagram personality type the AFR is? The same as the remaining WC supporters?
Check with Castlereagh to be sure but I would think your units are fine however your mother would have to sign her proxy vote over to you unless you have both already signed them over to WC or PIF AG. ( the pink or yellow forms ) At which point you would have download the proxy forms from Castlereagh and go through the correct proceedure. I believe someone on this forum mentioned that the most recent dated form will preceed the original one. I'm still not sure how or who is keeping track of all these changes between computershare and Armstrong but fingers crossed a third party is bought in to audit all and crossed referenced with the investor list or it's done in court.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 41
- Reactions
- 0
WC could well be funding their gutter tactics from the interest earned on cash put up by subscribers to the rights issue.
They banked the cash and haven’t yet returned it!
They banked the cash and haven’t yet returned it!
