Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[Duped]

New announcement http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724211.PDF

"Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said
‘To sign a contract to host the Victorian PGA Championship at the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick represents an exciting opportunity to economically benefit both the Fund and residents of the Forest Resort and greater community. It is pleasing that an excellent result for the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick has been achieved with a party who intends to promote the Victorian PGA Championship at a premier regional venue and add value to a great asset.’"

Congratulations to the owner/manager of the resort for this achievement? Hmmmm, I hope no one reading this will give too much credit to WC or indeed PIF for this achievement. Afterall, WC/Hutson is not saying in this announcement that WC of PIF signed the agreement, right? Can anyone find any reference in the announcement to the actual resort owner or manager? I can't. Just the resort, PGA, WC and PIF. Everyone but the resorts actual owners/managers.

The only powers PIF has over this property is the power of sale. Right? So who actually owns and runs it?

 

[BootsnAll]

I believe a decision will be handed down at 2.15p.m. Like everything connected to our fund, NO GUARANTEES the time is correct.

Decision will be handed down when the legal profession decide they have made enough money.

 

[DoraNBoots]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions

13-Jul-2011 14:15 Judgment Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7

 

[Harald]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions

13-Jul-2011 14:15 Judgment Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7

Did the Judge hand down his judgement? The link shows a still open status.

 

[DoraNBoots]

Did the Judge hand down his judgement? The link shows a still open status.

He would be doing it now...

 

[BootsnAll]

Suspense is killing me........:freak3:

 

[JohnH]

Just received email from castlereigh ....... no meeting tomorow

 

[reasonable]

Seems to me that the judge did not hear all the evidence. So just how do we get rid of the crooks running our fund?

 

[JohnH]

well, at least it looks as though the Judge is still talking......... hopefully making other observations and rulings.

 

[DoraNBoots]

... So just how do we get rid of the crooks running our fund?

With another meeting.
It will be interesting to see the judgement. On Monday the judge was discussing the option of him ordering the meeting and in this case he seemed to be leaning towards allowing the already submitted proxies to be carried over. He should also be deciding some of the issues such as if an investor is allowed to chair the meeting or if WC must do it.

 

[Harald]

This shouldn't be the end, it should be just the beginning to get rid off JH.
The sooner, the better. Every day with her brings our diminished fund
further south.

 

[JohnH]

I see that the Court is now "Adjourned - For Hearing"!! Can one of you more knowledgeable people tell the rest of us what this means (and when)?
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724215.PDF
I see that there is a gloat from Wellington

 

[BootsnAll]

Here is the Judge's order:

ORDER​

JUDGE:

Justice Dowsett
DATE OF ORDER:

13 July 2011
WHERE MADE:

Brisbane


THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund first convened on 16 June 2011, adjourned to 23 June 2011 and then to 14 July 2011 was invalidly convened and that such irregularity has caused, or may cause, substantial injustice that cannot be remedied by an order of the court and that the meeting is therefore invalid.

OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
We just can't roll over and submit!

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[JohnH]

Here is the Judge's order:

ORDER​

JUDGE:

Justice Dowsett
DATE OF ORDER:

13 July 2011
WHERE MADE:

Brisbane


THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund first convened on 16 June 2011, adjourned to 23 June 2011 and then to 14 July 2011 was invalidly convened and that such irregularity has caused, or may cause, substantial injustice that cannot be remedied by an order of the court and that the meeting is therefore invalid.

OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
We just can't roll over and submit!

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yes B&A..... but the statement also says that the case is "Adjourned - For Hearing" - presumably this means that it is still ongoing. ........... and yes, of course there is no way we are going to just roll over and submit

 

[reasonable]

Here is the Judge's order:

OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
We just can't roll over and submit!

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

AGREED. But presumably this would have to be done through WC - so they would stitch it up in their favour.

 

[flatback]

Jadel wrote: "Jenny H gave an account, that though implausible , would in fact be very difficult to disprove ."

Playing to our legal system's weaknesses? Which proponents of our common law system (as opposed to Civil Law) say is a good thing. Right? But doesn't that create an extra conductive seat for our Honourable Justices (to which we allocate great power) to sit in. I wonder how Justice Dowsett has been feeling today about being in the hot seat?

This is starting to look as if we cannot call a meeting (Special)without we obtain permission from JH,
and it is pretty obvious that all of you people who voted for her in the first place (accepting all 3) changes to the constitution without considering the consequences, have not stopped bleeting,i dont care if i upset a few people but its got to be said,
in all probability the Judge cant help us because of a point of law, and therein lay the answer its not his job to help us , its his job to apply the law, and you people made it easy for him when you agreed to what JH wanted , i dont think the present people(castlereagh) fighting for us are helping, they must have foreseen this problem of invalid proxies and the issue with people having to travel vast distances to get to these meetings, dont say its all JH fault you have to pre empt these issues, and Castlereagh didnt.
go ahead take my statement apart, for bad grammer/ spelling/and in your mind outlandish statement, if only Great Dame was here, his words would be( i told you so) i can already see who will lead the pack
i rest my case

 

[Sutho81]

Ok meeting is off. So I assume its back to square one to start the process again.

I as a young investor who was saving for my first home was putting $1000 away per month in the PIF savings scheme when MFS had it. I am 30 now and all that money is literally a write off.

After seeing what the PIFAG is capable of and how badly Wellington has behaved, I am determined to do all I can do to help get rid of Wellington and bring some form of hope back into the fund.

 

[ASICK]

AGREED. But presumably this would have to be done through WC - so they would stitch it up in their favour.

I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense. It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway. Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.

In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.

If it is the case that members feel uncomfortable with the fund's registry (even any level of distrust is a sad state of affairs), then the action group could simply ask members to direct their proxy to the fund's registry and cc to Castlereagh Capital?

From an outsider's perspective, I think there's been too much effort on chairing the meeting in circumstances where the meeting itself probably wouldn't have shifted sentiment one iota (IMO).

 

[JohnH]

I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense. It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway. Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.

In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.

If it is the case that members feel uncomfortable with the fund's registry (even any level of distrust is a sad state of affairs), then the action group could simply ask members to direct their proxy to the fund's registry and cc to Castlereagh Capital?

From an outsider's perspective, I think there's been no much effort on chairing the meeting in circumstances where the meeting itself probably wouldn't have shifted sentiment one iota (IMO).

Yes and No ASICK (how I love that NdeP) If (and I mean If) it comes to the worst, I think the cc to Castlereagh is brilliant. Disagree with your feelings about the meeting, as we saw people going in pro Wellington, and coming out pro Castlereagh....... John H

P.S. Would still appreciate someone confirming/dis-confirming that "Adjourned - For Hearing" means that the Learned Judge still has more to say.

 

[Mutchy]

Here is the Judge's order:

ORDER​

JUDGE:

Justice Dowsett
DATE OF ORDER:

13 July 2011
WHERE MADE:

Brisbane


THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund first convened on 16 June 2011, adjourned to 23 June 2011 and then to 14 July 2011 was invalidly convened and that such irregularity has caused, or may cause, substantial injustice that cannot be remedied by an order of the court and that the meeting is therefore invalid.

OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
We just can't roll over and submit!

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

He has ruled that the meeting was invalidly called. There are many possible reasons why he has come to this conclusion. Let's wait until we get the full text of what he has said before making any suggestions or decisions about what to do next.

Also it may be possible to appeal the decision.


Steve