Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[simgrund]

To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting. Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).

Inane it may be; but can you provide an intelligent answer?
And to previous confront about your associations with WC, PIF Reaction mob???
Still hiding??? You have been warned before that the Outing is near!

In waiting mode,

 

[seamisty]

Court deals blow to plans of Octaviar liquidators
SMH Elisabeth Sexton
July 27, 2011
THE liquidators of Octaviar have experienced a setback in their plans to sue one of the property and tourism financier's creditors, Fortress Credit Corporation.

The full Federal Court has overturned a litigation funding agreement allowing the parent company, Octaviar Ltd, to use money held by a subsidiary which carried out the group's treasury functions, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd.

Fortress was not represented when Justice Margaret Stone approved the funding agreement in February, and on Monday three appeal judges set aside her ruling and sent the matter back for ''further consideration''.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...liquidators-20110726-1hyj2.html#ixzz1TFVU8APA
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...liquidators-20110726-1hyj2.html#ixzz1TFV4piga

 

[ASICK]

Inane it may be; but can you provide an intelligent answer?
And to previous confront about your associations with WC, PIF Reaction mob???
Still hiding??? You have been warned before that the Outing is near!

In waiting mode,

To Simgrund (in waiting mode), you set out your questions in a clear and concise manner in a new posting, and I'll be happy to attend to each and every one of them.

Further, you make allegations that I'm associated with WC and PIF Reaction.

If you don't tender proof of your allegations by the presentation of clear evidence on this forum, then you should apologize and ask the moderator to remove posting # 8401, otherwise I will make a complaint to the moderator that you, Simgrund, are making defamatory statements on this forum.

Simgrund, you seem to lack the technical skills to deal with the issues confronting members of your fund, rather you prefer to engage in nonsensical verbiage, which in the end, takes everybody nowhere.

 

[Duped]

To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting. Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).

And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC. As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF.

The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting? Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out. But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:

"[18] ...[FONT=&quot]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.

[[/FONT][FONT=&quot]19] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh. Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks. Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute. It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings. It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence. Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]

Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair. The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair. But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair. This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right? Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly. But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting? After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned.

Just some musings from a lay casual observer.

 

[charles36]

And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC. As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF.

The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting? Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out. But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:

"[18] ...[FONT=&quot]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.

[[/FONT][FONT=&quot]19] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh. Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks. Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute. It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings. It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence. Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]

Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair. The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair. But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair. This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right? Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly. But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting? After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned.

Just some musings from a lay casual observer.

Do not forget the proxies being held by M/S Hutson. Included in these proxies were a number who wished to vote in favour of CASCAP. This was confirmed to me by M/S Hutson at about 9 a.m. on the morning of the 23 June, 2011, in the presence of Mr. Phil Armstrong, M/S Rachael Weeks, and an associate of M/S Hutson. These persons I am sure would have wanted their proxies cast. In addition I have evidence of quite a few unit holders who changed their proxy from WC to CasCap after hearing the shenanigans of M/S Hutson & Co at the unofficial meeting attended by the hired hands.

 

[BootsnAll]

To Simgrund (in waiting mode), you set out your questions in a clear and concise manner in a new posting, and I'll be happy to attend to each and every one of them.

Further, you make allegations that I'm associated with WC and PIF Reaction.

If you don't tender proof of your allegations by the presentation of clear evidence on this forum, then you should apologize and ask the moderator to remove posting # 8401, otherwise I will make a complaint to the moderator that you, Simgrund, are making defamatory statements on this forum.

Simgrund, you seem to lack the technical skills to deal with the issues confronting members of your fund, rather you prefer to engage in nonsensical verbiage, which in the end, takes everybody nowhere.

A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:

 

[ASICK]

[Duped]

"And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC. As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF."

Duped, for sure, it's nice to engage in debate with you. We each have knowledge about particular issues, but we each recognize that knowledge is limited.

I don't believe the order of the motions mattered at all anyway. I think that once the manager is ousted, then the manager is ousted, and it's my view that the manager couldn't be compelled to do anything once ousted.

However, if it was the case that the order of motions was a critical issue, then that should have been disclosed to members. I don't recall such a disclosure being made, and I'm sure if it was the case, that many many more members would have attended the meeting to press shoulder to shoulder to win the day.

"The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting? Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out. But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:

"[18] ...[FONT=&quot]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.

[[/FONT][FONT=&quot]19] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh. Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks. Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute. It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings. It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence. Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]"

The judge's statements speak for themselves, detailed examination wasn't necessary because the issues were moot given that the judge found the Notice was defective in any event.

"Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair. The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair. But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair. This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right? Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly. But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting? After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned."

If the constitution (in so far as it related to J.H. chairing the meeting) is breached, then I'd say the meeting would be invalid. However, as I understand it, the judge didn't address that issue in the judgment. So many issues become moot on the finding that the Notice was defective.

"Just some musings from a lay casual observer." As are those from all of us.

 

[ASICK]

A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:

A note to BootsnAll:

Defamatory statements should never be permitted on this forum. You should direct your comments to Simgund and ask him to either wirthdraw the statements I complain of, or alternatively tender evidence to support his allegations.

I cannot permit such allegations to go unchallenged.

 

[selciper]

Bernie Madoff, the notorious American Ponzi scheme operator who lost billions of investors' savings, was arrested in December 08. He pleaded guily - that admission sped up the judicial process. He was in jail, sentenced to 150 years, by March 09. In this country we have fraudsters who ripped off elderly people as far back as early 2007, living normal lives with no sign of prison terms looming before them.

I raise the above observation to underline the incredible slowness of ASIC. In the matter of the alleged rigged meeting, there must be paper and electronic trails a mile long, so why don't we see any evidence of action by the regulator?

 

[Duped]

Interpreting WC: Investor Update July 2011 Page 10

"Wellington Capital is aware that Castlereagh held an investor forum on 6 July 2011 where a range of questions were asked and responded to by Castlereagh.
The Investor Forum broadcast on 6 July 2011 makes false and misleading statements about Wellington Capital and its conduct and should be disregarded by Unitholders in the Fund."

I can't see anywhere in this statement that WC alleges Castlereagh made "false and misleading statements". It wasn't just Castlereagh making statements. Unitholders also made statements.

I can't see why Castlereagh's statements should be disregarding if it was only the unitholders that made "false and misleading statements".

Good old juxtaposition trick here again perhaps? Anyone agree?

 

[simgrund]

A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:

Far from vendetta. It is important that the disinformation is stopped cold dead in its tracks. As Duped does in a post immediately preceding ably supported by charles36.
If I can contribute with the others to flush these disseminators out, then I will continue to do it. It is working splendidly so far.
Views of many are expressed against ASICK's undermining campaign.
And with Moderator's much appreciated tolerance.
These issues are beyond personal. they are binding all of us.

Cheers,

 

[ASICK]

Far from vendetta. It is important that the disinformation is stopped cold dead in its tracks. As Duped does in a post immediately preceding ably supported by charles36.
If I can contribute with the others to flush these disseminators out, then I will continue to do it. It is working splendidly so far.
Views of many are expressed against ASICK's undermining campaign.
And with Moderator's much appreciated tolerance.
These issues are beyond personal. they are binding all of us.

Cheers,

You should tender your evidence or withdraw your defamatory statement.

Now you speak of a 'undermining campaign' by ASICK - why don't you be more specific and disclose the exact statements I've made that constitute 'undermining'?

Simgrund, I've looked back at EVERY posting you've ever made, and I can't find even one posting which speaks to anything of a technical nature relating to even one issue confronting members of your fund.

Now's your chance to speak to specific issues and engage in debate rather than engaging in inane rhetoric while making unfounded and absurd allegations.

 

[lawry1dog]

Would like to thank all who have helped us out trying to get our money back.
It is much appreciated and have learnt a lot about managed funds.

My current interpretation of state of play, is as follows:-
Going by the last WC update, it seems a 2 year wait for any money from them.
The Class Action will be judged soon and maybe some money coming our way, but
via WC (have to wait 30 days after decision).

So does that mean a 2 year wait still for WC to liquidate and could the Class Action go to an Appeal and thus a 2 year wait there as well?

Could someone clarify my assumptions, Please.
Am I too pessimistic?

 

[Duped]

Actually I don't think any of this is nice. I don't enjoy this. I don't enjoy the fight. I'd rather be spending time with my family and friends or my community. I'm not a warrier that loves the battle field. I'm a builder/grower. But sometimes the builders/growers have to fight. I think building and growing is nice.

I think that once the manager is ousted, then the manager is ousted,...

Are you saying that you believe that from the second the motion to sack WC is carried that all of WC's duties and responsibilities end. Even to act on the motion that was carried before they were sacked? Don't need to "compell" WC when it's a a huge cash entitlement that should mean WC will be only to happy to act on. Remember that WC raised ~$7M in the recent placement. Which I'm guessing is probably about the right amount to pay WC its ~$5M termination fee, whatever the WC appointed agents McCollough Robertson will be owed by PIF and whatever Armstrong Registry Services bills PIF.

However, if it was the case that the order of motions was a critical issue, then that should have been disclosed to members.

OK then. So WC should have disclosed to members that WC had not been invited to be the Chair, that WC intended to enforce it's entitlement to the chair and that if WC wasn't given the chair then it WC might withhold proxiesto prevent a breach of a clause of the constitution. (After all, don't you think that Hutson agreeing to make a speech to the Hired Actors indicates she was aware of how critical the issue was?)

... moot given that the judge found the Notice was defective in any event.

That's right. A lot of this could be swept under the carpet because 372 (~3%) investors MAY have not been individually notified.

 

[ASICK]

[Duped]

"Are you saying that you believe that from the second the motion to sack WC is carried that all of WC's duties and responsibilities end. Even to act on the motion that was carried before they were sacked?"

yes, that is my view/opinion and it differs from that of CasCap and the PFIFAG. On balance, it's more likely the case that I'm wrong, but I sustain the view because the issue hasn't been tested yet. I remain of the view that even if WC was ousted, that WC would bring an action for the payment of the $5m fee.

"Don't need to "compell" WC when it's a a huge cash entitlement that should mean WC will be only to happy to act on. Remember that WC raised ~$7M in the recent placement. Which I'm guessing is probably about the right amount to pay WC its ~$5M termination fee, whatever the WC appointed agents McCollough Robertson will be owed by PIF and whatever Armstrong Registry Services bills PIF."

WC wouldn't need to raise money by way of a placement. In the event WC was entitled to the $5m, then the fund, like it or not, would be forced to an sell asset/s in order to pay the debt in a business-like manner, regardless of whether the asset/s was/were sold at fair value or otherwise (in order words, a real fire sale/s).

"OK then. So WC should have disclosed to members that WC had not been invited to be the Chair, that WC intended to enforce it's entitlement to the chair and that if WC wasn't given the chair then it WC might withhold proxies to prevent a breach of a clause of the constitution. (After all, don't you think that Hutson agreeing to make a speach to the Hired Actors indicates she was aware of how critical the issue was?)"

I should have been more speciifc. CasCap/PIFAG should have made it clear to members in order to bolster support at the meeting. I think it was a mistake not to make members aware of the risks of various issues.

Of course if WC was aware of the risk to CasCap and PIFAG (that is, if they thought the proposals did have merit), then what motivation would WC have to strengthen the other side's chances?

 

[Duped]

ASICK. No need to force sales of assets and/or go to court to enforce rights. The cash bags are packed and ready from the last placement aren't they? If one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush then what about two birds in the hand.

 

[ASICK]

ASICK. No need to force sales of assets and/or go to court to enforce rights. The cash bags are packed and ready from the last placement aren't they? If one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush then what about two birds in the hand.

If you think about it, if WC is ousted, then I don't think they could write the $5m cheque, in which case, if a new manager believed that WC was not entitled to the payment, then any dispute would necessarily end up in court for resolution.

If the court orders the payment, then the source of the money is a moot point.

If WC is not ousted then there's no need to write the cheque and the cash bags wouldn't be used for that purpose. However, there is the issue (as I understand it), that if a certain value is returned to investors, then WC would be entitled to management fees.

Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what? back to the game?

I think what we're all seeing is the danger in allowing even the slightest amendment to a fund's constitution go down without very very close scrutiny by investors, hence the reason members should come to understand the technical aspects of their respective funds.

I wonder just how many people understood WC's proposal for listing the fund in the first place?

 

[thekids]

If you think about it, if WC is ousted, then I don't think they could write the $5m cheque, in which case, if a new manager believed that WC was not entitled to the payment, then any dispute would necessarily end up in court for resolution.

If the court orders the payment, then the source of the money is a moot point.

If WC is not ousted then there's no need to write the cheque and the cash bags wouldn't be used for that purpose. However, there is the issue (as I understand it), that if a certain value is returned to investors, then WC would be entitled to management fees.

Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what? back to the game?

I think what we're all seeing is the danger in allowing even the slightest amendment to a fund's constitution go down without very very close scrutiny by investors, hence the reason members should come to understand the technical aspects of their respective funds.

I wonder just how many people understood WC's proposal for listing the fund in the first place?

If you are talking about the RIGHTS ISSUE, that has been refunded to investors.

If you are talking about the purchases on the stock exchange, i guess that's why JH wanted PIF listed. She knows it's pay day once she has paid another 1c each.

 

[Duped]

Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what? back to the game?

Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)"

In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)

Note: "gross value". I.e. not Net Value. So what's stopping WC loading up the fund with $50M debt to justifying dropping another $million into that cash bag. WC has already recently said it wants 10s of $millions to prepare assets for sale hasn't it? If the capital raising fails then WC has an excuse for borrowing doesn't it?

So all our discussion about order of the motions? Is that moot now?

(If WC could only just PDF all their docs so I could cut and paste I'd drop the full text of the clause in here. You want me to transcribe the whole thing?)

BTW WC: don't you think you should update your webpages to show the correct number of units on issue. This one still lists it as 755,032,768 http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8

 

[thekids]

Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)"

In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)

Note: "gross value". I.e. not Net Value. So what's stopping WC loading up the fund with $50M debt to justifying dropping another $million into that cash bag.

So all our discussion about order of the motions? Is that moot now?

Duped, I was referring to available funds to pay themselves the 5mil