Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
seamisty said:
14, 45, 65 selciper, realistically more like 5!! Seamisty
Click to expand...

Seamisty, what are you talking about, you should be going progressively DOWN. 65, 45, 14, 6, ZERO. Has anyone out there have any information on the NSAPIFRAG. translated.(Not so anonymous premium income fund RE action group.) Might be a good question to ask at the Self Promotional meetings due shortly. How can we join this group?
 
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 23 August 2011

Class Action - Federal Court Proceedings
Plan for compensation to be for the benefit of Unitholders as at 15 October 2008 Wellington Capital Limited, IMF (Australia) Limited and the Class Action lawyers share the view that the benefit of the Class Action should be for those Unitholders who suffered the loss to which the proceedings relate, that is those Unitholders who were Unitholders in the Premium Income Fund as at 15 October 2008 whether they remain Unitholders or not.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will in relation to the legal proceeds in the Federal Court and any future proceedings, ask the court to make orders that any resulting damages or
compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. If a settlement is reached, one of the terms will be that any agreed settlement sum be paid to Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
In the event that the Federal Court does not make these orders, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will pursue every other available legal avenue to achieve an outcome where the
Unitholders who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any order made, including asking ASIC to modify the
application of the Corporations Act 2001, and if necessary, Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium
Income Fund. Wellington Capital Limited will be assisted by IMF and the Class Action lawyers in that regard.
Investors buying units in the Premium Income Fund whether on market or off market should do so on the basis that they will not be entitled to any damages or compensation received from any legal action relating to the claim for losses suffered by Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director said: ‘I appreciate how important any compensation from the Federal Court
proceedings is to Unitholders who suffered loss as a result of the loan drawdown and investment decisions made by the Fund’s former responsible entity.
It is entirely appropriate and desirable that those who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any compensation or damages.
As responsible entity, Wellington Capital will ensure that every legal avenue possible is pursued to ensure that
outcome is achieved, including asking the court for a declaration to this effect, asking ASIC to modify the application of the Corporations Act, and then only if necessary, asking Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund.’
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of Premium Income Fund as applicant in class action.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund announced on 2 June 2011 that it had executed a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF), the class action funder. At this time, IMF and HWL Ebsworth have not joined Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund to the action. It has been agreed with IMF and HWL Ebsworth that it is in the best interests of Unitholders to revisit the position once Justice Perram of the Federal Court determines the position on the two proposed Statements of Claim currently before him.
Future steps following Justice Perram’s decision may include Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the
Premium Income Fund (funded by IMF) separately commencing proceedings against KPMG.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724313.PDF
 
seamisty said:
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 23 August 2011

Class Action - Federal Court Proceedings
Plan for compensation to be for the benefit of Unitholders as at 15 October 2008 Wellington Capital Limited, IMF (Australia) Limited and the Class Action lawyers share the view that the benefit of the Class Action should be for those Unitholders who suffered the loss to which the proceedings relate, that is those Unitholders who were Unitholders in the Premium Income Fund as at 15 October 2008 whether they remain Unitholders or not.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will in relation to the legal proceeds in the Federal Court and any future proceedings, ask the court to make orders that any resulting damages or
compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. If a settlement is reached, one of the terms will be that any agreed settlement sum be paid to Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
In the event that the Federal Court does not make these orders, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will pursue every other available legal avenue to achieve an outcome where the
Unitholders who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any order made, including asking ASIC to modify the
application of the Corporations Act 2001, and if necessary, Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium
Income Fund. Wellington Capital Limited will be assisted by IMF and the Class Action lawyers in that regard.
Investors buying units in the Premium Income Fund whether on market or off market should do so on the basis that they will not be entitled to any damages or compensation received from any legal action relating to the claim for losses suffered by Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director said: ‘I appreciate how important any compensation from the Federal Court
proceedings is to Unitholders who suffered loss as a result of the loan drawdown and investment decisions made by the Fund’s former responsible entity.
It is entirely appropriate and desirable that those who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any compensation or damages.
As responsible entity, Wellington Capital will ensure that every legal avenue possible is pursued to ensure that
outcome is achieved, including asking the court for a declaration to this effect, asking ASIC to modify the application of the Corporations Act, and then only if necessary, asking Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund.’
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of Premium Income Fund as applicant in class action.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund announced on 2 June 2011 that it had executed a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF), the class action funder. At this time, IMF and HWL Ebsworth have not joined Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund to the action. It has been agreed with IMF and HWL Ebsworth that it is in the best interests of Unitholders to revisit the position once Justice Perram of the Federal Court determines the position on the two proposed Statements of Claim currently before him.
Future steps following Justice Perram’s decision may include Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the
Premium Income Fund (funded by IMF) separately commencing proceedings against KPMG.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724313.PDF
Click to expand...

Thanks Seamisty.

All. More words words words. We've had commitments such as this from WC before. Will it actually happen? Remember the offer of a buyback?

And even if the court does order "that any resulting damages or compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. " What's stopping WC asking a court to cancel or amend those orders? (or whatever terminology applies.) Anyone?
 
So here we are all shaking our heads asking why Jenny Hutson announces on the 18th august 2011 out of the blue that Wellington Capital will be conducting another travelling road show under the guise of 'Fund Briefing Meetings' to be held 6, 7 and 8 September 2011 in each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
Heres your answer, nothing to do with being a conscientious fund manager, it was so WC could try and adjourn the G8/Cherie Hearts trial scheduled to be held in Singapore from the 5th-15th September 2011 because Jenny Hutson was unavailable!!!! HAHA, the Singapore trial date was set months ago!! Nice try JH but it appears the Singapore judges are not going to be stuffed around. An extract from post 29 on the GEM thread "Pre-trial hearing, Thursday, 18th August 2011
--G8’s Attempt to Adjourn the Main Trial--

As you would recall, there were recent rumours that G8 had asked for an adjournment of the Main Trial. It appears as if these rumours were true after all! The first reason being that Jenny Hutson was unavailable. Yes.. ‘The Jenny Hutson’ to appear on trial in Singapore! The second reason being that their ‘expert witness’ could not generate a meaningful report?! Well they should have jolly well thought of that before deciding to put a receivership on CHGI! This is a true indication that they had no basis for their unjust actions!

Unfortunately for G8, CHGI has emerged victorious yet again! The Singapore High Court has refused to grant G8 adjournment of the Main Trial as per their requests.

But in kind, the High Court Judge has given them a 2 day extension. That’s not going to be of much help now is it G8?? ":::

So where does that leave the PIF meetings?? Perhaps Ms Hutson will have to have them 'adjourned'?

:bowser:Bon Voyage!! Seamisty
 
Duped said:
Thanks Seamisty.

All. More words words words. We've had commitments such as this from WC before. Will it actually happen? Remember the offer of a buyback?

And even if the court does order "that any resulting damages or compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. " What's stopping WC asking a court to cancel or amend those orders? (or whatever terminology applies.) Anyone?
Click to expand...

Exactly Duped .

601FC(1) Corporation Act compels the RE to treat members of the same class equally.
And that is the only law a Judge would have to work with, unless a constitutional amendment is put in place.

Even with a Fund Manager acting in good faith , we could have a very real potential problem .Lets assume a turnover of 20 % on the NSX over the time it takes for the class to come to court . Add in the placement and any future cap raising and that is a lot of new investors who would command a substantial chunk of the votes . Enough votes to demolish any hopes of passing a special resolution on this issue .
 
seamisty said:
So here we are all shaking our heads asking why Jenny Hutson announces on the 18th august 2011 out of the blue that Wellington Capital will be conducting another travelling road show under the guise of 'Fund Briefing Meetings' to be held 6, 7 and 8 September 2011 in each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
Heres your answer, nothing to do with being a conscientious fund manager, it was so WC could try and adjourn the G8/Cherie Hearts trial scheduled to be held in Singapore from the 5th-15th September 2011 because Jenny Hutson was unavailable!!!! HAHA, the Singapore trial date was set months ago!! Nice try JH but it appears the Singapore judges are not going to be stuffed around. An extract from post 29 on the GEM thread "Pre-trial hearing, Thursday, 18th August 2011
--G8’s Attempt to Adjourn the Main Trial--

As you would recall, there were recent rumours that G8 had asked for an adjournment of the Main Trial. It appears as if these rumours were true after all! The first reason being that Jenny Hutson was unavailable. Yes.. ‘The Jenny Hutson’ to appear on trial in Singapore! The second reason being that their ‘expert witness’ could not generate a meaningful report?! Well they should have jolly well thought of that before deciding to put a receivership on CHGI! This is a true indication that they had no basis for their unjust actions!

Unfortunately for G8, CHGI has emerged victorious yet again! The Singapore High Court has refused to grant G8 adjournment of the Main Trial as per their requests.

But in kind, the High Court Judge has given them a 2 day extension. That’s not going to be of much help now is it G8?? ":::

So where does that leave the PIF meetings?? Perhaps Ms Hutson will have to have them 'adjourned'?

:bowser:Bon Voyage!! Seamisty
Click to expand...

Maybe we could do the Judges a favour and let them know about this stunt she is pulling.
 
I am not sure if this relates to us but I have noticed Wellington selling properties that they are in possesion of at ridiculous prices which are bad for our fund. That news has come up in the past.

I am just wondering if we as unit holders could put a legal order on the properties out fund is mortgagee in possesion of. I am not sure of the name of it, but am aware such a legal order exists where a property can have an order slapped on it preventing the owner or custodian from selling it.

If we could do such an action and tie up Wellingtons hands from selling what we own due to impending take over offers as a reason then it prevents Wellington from ripping us off further.

This is just a thought - not sure if we can do it or if it will work, but if it stuffs Wellington around then its good for us.
 
Sutho81 said:
Maybe we could do the Judges a favour and let them know about this stunt she is pulling.
Click to expand...
WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of 'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable:confused: If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said they could not previously attend due to prior committments:confused::confused:Any wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty
 
seamisty said:
WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of 'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable:confused: If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said they could not previously attend due to prior committments:confused::confused:Any wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty
Click to expand...

And the September roadshow is at PIF unitholders expense.
 
Sutho81 said:
I am not sure if this relates to us but I have noticed Wellington selling properties that they are in possesion of at ridiculous prices which are bad for our fund. That news has come up in the past.

I am just wondering if we as unit holders could put a legal order on the properties out fund is mortgagee in possesion of. I am not sure of the name of it, but am aware such a legal order exists where a property can have an order slapped on it preventing the owner or custodian from selling it.

If we could do such an action and tie up Wellingtons hands from selling what we own due to impending take over offers as a reason then it prevents Wellington from ripping us off further.

This is just a thought - not sure if we can do it or if it will work, but if it stuffs Wellington around then its good for us.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it will help unit holders because WC would probably fight the orders at PIF unit holders expense IMLO
 
Jadel said:
Exactly Duped .

601FC(1) Corporation Act compels the RE to treat members of the same class equally.
And that is the only law a Judge would have to work with, unless a constitutional amendment is put in place.

Even with a Fund Manager acting in good faith , we could have a very real potential problem .Lets assume a turnover of 20 % on the NSX over the time it takes for the class to come to court . Add in the placement and any future cap raising and that is a lot of new investors who would command a substantial chunk of the votes . Enough votes to demolish any hopes of passing a special resolution on this issue .
Click to expand...

It's in PIF's constitution too Jadel. Clause 14.7:

14.7 The Responsible Entity:
14.7.1 will perform its functions and exercise its powers under this Constitution in the best interest of all Unit Holders and not in the interests ofthe Responsible Entity if those interests are not the same as those of Unit Holders generally; and
14.7.2 subject to sub-clause 14.7.1, will treat the Unit Holders of the same class equally and will treat Unit Holders of different classes fairly.

Who knows what that means in practice?

Any defence in court by WC of its actions when challanged will probably be paid for at unitholder's expense. I.e. out of PIF's assets and funds.

It's like Cold War MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.
 
seamisty said:
WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of 'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable:confused: If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said they could not previously attend due to prior committments:confused::confused:Any wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly convinced this is the only reason for the roadshow Seamisty. WC's reason is "The timing of these meetings will enable Wellington Capital to present the position as at 30 June 2011, as set out in the audited accounts." [emphasis added]

My guess is there's some nasty numbers in there that need "present[ing]". Like some big legal bills? Some big asset write downs? The bills and the "present[ation]" are all at PIF unitholders expense of course. Time will tell.

All
None of us should ever forget that WC effectively helped paint a huge target on PIF through actions such allowing the unit price to languish at 1/3 to a 1/4 of NTA on the NSX and issue new units at 10c. Investing 101.

It'll be interesting to hear Hutson's excuse for addressing the rent a crowd. Irrespective of who organised the rent a crowd - Hutson CHOSE to stand up there and address them. (Allegedly right?) Quite the case of incredibly poor judgement by Hutson? And a breach of clause 14.7 of the PIF constitution cited in my last post? Is this the sort of person one wants to run one's fund?

The only 'speaking' that WC doesn't seems to want to do is let the numbers speak for themselves.

Last but not least WC will probably also blame this forum. WC will blame everyone and everything but themselves. There is a simple and ancient expression that sums this type of behaviour up: "The Lady doth protest too much, methinks".

All at PIF unitholders expense?
 
Duped said:
I'm not sure it will help unit holders because WC would probably fight the orders at PIF unit holders expense IMLO
Click to expand...


Sort of like a scorched earth policy I guess Sutho81. Of course if the enemy doesn't end up occupying the your turf you'll probably have to "present" yourselves to your citizens and explain why you torched their farms.
 
76+ thousand have traded at 6.6/6.5 since. Making that 15,000 unit trade @ 9.5c look more suss and paltry by the day.
 

Similar threads

System
MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
411
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
959
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Garpal Gumnut
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Sean K
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
qldfrog
qldfrog
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
Top