This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
ASICK: value of units

One small issue - and I do thank you for your contributions to thsi this thread - over a year ago, when Equititrust mooted a $1 per $1 return - I posted on this website a detailed analysis that brought it down to just over 40cents - in the following months, I continued upgrading this estimate as we learned more and more, until I dropped in at 20cents BEFORE overheads and realisation costs - end likley result NIL

Why is Tricky Dicky interested - well if we morons copy worthless VAX shares - TRICKY DICKY 's company gets acess to our GROSS MORTGAGES - we are no longer DEBTS to be repaid BUT shareholders,,,, last time I looked in the law books - shareholders actually rank 100% last in the line of people to get paid

so tricky dicky gets $60M PLUS to play with - re-lend, charge fees to borrowers, take directors fees, overheads - whatever he likes....

if there is anything else - we might get a dividend BUT only after tricky dicky and the honeypot licker have been into the trough -

share value? NSX? no real NTA ? no market? no dividends?? you tell me, I reckon NIL.

A good deal if you can get it..... ALL-BARREN, lots of (Mc)CONNIVORING and lots of tricky dicky work.....

lets all hope and pray ASIC blocks this .....
 

ASICK,

My negative brain is suggesting that by classifying Investors as creditors how will it affect the insolvency rules.

We are now in Liquidation & Litigation mode and I am confident All Chadwick as per the report and by law will be uncovering everything.

We have turned a corner.
 
As to the comments re VAX fixing up Estate Mortgage, age may be making my memory a bit dim but I seem to recall that the repair of assets from that was from about 30 cents in the dollar ( not 4 cents ) to 70 cents over a 10 year period and mostly falls to the credit of Greg Paramour and his-then labels of Growth Equities Mutual and Paladin. Can't recall many others being involved and entitled to the credit. I reckon Greg would be first to admit it was mostly the compounding effect of time that repaired those values. It's also worth noting that the entire industry responded to the Estate Mortgage collapse by galloping as fast as possible to become listed, liquid entities. None of the current proposals from alternate Responsible Entities seem to contemplate that. In fact, the Lion Advantage / VAX proposal would seem to be the most 'locked-up' of all three despite the seeming advantage of 'listing' on the NSX.


On this point, Investors might want to consider that ASIC's presence at these meetings could very well be seen as a two-edged sword:
Edge 1: there to show the various groups struggling for control and $$$ that they are being watched;
Edge 2: there to show Investors that Investors will get what Investors vote for - and nothing more, less or else.

If you think that how I describe that second edge contains a warning for Investors - you're correct.

ASIC's mere presence at these meetings is no guarantee that they are their to protect you as opposed to protection their own back-ends. Remember that, under the law, ASIC is not charged with protecting your money from loss, merely from ensuring regulation is observed. The letter of the law - not the spirit. With that in mind, take a look again at those two edges I described above. ASICK's commentary on his/her experience in another Fund may be a salutary lesson in that regard. ASIC may NOT be the cavalry riding to the rescue that some expect. Investors need to think of themselves as their own cavalry with ASIC, at this stage, merely there as the equivalent of UN observers. And we all know how useful THOSE usually turn out to be.
 
Re: ASICK: value of units


Kostag,

Thank you for your comment.

As I understand that Mr Hickie can not even consider to make am offer without ASIC’s approval.
You seem very negative. As mentioned Mr Hickie got estate Mortgage from $0.04 to $1.10.

All investors need hope and confidence.

In the VERY VERY VERY unlikely event we receive a presentation from Mr Hickie for a legal, regulated, transparent option which will not trigger the subordinated units and cuts the current wind up costs. My door is always open.

How can one make a decision without the updated signed off facts.

Sorry we will agree to disagree.
This is an open discussion forum.
 
Re: ASICK: value of units

Todays said:
Kostag,

As mentioned Mr Hickie got estate Mortgage from $0.04 to $1.10.
Click to expand...

The gent in question may say it - I was not at the meeting to hear if and how he said it and I find it very interesting that he should make that claim. It does not mean it's 100% rolled-gold Gospel Truth. Might I suggest you check my comments above re the not-minor roles of Greg Paramor AND the compounding effect of time in the repair of Estate Mortgage investors' monies?

As I said, time and age dims memory, but I and others who were there for that ride do not seem to recall those events quite the same way.
 
Sorry about the errors in my posts (all due to jet lag .. )

When City Pacific got into trouble, City mooted two parths one after the other, they were (1) a preferential share issue, and (2) the listing of the fund. It was clear to me that the moves were made deprive investors of their creditor status to what was left of their investments. I know of no one who would have supported those moves.

A number of us could see what happened to members of the Premium Income Fund (PIF, NSX code PIN) - their investments were cut to pieces by listing. For us, there was no reason to "throw the light switch when the bulb is clearly defective".

"A frozen fund is a manager's delight" - and if the manager is able to isolate members from their respective entitlements to their investment, then the future just might look rosy for the manager.

City Pacific and Wellington Capital (PIF) weren't the only ones, Trilogy tried it on too. Trilogy promised they wouldn't list the fund - and true to their word, they didn't attempt to list the PFMF, but what did they do instead?

As part of their proposed strategy for the PFMF (see meeting of members 1 September 2010 http://moneymagik.com/general_information.php), members would give up their respective rights to redemptions - in my opinion, just as bad as a listing or the granting of preference shares.

The Proposed Constitutional changes to the PFMF as proposed by Trilogy:
http://moneymagik.com/Proposed_Constitutional_Amendments_August_2010.pdf

Note proposed clause 11.1 "No right to withdraw"
Only way out via a "Withdrawal Offer" (proposed clause 11.2)
Manager not obliged to made such an offer (proposed clause 11.3)
Manager may buy units (proposed clause 11.5b)
Or arrange for another entity to buy (proposed clause 11.5b)
Member can't deal with units after "Withdrawal Request" (proposed clause 11.11)
Must satisfy a "Withdrawal Request" within 12 months (proposed clause 11.5a)
However, satisfaction may be extended past 12 months (proposed clause 11.8)

What does that amount to for Trilogy or another entity? It's called a zero-cost option to buy units at the time of Trilogy's chosing.

Then there's proposed clause 21.2e - "Projected Performance Fee" - the ability of the manager of "project" a fee - not have to stay to earn the money for it, and the fee was never going to reconciled with the actual outcome.

There's heaps more issues, but I'm sure you guys would get very bored with them.

The foregoing are by way of example - in the managed fund business - especially with damaged funds - anything is possible.

I, like "Brethren", wish to impart my experience (for what it's worth) so that you guys don't have to fall where others have fallen. If we don't learn from the mistakes of others, we'll learn from our own mistakes.

..

For those who enjoy some light reading, here's a submission (and two supplementary submissisions) I made to the Financial Enquiry:
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub182.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182a.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182b.pdf
Here's one another member made:
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub355.pdf

(It should be noted that the estimated loss at "Pacific Beach" was not as high as first thought - but still, it was quite a lot of money - the only info we had was from the media - it was way off base, but never corrected by any one in the know at that time).

Only two of us out of over 8,000 PFMF investors made a submission - and we wonder why we didn't get any attention? I may have posted about this before, but most of the submissions come from Storm investors - and it paid off BIG time for them. They got heaps of attention.

How many of your members signed up to the class action? Did someone post 36?

And we wonder we find ourselves where we are today?
 
McIvor Hiding

Boy oh boy the hits just keep on a coming for Marky. The process servers are out in force and looking for him and wifey Stacey... The actions are lined up in the Supreme Court...

Too gutless to turn up to the creditors meeting and now in hiding from his creditors and elderly retiree investors... What a loser...
 
Liquidator

If the liquidator wants to redeem any credibility they will commence proceedings against McIvor and Tucker and have them both brought before a court for a public examination...

Don't be fooled, Tucker (Mr Conflict of Interest) was up to his eye balls in this mess alongside his old mate McIvor and both need to be put into a witness box...

Time for these two idiots to tell the truth before a judge...
 

Asick, I admit I was perplexed as well about investors being creditors of Equititrust Limited. As noted in the Hall Chadwick report (10.3) and BDO's letter to investors of 18/04/12, the investors are 'contingent creditors' and as explained by David Whyte - 'The Administrators consider the investors of the EIF to be contingent creditors on the basis that the investors may have a claim against the responsible entity for breaching the Corporations Act' and we have Piper Alderman to thank for that (apologies if I have misunderstood you and am stating the obvious). This gives us certain rights but I don't think, access to any monies that might be forthcoming, although, Albarran did state that we would be considered 'unsecured creditors' - there will be nothing left anyway as Equititrust Limited has minimal assets. I suspect Hall Chadwick may have allowed us into the meeting to dilute the vote against them by the Deloitte boys who held proxies for the MM group of receivers/liquidators, whatever the hell they are.

I was also disappointed at the conduct of the meeting and I have grave concerns at the lack of transparency on everyone's part in that meeting. There seemed to be much going on in the background that we were not privy to nor had any understanding of (at least I didn't). In hindsight I believe the meeting should have been adjourned. The proxy debacle was beyond a joke. Either Piper Alderman submitted the invalid proxies hoping Hall Chadwick didn't notice they weren't executed (seriously?) or they didn't notice (seriously?). Piper Alderman didn't argue when the proxies were invalidated - take from that what you will. Also, submitting Deloittes at the 11th hour - could these 'experts' not get themselves better organised than this? I am of the opinion that BDO and Piper Alderman could have contributed more to this meeting on behalf of investors. I appreciate they all may have restrictions on their ability to provide advice in that forum but pertinent questions may have assisted investors in making better decisions rather than just squabbling over each others fees. After all, we are not experts, we cannot be expected to be and we did not buy into this bloody shambles, we bought into .... well we all know what we thought we were buying into.

As to the class action, I had a conversation with a lady at the meeting and I asked her if she had joined - 'No" she said 'my lawyer told me it was just throwing good money after bad'. Unfortunately, the meeting reconvened and I didn't get a chance to enlighten her but having said that, I have tried 4 times to get documentation out of Piper Alderman to join and so far, with no success. I have even spoken to Amanda Banton - still nothing. It would appear you are right - we need to get organised.

The whole meeting was a shambles, the chairman (think I'll call him Albran - he has that affect on me) took no control over the meeting - or was that deliberate? He should not have allowed questions about the RE, it was not on the agenda and it muddied the waters - deliberate? I have to say I just feel dirty - from being walked all over!!
 
Thanks "No Trust" for your illuminating posting. No, you didn't misunderstand me, I didn't consider there was a contingency opportunity for investors, but if there is, that might (might not be) a good thing.

While I speak to la ack of participation in the class action, I confess I see class actions as a 'last resort' given the substantial percentage given up to the opportunitists (who would call themselves "risk takers") prepared to run such actions.

First opportunity would be that the fund, if able, should bring actions - perhaps in your case, the receiver might bring any action/s using fund monies. Second, the fund brings a class action. Third. investors bring a class action.

There is an obvious advantage if the fund brings the action because of evidence - there shouldn't be any 'stabbing in the dark'.

Don't feel too bad about what happened with Piper Alderman, take a look at what happened at the recent meeting of PIF investors. The prospective RE continued on with a meeting with court action in process whereby the existing RE (Wellington Capital) was seeking to invalidate the meeting.

WC's claim has legs to it, but the prospective RE ignored it entirely and proceeded to the meeting which was adjourned in any event. WC won the day in court and the meeting was invalidated.

There's no doubt about it, when there's $$$$ at play, the "actors" will seek to ensure their respective slices of it. That goes for all of them. If you try to take away the income source, it'll be like taking away a 2 year old's favourite toy - the fight'll be on!!

As I tried to point out, it was right of BDO to disclose the shortcomings of VAX's proposal, but its silence as to each of Trilgy and Balmain's respective shortcomings, or even to BDO's inability to comment on each of Trilogy and Balmain due to confidentiality, seemed (at least to me) to be more than disappointing - this behavior is something I've come to expect when there's a mix of entities with various obligations between some, or even all of them.

Of course BDO wants to make money from investors, so does Trilogy, Balmain, VAX, etc .. etc ..

Ah ASIC - Here's an excerpt from my submission to the Senate Finance Inquiry:
"It is important to understand the role of ASIC and to understand that ASIC is not a prudential regulator, nor do we approve products prior to their release.

ASIC’s power primarily relate to ensuring that the scheme’s disclosure complies with the law. As such, ASIC has limited scope to intervene in the operations of companies simply because the projects or investments they propose may contain a certain level of risk or are not performing as expected.

Risk and its relationship to the expected returns are matters for investors to assess (with or without financial advisers) and ASIC cannot direct how people invest their money."

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub182.pdf

The above excerpt was originally taken from a letter sent to me by ASIC in regard to a complaint I'd made. An idential letter was sent to others, even though the other complaints related to entirely different matters!!!

I really hope you guys will NOT rely on ASIC - for reliance may only lead to disappointment.

For ASIC, it's form over substance - believe it or not!
 
Bonne Chance,

Thank you for your post.

As mentioned I was also very disappointed with Hall Chadwick’s lack of control of the meeting.

But Hall Chadwick’s report highlighted many areas requiring investigation which litigation should follow. (First time on the public record we can see a fraction of what went on)

I do wonder if M.M Holdings (Receivers appointed) is still charging the fund 20% as per comments on page 33 & 29.

Hall Chadwick have access to all the records of Equititrust.
At the meeting Hall Chadwick mentioned they have had discussions with Piper Alderman re sharing the litigation. (A ridiculous waist of money both parties litigating on the same subject)
I am planning to wait for there next report hopefully action plan before considering joining Piper Alderman.

I think we are all desperate for direction going forward
 
PA class action.


Todays said:
Bonne Chance,


I am planning to wait for there next report hopefully action plan before considering joining Piper Alderman.
Click to expand...

I am surprised and perturbed by Bonne Chance being unable to get to sign up with Piper Alderman.

My understanding is that the PA class action costs nothing for investors to join, and there are no fees payable other than a percentage of winnings (if there are any).

Discounting the example given by Bonne Chance of legal advice which appears frivolous and irrelevant, could anyone enlighten me as to why an investor would not join the action as a matter of priority?
 
Thanks Asick, (I presume you were replying to me and not No Trust). I haven't been involved in one of these before and I greatly appreciate your input since it is obvious, regrettably, that you have.

As I understand it, the Piper Alderman class action will be against the directors insurers, not against any of the companies and will be relying on the breaches of the Corporations Act, fraudulent acts aplenty etc hence, I am assuming, the importance of our status as contingent creditors of the RE. The dates being important so that the insurers et al were notified prior to the cancellation of policies. For these reasons I don't see it as a last resort but as an attack on two fronts. I place no reliance whatsoever on ASIC, I place little reliance on all the receivers/ administrators/ liquidators/ banks/ anybody else who thinks they can steal what's left. It would have been better if McIvor had something left for us to take but now that the MM group of companies are also in receivership or liquidation, those receivers will take what should have been ours. So, as I see it, the directors insurers now have the deepest pockets. Actually, I would think the insurers would be the most motivated to find the money stashed overseas and they are not bound by ethics (and I use that term loosely with all the others). There will be money overseas, it's just a matter of finding it. McIvor knew this was coming and I'll be a 'monkey's uncle' if he hasn't got a large stash somewhere.

The fund and receivers will all be taking legal action against McIvor et al and as per the translation of my user name 'Bonne Chance' good bloody luck with that!

I believe a change in RE is dead, investors don't want it and Albran stated at the meeting that he will not be recommending a change in RE either.

I am also under no illusions about BDO - some investors seem to think David Whyte is a knight in Whyte armour (sorry - bad joke) but they have already taken more money than most of us individually, had invested but, we must use someone to speak for us and since we are stuck with court appointed BDO - they're it!

If I am wrong in any of my assumptions, I'm happy to be corrected.

To Todays: I am interested in your reasons for waiting to join the class action. I read somewhere on the Piper Alderman website (although I couldn't find it today) that said there is a funding arrangement in place for the class action and it won't cost investors any contribution, even if the action is lost. If the action wins, then the funders take a percentage and I can't quite remember how much it was, but it seemed reasonable to me. That being the case, would you be encouraged to join?
 
Bonne Chance,

The way I see it the litigation can be broken in three.

1. Creditors being true creditors.
2. Investors. Unique claims but classified as creditors.
3. Unique Individual investors being mislead. (Refer Below)

Equititrust can/will take action for true creditors and investors.
Investors should take action as investors and true creditors should not get any benefit.

But in some challenges the claim/litigation would have the exact same arguments but the court would have to decide the ratio to True creditors and investors.

Unique Individual investors being mislead.
For example in November 2010 Equititrust investors sat in front of Equititrust executives and were assured everything was OK and were encouraged to invest fresh funds and they did.
Therefore there could be a number of individual investors making a claim but the same argument for other compensation claims. (We also have to add Dividend reinvestment upto April 2011 as well.)

It is incredible complicated and interwoven but true creditors should not get the investors benifits and vice versa.

This is why I am sitting back till Hall Chadwick formulates a direction.
Sorry it is even complicated to explain it.
 
Todays, I think I understand what you are getting at and in a way that is what is happening but you have to include the class action being your point 3. The class action is separate and an avenue that individual investors at least have a chance of getting something back. I see it that the class action is an 'as well as' not an 'instead of' the other actions.

It is incredibly complicated and I would think there is only one person who truly understands this web and that would be Mark McIvor. However, one must keep the entities straight. Investors invested in one entity and the creditors lent to another entity, we are not all creditors of the same entity and as such the creditors of the other entities have a first legal right to the money. Investors come last - in a perfect and fair world, one might think the investors should come first but we don't. As Asick has pointed out ASIC see investors as the risk takers. Clearly the creditors were not supposed to be putting their funds at risk. They have the security, we've got nothin'.

If BDO intends taking legal action on behalf of EIF against the insurers as well as the class action - great but BDO have other avenues they must also take with all the shuffling of money. I am sure we are entitled to funds that have been misappropriated to MM companies under the guise of management fees etc but now we have to fight their receivers to get it back, and remember they have huge creditors that want to hang on to their bit.
 
Re: PA class action.


1. Yep - me too
2. Think you're right
3. Nope - think it's time to change that.
 
There are two types of creditors, (1) secured, and (2) unsecured.

Secured creditors hold a lien over some or all of the debtor's property. The secured creditors take first bite of the cherry. If there's a shortfall, the secured creditros lose out to the extent of the shortfall - in which case, unsecured creditors get nothing.

If there's a surplus after the secured creditors take their fill, then the residual is distributed amongst the unsecured creditors.

If unitholders are deemed a contingent creditor, then it seems to me that they line up with the unsecured creditors.

If the receiver decides to bring an action on behalf of the fund then, in my view, things will get messy if a class action has been commenced by a number of members. No investor is compelled to join a class action, and if an investor doesn't join, that member is entitled to bring an action at the time of his/her chosing.

I understand that WC (manager of the PIF) is joining up with a class action commened by a number of members. IMF is funding the class action - if there's success, the disbursement of the proceeds should be an interesting exercise.

I can understand Piper Alderman wanting to get in on the action, but wouldn't it make more sense to get a final determination that all avenues for recovery have been exhausted before taking the option of last resort?

After all, no point giving up 40% of any potential proceeds as a fee to a litigation funder if the fund will proceed along the same track.

Further, the litigation funder will snap up any recovered costs as well - an additional recovery if the fund brings the action.

There is a lot to think about - that's the joy of being locked up in these ghastedly badly damaged funds.
 
There may have been some urgency to commencing the class action because of the cancellation of the directors PI insurance policies, there would certainly be timeframes to be adhered to. I don't think the percentage was as high as 40% (thought it was less than 20%) but nonetheless, I would rather have 60% of something than 100% of nothing. I believe the proceeds from the class action top up what is not received from the winding up process anyhow.

Does anyone have any idea how many investors follow this thread?
 

How could one determine that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.