Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Re: Winding up registered scheme

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2005/753.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Stacks%20Managed%20Investments%20Ltd

I don't know if this the current law, but it's interesting anyway:

"55 In my view, Parliament deliberately did not apply the regime for the winding-up of companies to the winding-up of registered schemes. It could have, but it did not, provide for the appointment of a liquidator to the affairs of a registered scheme, who is independent of the responsible entity. It could have, but it did not, make the provisions which regulate the winding-up of companies applicable to the winding-up of registered schemes, including, for example, the power to apply to the Court for the issue of examination summonses. It did not give the Court powers of the kind described in s 447A in relation to administrations and deeds of company arrangement. I do not read the power to give directions in s 601NF(2) in the wide way for which the plaintiff contends, as in effect, permitting the Court, by order, to impose a new legislative regime on the winding-up of a particular scheme, and thereby affecting the rights of and imposing duties on third parties."
 
I dont know about you guys but I think we should rebrand Equititrust to Equititlost.

Sounds suitable to me.
 
There has to be a responsible entity in place to oversee the winding up. EquitiRust is in no way qualified to do this. More importantly a forensic investigation is essential interns of transparency. There are a lot of dirty deals that need to be exposed and investors compensated. Equititrust and McIvor would love to cover all this up. The fact that there is an ASIC and Federal Police investigation gives sufficient cause to err on the side of caution and examine each and every transaction to ensure investors were not ripped off. A proper investigation will reveal many hidden secrets. Look at what the former directors have already given the courts by way of affidavit. A board appointed by McIvor will never be independent and will not be seen as being independent. A conflict of interest be it perceived or otherwise still exists and fails the legal test of transparency. ASIC must appoint an independent party to protect the interests of investors. Look at how the winding up process has been handled to date at the hands of McIvor and his stooges.
 
http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/bulletins/LAWLEX%20Corporate%20Law%20Bulletin%20No%2096%20August%202005.htm

See Item 4.3

"(b) Facts

The scheme was established by way of deed on 24 July 2000 by Cromwell Property Securities Ltd ('Cromwell'), and registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on 9 August 2000. The scheme was established to invite persons to invest in mortgage lending arrangements in accordance with a prospectus registered by the scheme. Cromwell, as the responsible entity of the scheme, held the assets on trust for the members, subject to the scheme's constitution and the Corporations Act. The constitution made provision for the winding up of the scheme which reflected the provisions in Part 5C.9 of the Corporations Act.

Cromwell was the responsible entity until 21 September 2001, on which date Mercator Funds Management Ltd ('Mercator') took over. On 8 September 2004 the members of the scheme passed an extraordinary resolution that Mercator be removed as the responsible entity and that the applicant be appointed to that role. The resolution further directed the applicant to wind up the scheme."

A meeting has been convened by at least 5% of the Pacific First Mortgage Fund to oust Trilogy Funds Management and replace it with Stacks Managed Investment Limited.

http://www.pacificfirstmanagement.com.au/

I came across the above case when doing some research into the company.

Hope the info is useful.
 
Class Action - fees.

While time is running short, are there any unit holders out there interested in negotiating with PA about the Funder's Commission?

My individual approach has come to nothing with a statement that "the funder is not willing to negotiate terms in individual cases given that there would be a disparity of treatment as between group members."

A group concession would seem desirable when considering the rather lucrative fees proposed.
 
Class Action

The majority of investors are in favour of a negotiated group discount, however the problem lies with the fact that there is only one funder willing to finance the legal action. If there were a number of funders vying for the financing role there would be a greater chance of a negotiated discount.
 
If investors start to wise up and see the potential litigation as an ASSET, then they might see it as something worth fighting for.

I still maintain my view that you should wait to see what the outcome of your fund managment situation is before you make any decisions. It's probably much better if the litigation is commenced from within the fund, especially from an evidential perspective.

This is a useful reference about how a class action might go along:
http://www.bransgroves.com.au/litigation/mercedes-holdings-pty-ltd-v-waters-no-3-2011-fca-236.html

Ambulance chasing lawyers really are more plentiful than you think.

Still, your choice.
 
ASICK said:
If investors start to wise up and see the potential litigation as an ASSET, then they might see it as something worth fighting for.

I still maintain my view that you should wait to see what the outcome of your fund managment situation is before you make any decisions. It's probably much better if the litigation is commenced from within the fund, especially from an evidential perspective.
.
Click to expand...

I agree about any potential action being an asset and also agree that it is best to see the outcome of the management situation.

However I do not agree about starting any action from within the fund as this may then possibly expose the funds assets (small as they are) to costs fees etc.

The reality of the situation may be as written in previous posts that any action may not be worth the effort at the end of the day.
 
I disagree with both of the above comments, Investors reading this thread should contact Piper Alderman get idependent advice and make their own opinion as to whether to join the class action. One thing I will say is that a lot of what is being said in this thread is from people who are not qualified lawyers nor from people who have an interest in the fund.

It may be a harsh reality however no one else has done anything and this may be the best option investors have got of further recovery. Considering the nature of this disaster I am actually quite surprised any funder is willing to fund the action at all.

Another point to consider is the fact that both the law firm and the funder have done substantial due diligence on the likely outcome of the action so it seems there is a valid cause of action which will recover their collective costs. Remember if they lose they get nothing...

So whilst the fees may seem high, so are the risks of running the gauntlet of the legal system and funding the claim throughout. A substantial number of investors have signed up for a reason and that is this is most likely the best that they will get without forking out millions of dollars on individual claims.

Further Piper Alderman is about commence preliminary investigations via the Federal court to fully establish the claim and this is essential as this stage.

As mentioned previously the reality may seem harsh however not joining the class action may result in no further recovery. With the unit price likely to drop well below 50 cents in the dollar further recovery is essential...
 
McIvor and Quinlivan

It is essential to get McIvor in the witness box along side his mate "King Con" that way both "King Con" and Mark "the Donkey" McIvor can explain how they magically made tens of millions of dollars disappear on one loan in Ipswich ...

These two may have better luck as magicians in their next careers... Unless of course McIvor ventures out into constipated acting... Those commercials for Landsolve with Ian Maurice still crack us up...
 
Legal Action and Recovery

No word on the status of the Legal Action and Recovery... Who is undertaking the legal work ? Does Tucker still have the files ?? Is there now a dispute as to payment of Tuckers fees??? Is Tucker now holding the investors hostage by not releasing the files??? Nice mess when you have a conflict of interest from the outset...

Like the insurers no self respecting firm would act for Equititrust particularly when it is now on the brink...

Why is Equititrust keeping the investors in the dark on this issue...
 
No Trust said:
I disagree with both of the above comments, Investors reading this thread should contact Piper Alderman get idependent advice and make their own opinion as to whether to join the class action. One thing I will say is that a lot of what is being said in this thread is from people who are not qualified lawyers nor from people who have an interest in the fund.
..
Click to expand...

Do you have money invested in EIF?
Unfortunately I do.
 
Having money invested in the fund does not make anyone a legal expert... Sitting back and procrastinating is not the answer. There were people posting on this thread that they had confidence in the future of Equititrust earlier this year, look where we are now.

In terms of sitting back and doing nothing that's up to very individual investor. Have you spoken to Piper Alderman ? I have and I think all investors who are caught up in this disaster should do so as well and make up their own mind.
Give me another viable alternative other than sitting back and being the victim and I'll consider it... A lot of investors who have decided to join the class action have determined that this is the best option out there and doing nothing will get you nothing... Investors do not have the luxury to negotiate with international litigation finders as some have suggested, it's time to face commercial realities and sure they are not pretty and sure it would be great to get the litigation done on investor's terms but the REALITY is there is NO other option out there... If there is let's hear about it.
 
If the average person deceived another in whom trust was held to manage their monies they would be held liable and convicted.The way the law works at times is just so wrong.To take a 50 percent loss on a investment,then to have to pay a minimum of 40 percent to a litigation firm to PROVE there was deceptive on goings ?
And now a QLD Supreme Court application against the Members of the Equititrust Income Fund and the Members of the Equititrust Priority Class income Fund.?


http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...umber=10478/11
 
No Trust said:
Having money invested in the fund does not make anyone a legal expert... Sitting back and procrastinating is not the answer. There were people posting on this thread that they had confidence in the future of Equititrust earlier this year, look where we are now.

In terms of sitting back and doing nothing that's up to very individual investor. Have you spoken to Piper Alderman ? I have and I think all investors who are caught up in this disaster should do so as well and make up their own mind.
Give me another viable alternative other than sitting back and being the victim and I'll consider it... A lot of investors who have decided to join the class action have determined that this is the best option out there and doing nothing will get you nothing... Investors do not have the luxury to negotiate with international litigation finders as some have suggested, it's time to face commercial realities and sure they are not pretty and sure it would be great to get the litigation done on investor's terms but the REALITY is there is NO other option out there... If there is let's hear about it.
Click to expand...

So do you have money invested in EIF?
Your earliest posts would suggest not.
 
No Trust said:
Having money invested in the fund does not make anyone a legal expert... Sitting back and procrastinating is not the answer. There were people posting on this thread that they had confidence in the future of Equititrust earlier this year, look where we are now.

In terms of sitting back and doing nothing that's up to very individual investor. Have you spoken to Piper Alderman ? I have and I think all investors who are caught up in this disaster should do so as well and make up their own mind.
Give me another viable alternative other than sitting back and being the victim and I'll consider it... A lot of investors who have decided to join the class action have determined that this is the best option out there and doing nothing will get you nothing... Investors do not have the luxury to negotiate with international litigation finders as some have suggested, it's time to face commercial realities and sure they are not pretty and sure it would be great to get the litigation done on investor's terms but the REALITY is there is NO other option out there... If there is let's hear about it.
Click to expand...

"Legal Experts"?? Mark McIvor is a lawyer, isn't he? I don't think the lawyer qualification necessarily makes one an expert - see the reference posted by ASICK recently - http://www.bransgroves.com.au/litigation/mercedes-holdings-pty-ltd-v-waters-no-3-2011-fca-236.html - for another example of professional incompetence.

This forum is available for anyone to comment; lawyers, investors or otherwise. To presume that a lawyer's comments are all that is worthy of consideration smacks of arrogant elitism to me.

I personally prefer a range of discussion from diverse sources and encourage non-lawyers to continue to express themselves. Such expression does not necessarily lead to a victim mentality, but hopefully to a more reasonable and rounded understanding of all aspects of the matter.

You speak a lot on behalf of other people - "A lot of investors who have decided to join the class action have determined that this is the best option out there and doing nothing will get you nothing.." and "The majority of investors are in favour of a negotiated group discount..." being two recent examples. Would you care to explain on what basis you make these claims on behalf of others?
 
Can anyone give some clarification as to the reasonings behind the Qld Supreme Court application against the EIF and Premium Fund.? Greatly appreciated for some analytical thoughts on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top