"The Devil's Advocate"
A very astute analysis of the calendar of events laid out in your last few emails, Asick. One wonders who are the investors with 5% investment in the WFMIF, represented by the Convening Members Agent. xxxxx.
But to be devil's advocate for a moment - it could be argued that the investors represented by the Convening Member's agent (CMA) felt that the pain of fees in the short term were to be tolerated in order to achieve the long term gain of Trilogy acquiring the main fund when fees would then be zero!
None of the Investors behind the CMA would have achieved their aim of Trilogy becoming RE without the support of the likes of BT(Iselect wrap) and Asgard voting for Trilogy, so the question of why these 'platforms' voted for Trilogy still remains unanswered. A letter has been written to BT(Iselect wrap) requesting a reason but so far no answer has been received.
Hi Mysteryman.
re: Paragraph 1 - I was speaking about the question of whether negligence might arise out of a situation where a party/s might owe a duty of care to other parties, and if such a duty was owed, whether it was breached (that is, whether the tort of negligence (or breach of statutory duty) is applicable).
I've edited out the quote from your posting - if the answer to your (edited) query was in the affirmative, then a clear conflict of interest would arise, a situation quite troublesome for the parties you refer to. However, I've no evidence to support such a proposition.
re: Paragraph 2 - As I understood it, investors didn't cast a vote to Asgard - and yes, investors are entitled to bring proposals which cause the fund to lose (I posted that too). And, as posted, Trilogy achieving control of the fund did not give any advantage to taking over the LM FMIF (unless of course Trilogy is able to use the fund's resourses to spruik in its run for the fund - but that advantage would only be one for Trilogy - again, a cost to members on top of the .5% FUM management fee.).
To my mind, there is a simple reality, and that reality is, that on and after 19 October 2012, any reason/s that I would understand as being in the best interest's interests had dissipated - there could be only one entity which could possibly benefit from continuing along with the meeting, and that was Trilogy. There was nothing to stop the convening member pulling the meeting right up to the very eve of the meeting, perhaps later (anyone got more info on this point?).
re: Paragraph 3 - To my mind, it's the case that the meeting could not proceed without the support of the convening member (Convening Members' Agent Pty. Ltd.). So, an inquiring mind might ask "What is the basis for the convening member continuing along with the meeting after 18 October 2012?":
1. Reduced fees? No. in fact, it would result in increased fees.
2. A leg-up to take over the LM FMIF? No. In fact, LM had amended the fund's constitution so members would have a vote in the processs (something they didn't have at the last meeting).
Trilogy was the clear winner - something that could not have happened if the convening member discontinued along with the meeting.
The underlying problem, as I see it, is that members in the fund didn't have their say in the vote - if members of the fund chose the path, then so be it - but as I understand it, that wasn't the case. Again, I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
I wonder what obligations (if any) Atchison has in relation to the report generated to support Trilogy's case, a report which is far from balanced and which falls way short of giving full disclosure about Triogy, in fact, as I read it, the report did not raise even one negative aspect in relation to Trilogy management history. Maybe ASIC might know more about this subject?