Having looked at that spaghetti diagram, there must be conflicts all over the place. Trilogy are not the answer but it screams out for someone truly independent to just get in there and collect the money for investors. Any takers ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence
- Thread starter dinga
- Start date
Having looked at that spaghetti diagram, there must be conflicts all over the place. Trilogy are not the answer but it screams out for someone truly independent to just get in there and collect the money for investors. Any takers ?
Having looked at that spaghetti diagram, there must be conflicts all over the place. Trilogy are not the answer but it screams out for someone truly independent to just get in there and collect the money for investors. Any takers ?
Clearly conflicts existed between Drake, LMFMIF, and LMMPF - The LMMPF is now out of the picture (with KordaMentha) - if the LMFMIF goes to an independent receiver (not manager), then I think that would be the best outcome for investors.
IMO the worst position possible would be Trilogy (as manager) pocketing a fee based on funds under management (FUM, which includes debt) [or for that matter, any manager pocketing a fee based on FUM] and Piper Alderman and a litigation funder pocketing a BIG percentage of any litigation. Not too much for Trilogy to do if Piper Alderman and litigation funder runs the litigation, hence more PROFIT !!!!
What a dreadful position for investors to be caught up in ..
My bet - if Trilogy gets the LMFMIF, then I'll be writing about a "Four Part Trilogy Tragedy":
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
and Piper Alderman will be in there for a big % chunk of any potential litigation $$$$ !!!!
oh No !!! NOT TRILOGY !!!!
As I understand it (and I haven't given a lot of thought to the matter), an application by a fund member/s to a court of competent jurisdiction will be necessary. That's why PA had to get LM investors in order to bring the applications of recent times - without the unitholder/s, the lawyers and Trilogy have no standing to bring the applications.
Right now, the "tail" seems to be wagging the "dog" (so to speak).
You might press FTI with your concerns/wishes.
Choices for an independent receiver?
How about:
McGrathNichol
http://www.smh.com.au/business/better-news-for-banksia-investors-20130423-2ic61.html
(although it's hard not to be mindful of potential Victorian government intervention in the deal)
or:
Bentleys
http://www.bentleys.com.au/
Interestingly, the real money is in receiving the funds, not as administrator to LM Investment Limited. I wonder what FTI's move will be? Will it try to hang on to the LMFMIF and remain administrator LM Investment Management? IMO, that'd be a big risk. Will FTI try to hold on to the LMFMIF as receiver and have another administrator appointed to LM Investment Limited?
It most certainly would be painful to give up the chance to receive the LMFMIF, especially after losing the chance to receive the LMMPF to KordaMentha.
At least none of these entities KordaMentha, FTI, Trilogy, and the like have anything to lose, other than an opportunity to make a bag-full of $$$$$$.
So how does an independent receiver get appointed ?
And who would you suggest ?
As I understand it (and I haven't given a lot of thought to the matter), an application by a fund member/s to a court of competent jurisdiction will be necessary. That's why PA had to get LM investors in order to bring the applications of recent times - without the unitholder/s, the lawyers and Trilogy have no standing to bring the applications.
Right now, the "tail" seems to be wagging the "dog" (so to speak).
You might press FTI with your concerns/wishes.
Choices for an independent receiver?
How about:
McGrathNichol
http://www.smh.com.au/business/better-news-for-banksia-investors-20130423-2ic61.html
(although it's hard not to be mindful of potential Victorian government intervention in the deal)
or:
Bentleys
http://www.bentleys.com.au/
Interestingly, the real money is in receiving the funds, not as administrator to LM Investment Limited. I wonder what FTI's move will be? Will it try to hang on to the LMFMIF and remain administrator LM Investment Management? IMO, that'd be a big risk. Will FTI try to hold on to the LMFMIF as receiver and have another administrator appointed to LM Investment Limited?
It most certainly would be painful to give up the chance to receive the LMFMIF, especially after losing the chance to receive the LMMPF to KordaMentha.
At least none of these entities KordaMentha, FTI, Trilogy, and the like have anything to lose, other than an opportunity to make a bag-full of $$$$$$.
Somebody in the middle of all this current Affidavit/Trilogy/PA/ FTI/LM - once said QUOTE "It does not seem right that an application to court, with support from a small number of investors with limited information could take priority over a proper member vote, where all members receive all information and have a say UNQUOTE.
Personally I tend to agree with this statement, but it wont stop the process in the court happening.
This investor, and maybe others? have been writing to FTI expressing support and attempting to make sure they are better prepared to defend their position against PA/ Trilogy re the FMIF
I am advised that Mr Bruce (Affidavit) has been made aware of this Forum and the related links to Trilogy performance (or lack there of) as has been written about often in this Forum by ASICK
I was advised that Trilogy would have a new website for last week, its there now but contains no new information about the WFMIF , but does have all the new info re PA, Affidavit etc
www.trilogyfunds.com.au NB this is not a link
The Trilogy Monthly Income Trust looks so good I might Invest , or ask them to in-specie transfer my holdings in the WFMIF to that fund --just a joke folks
Personally I tend to agree with this statement, but it wont stop the process in the court happening.
This investor, and maybe others? have been writing to FTI expressing support and attempting to make sure they are better prepared to defend their position against PA/ Trilogy re the FMIF
I am advised that Mr Bruce (Affidavit) has been made aware of this Forum and the related links to Trilogy performance (or lack there of) as has been written about often in this Forum by ASICK
I was advised that Trilogy would have a new website for last week, its there now but contains no new information about the WFMIF , but does have all the new info re PA, Affidavit etc
www.trilogyfunds.com.au NB this is not a link
The Trilogy Monthly Income Trust looks so good I might Invest , or ask them to in-specie transfer my holdings in the WFMIF to that fund --just a joke folks
In response to Rodent69, yes I also wrote to FTI a few days ago to express concern about the move to hand control to Trilogy, and cited the instances of their poor performance that ASICK has outlined for us.
I got a non-committal reply from FTI simply saying that: "We are aware of the application which has been made by Piper Alderman and will shortly be sending some information to investors on this issue. As well as being emailed and posted this correspondence will be posted at www.lminvestmentadministration.com by Wednesday of this week." Renee Lobb - Manager Corporate Finance/Restructuring - FTI." As of yet I see nothing on the FTI website.
I also find it very odd that one or two investors can initiate a request, via Affidavit, such as handing control to Trilogy, while no apparent effort is made to canvas views of the thousands of other investors. But does this then mean that one or two of us could then file a counter-Affidavit to the Supreme Court, to try and block this move .. ? (I suggest this although this would probably be impractical for me, not being resident in Australia).
I got a non-committal reply from FTI simply saying that: "We are aware of the application which has been made by Piper Alderman and will shortly be sending some information to investors on this issue. As well as being emailed and posted this correspondence will be posted at www.lminvestmentadministration.com by Wednesday of this week." Renee Lobb - Manager Corporate Finance/Restructuring - FTI." As of yet I see nothing on the FTI website.
I also find it very odd that one or two investors can initiate a request, via Affidavit, such as handing control to Trilogy, while no apparent effort is made to canvas views of the thousands of other investors. But does this then mean that one or two of us could then file a counter-Affidavit to the Supreme Court, to try and block this move .. ? (I suggest this although this would probably be impractical for me, not being resident in Australia).
- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
In response to Rodent69, yes I also wrote to FTI a few days ago to express concern about the move to hand control to Trilogy, and cited the instances of their poor performance that ASICK has outlined for us.
I got a non-committal reply from FTI simply saying that: "We are aware of the application which has been made by Piper Alderman and will shortly be sending some information to investors on this issue. As well as being emailed and posted this correspondence will be posted at www.lminvestmentadministration.com by Wednesday of this week." Renee Lobb - Manager Corporate Finance/Restructuring - FTI." As of yet I see nothing on the FTI website.
I also find it very odd that one or two investors can initiate a request, via Affidavit, such as handing control to Trilogy, while no apparent effort is made to canvas views of the thousands of other investors. But does this then mean that one or two of us could then file a counter-Affidavit to the Supreme Court, to try and block this move .. ? (I suggest this although this would probably be impractical for me, not being resident in Australia).
It would appear from Trilogy's unit holder letter on their website, if I'm reading it correctly, that if the Supreme Court make Trilogy RE that this is a temporary situation and within 90 days they have to call a meeting for unit holders to vote on them becoming permanent. Not sure what happens if it is a resounding no vote - I guess back to the Supreme Court.
It would appear from Trilogy's unit holder letter on their website, if I'm reading it correctly, that if the Supreme Court make Trilogy RE that this is a temporary situation and within 90 days they have to call a meeting for unit holders to vote on them becoming permanent. Not sure what happens if it is a resounding no vote - I guess back to the Supreme Court.
It's great to see LM members' postings hit the forum in such a rush.
If Trilogy gets up in the court, they'll most likely stay in the fund. This is because as manager, Trilogy will call the meeting, prepare the documents, and chair the meeting - bottom line, Trilogy will have the fund's resources to cement its position as manager.
Also, if FTI doesn't have supportive affidavits, then they won't get traction in the court (or course, IMO).
And, if Trilogy gets up, then I'd guess your Mr. Bruce will be praying that Trilogy does a good job in the fund - after all, if Trilogy does a pitiful job as it's done in the PFMF and elsewhere, then I'd guess Mr. & Mrs. Bruce may have a sinking feeling for the rest of their lives - after all, it would have been they who brought Trilogy into LMFMIF members' lives [the application and the supporting affidavit will stand as testament to their deed]
... The Trilogy Monthly Income Trust looks so good I might Invest , or ask them to in-specie transfer my holdings in the WFMIF to that fund --just a joke folks ...
Some info for your consideration:
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_monthly_income_trust_alternative_comment.php
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_epping_commercial_income_trust.php
Can I post again my earlier query: if an investor can file an affidavit to sponsor a move to Trilogy, can another investor(s) similarly file an affidavit to counter this in some way .. ? Anyone know ? No doubt a naive query but it would be good to know what is the scope for legal initiative right now.
Thanks and regards.
Thanks and regards.
Court Application
Yes. It is precisely what FTI has to do. You (even in Thailand) or any other investor is entitled to bring an application at any time (but the investor/s has to bring the application at his/her/their own cost), even after (if) Trilogy is appointed by the court. FTI has standing, but (as I posted before) in the circumstances, members' affidavits will be necessary to support FTI (or another entity) in order to counter Trilogy's supporter, Mr. Bruce.
This is why, if you have a position, you just can't sit back and not give support by contacting the side you wish to support.
Can I post again my earlier query: if an investor can file an affidavit to sponsor a move to Trilogy, can another investor(s) similarly file an affidavit to counter this in some way .. ? Anyone know ? No doubt a naive query but it would be good to know what is the scope for legal initiative right now.
Thanks and regards.
Yes. It is precisely what FTI has to do. You (even in Thailand) or any other investor is entitled to bring an application at any time (but the investor/s has to bring the application at his/her/their own cost), even after (if) Trilogy is appointed by the court. FTI has standing, but (as I posted before) in the circumstances, members' affidavits will be necessary to support FTI (or another entity) in order to counter Trilogy's supporter, Mr. Bruce.
This is why, if you have a position, you just can't sit back and not give support by contacting the side you wish to support.
Thanks ASICK for clarifying that. I understand you to say that a counter affidavit could be filed even after the Court has appointed Trilogy as RE (if indeed that is the decision that is taken).
It would be good first to get the notification that FTI had promised to send (by yesterday) to hear what exactly they do intend to do - or not.
That aside, another forum participant has notified me that a Brisbane lawyer is planning to contact investors with a view to filing an affidavit countering the Trilogy move.
Regards.
It would be good first to get the notification that FTI had promised to send (by yesterday) to hear what exactly they do intend to do - or not.
That aside, another forum participant has notified me that a Brisbane lawyer is planning to contact investors with a view to filing an affidavit countering the Trilogy move.
Regards.
Thanks ASICK for clarifying that. I understand you to say that a counter affidavit could be filed even after the Court has appointed Trilogy as RE (if indeed that is the decision that is taken).
It would be good first to get the notification that FTI had promised to send (by yesterday) to hear what exactly they do intend to do - or not.
That aside, another forum participant has notified me that a Brisbane lawyer is planning to contact investors with a view to filing an affidavit countering the Trilogy move.
Regards.
I'm pleased you understood - my last paragraph should have meant that one can't sit by and do nothing if the progress of things is not to one's liking.
I understand the hearing to attempt to have Trilogy appointed as RE is on next Monday.
Even though I'm not an investor, I too am keen to learn what FTI will do - I most certainly hope that FTI doesn't underestimate the self-interest of the dynamic duo (Piper Alderman and Trilogy).
FTI has just sent out a circular to investors which I have received. It deals with the technicalities of evaluating assets and liabilities etc of FMIF and feeder funds - but says not a single word about the impending court hearing of the application to entrust control to Trilogy.
FTI has just sent out a circular to investors which I have received. It deals with the technicalities of evaluating assets and liabilities etc of FMIF and feeder funds - but says not a single word about the impending court hearing of the application to entrust control to Trilogy.
Why am I not surprised? FTI haven't updated either website. Are you able to post the document on ASF?
Thanks ASICK for clarifying that. I understand you to say that a counter affidavit could be filed even after the Court has appointed Trilogy as RE (if indeed that is the decision that is taken).
It would be good first to get the notification that FTI had promised to send (by yesterday) to hear what exactly they do intend to do - or not.
That aside, another forum participant has notified me that a Brisbane lawyer is planning to contact investors with a view to filing an affidavit countering the Trilogy move.
Regards.
Taja
Could you post the name and contact details of the Brisbane lawyer you mentioned. I would join and contribute financially to any such move.
Dudd
Documents & Potential Opportunities
You might want to find out what it's all about first?
Taja, thanks for posting the document.
While I'm all for seeing investors get money back quickly, I would have thought paying off the facility would be first in line - especially with the over-the-top interest rate the fund's paying for the pleasure of holding the facility.
Taja
Could you post the name and contact details of the Brisbane lawyer you mentioned. I would join and contribute financially to any such move.
Dudd
You might want to find out what it's all about first?
Taja, thanks for posting the document.
While I'm all for seeing investors get money back quickly, I would have thought paying off the facility would be first in line - especially with the over-the-top interest rate the fund's paying for the pleasure of holding the facility.
Taja
Could you post the name and contact details of the Brisbane lawyer you mentioned. I would join and contribute financially to any such move.
Dudd
Dear Dudd -
I was contacted by another Forum participant who told me of the Brisbane lawyer but as of yet I have no contact details for this lawyer. I will certainly forward to you if/when I get such details.
Regards.
Class Actions - ASIC
There's more to class actions than some of you may think:-
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...chemes and proof of debt schemes?opendocument
''Class actions can provide access to justice for a large number of consumers who may otherwise have difficulties in resolving disputes.
But there is also an inherent tension in these types of schemes between the interests of the funders, liquidators, lawyers and participating members.
Our guidance about the recent law changes in this area helps in the protection of members by setting out expectations of what is required to satisfy the obligation to maintain adequate practices and follow certain procedures for managing any conflicts."
http://tinyurl.com/bwpevyt
"RG 248.11 The nature of the arrangements between the parties involved in a litigation scheme or a proof of debt scheme has the potential to lead to a divergence between the interests of the members and the interests of the funder and lawyers because:
(a) the funder has an interest in minimising the legal and administrative costs associated with the scheme and maximising their return;
(b) lawyers have an interest in receiving fees and costs associated with the provision of legal services; and
(c) the members have an interest in minimising the legal and administrative costs associated with the scheme, minimising the remuneration paid to the funder and maximising the amounts recovered from the defendant or insolvent company."
"RG 248.12 The divergence of interests may result in conflicts between the interests of the funder, lawyers and members. These conflicts of interest can be actual or potential, and present or future."
"RG 248.20 We are concerned with ensuring that you have practices and procedures in place to protect the interests of members and that you follow these practices and procedures."
"When do you need to comply with the obligation? - RG 248.21 You must be able to show that you can comply with the obligation to maintain adequate practices and follow certain procedures for managing conflicts of interest from the time you commence recruitment of prospective members to the litigation scheme or proof of debt scheme until all members cease to have an interest in the scheme.''
''Independence of the funder, lawyers and members - Your written procedures must include procedures about how to deal with situations in which there is a pre-existing relationship between any of the funder, lawyer and members: reg 7.6.01AB(4)(d)(vi). - Section D"
There's more to class actions than some of you may think:-
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...chemes and proof of debt schemes?opendocument
''Class actions can provide access to justice for a large number of consumers who may otherwise have difficulties in resolving disputes.
But there is also an inherent tension in these types of schemes between the interests of the funders, liquidators, lawyers and participating members.
Our guidance about the recent law changes in this area helps in the protection of members by setting out expectations of what is required to satisfy the obligation to maintain adequate practices and follow certain procedures for managing any conflicts."
http://tinyurl.com/bwpevyt
"RG 248.11 The nature of the arrangements between the parties involved in a litigation scheme or a proof of debt scheme has the potential to lead to a divergence between the interests of the members and the interests of the funder and lawyers because:
(a) the funder has an interest in minimising the legal and administrative costs associated with the scheme and maximising their return;
(b) lawyers have an interest in receiving fees and costs associated with the provision of legal services; and
(c) the members have an interest in minimising the legal and administrative costs associated with the scheme, minimising the remuneration paid to the funder and maximising the amounts recovered from the defendant or insolvent company."
"RG 248.12 The divergence of interests may result in conflicts between the interests of the funder, lawyers and members. These conflicts of interest can be actual or potential, and present or future."
"RG 248.20 We are concerned with ensuring that you have practices and procedures in place to protect the interests of members and that you follow these practices and procedures."
"When do you need to comply with the obligation? - RG 248.21 You must be able to show that you can comply with the obligation to maintain adequate practices and follow certain procedures for managing conflicts of interest from the time you commence recruitment of prospective members to the litigation scheme or proof of debt scheme until all members cease to have an interest in the scheme.''
''Independence of the funder, lawyers and members - Your written procedures must include procedures about how to deal with situations in which there is a pre-existing relationship between any of the funder, lawyer and members: reg 7.6.01AB(4)(d)(vi). - Section D"
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 850
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
