LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

[ASICK]

"A Frozen Fund is a Manager's Delight"

What's disappointing is the lack of interaction on this thread by other investors... ASICK I know you are not an investor but you seem to be doing all the work... I feel the same on the Equititrust thread... Are Australian's this apathetic ??? Its their money at stake...

In any event, full credit to you ASICK for all your hard work...

To LM Investors, this thread is closely monitored by all parties involved and if you want your voice to be heard make a stance don't sit on the fence...

The Equititrust thread was read by all and sundry, including the bankers and the regulatory authorities... It made a difference. Don't underestimate the power of this tool...

Thanks No Trust. All the hard work went before - in the compilation of the information, information that's now all too easy to bring forth on demand: http://www.moneymagik.com/

www.moneymagik.com/ is a factual site, and facts are something that many investors don't want to come to grips with. I've said it before, but many investors have no idea how to read the fund's financial reports and rg45s - many investors (in damaged funds) think that unit price has substance but all so often a buoyant unit price does no more than sustain a healthy management fee for the responsible entity while not translating into actual cash for the punters.

The (then) CPFMF went down in 2008, so we've been at it a long time - I can understand that many LM investors are just as naïve about their own predicament as we were back there in 2008. I also guess that some members of this forum may be tied up in one of the two applications before the court at this time.

Nevertheless, what I post is mostly history, and if investors aren't careful and don't take note, then history may very well repeat itself, but this time for LM investors.

Optimism has its place in life, but not in damaged managed investment schemes/funds where so many see such funds as the deal of a lifetime - "A Frozen Fund is a Manager's Delight"

As a note, I recall speaking to a fellow employed by a fund manager, he said (paraphrased), "in the old days, if we wanted information, we'd have to go the local library and search thru the old issues of papers, now all one has to do is type a search into Google" - therein lies the power of the internet - and yes No Trust, this forum and websites are valuable resources for investors, resources which sadly remain underutilized.

 

[RODENT69]

ASICK, you are correct that some Forum Members have a bit on their plates at the moment, we are waiting for specific things to be resolved by relevant parties, including court actions.

ASICK has recently written about the need for an Inderpendent Receiver to be appointed to wind up ALL the funds. I certainly agree. This has been communicated to the parties involved , in the strongest possible mannner.

I dont think FTI for one liked hearing that they were not wanted. Most(if not all) Investors want is the funds to be wound up ASAP and whats left of our money to be returned to us

I am advised that the long awaited Audited Return for the LM WFMIF 2012 F/Y (with Trilogy as RE) will shortly be made available.

PS Loved the Pirates video

 

[Mysteryman]

Anyone have any news on yesterday's outcome?

 

[ASICK]

Get It Over With - ASAP

ASICK, you are correct that some Forum Members have a bit on their plates at the moment, we are waiting for specific things to be resolved by relevant parties, including court actions.

ASICK has recently written about the need for an Inderpendent Receiver to be appointed to wind up ALL the funds. I certainly agree. This has been communicated to the parties involved , in the strongest possible mannner.

I dont think FTI for one liked hearing that they were not wanted. Most(if not all) Investors want is the funds to be wound up ASAP and whats left of our money to be returned to us

I am advised that the long awaited Audited Return for the LM WFMIF 2012 F/Y (with Trilogy as RE) will shortly be made available.

PS Loved the Pirates video

yes, how apt, "The Jolly Rodger".

I understand why FTI would want to control the LMFMIF, on a fee based as a % of FUM, it's a real "honey pot". I find the words "in the best interests of investors" ring a little tinny and disclose just how naïve the government was when it enacted Corporations Act 601FC.

FTI says that, even if successful in the appeal against the decision to appoint KordaMentha, FTI doesn't expect that the court would reappoint LM. I think the right thing to do is to appoint an independent receiver to each fund so the funds will have the opportunity to pursue every legal opportunity without fear of favour or conflict.

I wouldn't expect FTI to like hearing that, and I wouldn't expect LMIML creditors to like it either - after all, all those $$$ no longer being fed back to LMIML is not conducive to recovery of monies owing.

I really don't think there's any cheap way out for LM investors - but the sooner the funds are wound up, I think the better the outcome will be. As a PFMF investor, it seems to me that investors would have been better if Trilogy had knocked the fund off three years ago - at least we'd have earned interest and not paid the massive management fee: I don't think Trilogy would be happy with fees for only one year.

It seems to me that the longer the fund exists, the greater the outpouring of funds to management and hangers-on. The best case one might expect is that any increase might cover costs, but the resultant $$$ return would probably not be any better, even years down the track.

A frozen fund is a resource that benefits management (and others), but not investors.

 

[sht4branes]

"I really don't think there's any cheap way out for LM investors - but the sooner the funds are wound up, I think the better the outcome will be. As a PFMF investor, it seems to me that investors would have been better if Trilogy had knocked the fund off three years ago - at least we'd have earned interest and not paid the massive management fee: I don't think Trilogy would be happy with fees for only one year.

It seems to me that the longer the fund exists, the greater the outpouring of funds to management and hangers-on. The best case one might expect is that any increase might cover costs, but the resultant $$$ return would probably not be any better, even years down the track.

A frozen fund is a resource that benefits management (and others), but not investors."

I totally agree ASICK.

Sell the assets, reimburse investors and stop the suits dining out on the carcass of our investments. An independent administrator needs to be appointed for each fund. Keep Trilogy out as they have an awful record over promising, under delivering and fee gouging.

If it takes a "Fire Sale", so be it. Some money now is better than a false promise of future money, which may never arrive. We can all move on and go after the FA's who recommended LM Mortgage in the first place.These are the major culprits, in my view.

I believe investors get to vote about the RE at the end of this month.I am not aware of the result from yesterday's court hearing.

 

[Taja]

Dear all - my understanding is that the Supreme Court hearings have been adjourned: the hearing on the FTI vs Korda Mentha tussle over MPF to 10th May, and the hearing on the FTI vs Trilogy tussle over FMIF to 13th May.

It is very odd that FTI has itself not seen fit to inform us of these changes in timetable - the FTI "LMinvestmentadministration" website remains unchanged and still today refers to the hearings due yesterday 2nd May ! So much for on-the-ball management, transparency and for the considerable hourly fees they are earning to manage things (not that Trilogy have shown themselves to be any better).

I am also persuaded by the arguments for moving to an independent receiver and for an end to the haemorrage of % FUM "fees" being creamed off to no good purpose as far as we investors are concerned.

 

[ASICK]

Sauteed Mushrooms Anyone?

The MFS Premium Income Fund, taken over by Wellington Capital - Ms. Hutson at the helm.

http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=15

Here's Wellington Captial's Explanatory Memorandum:
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf

(see page 56)
31 December 2007 Financials: $760,149,000 ($0.99/unit)
31 May 2008 Carrying value: $691,195,000 ($0.92/unit)
Estimated realizable value (if assets worked thru): $341,171,000 ($0.45/unit)
Estimated value if assets liquidated by 31 March 2009: $108,435,000 ($0.14/unit)

30 June 2008 Financials - total net assets $335.782,000
(page 8 - also see note 7)
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Annual Report 2008 - Premium Income Fund.pdf

The meeting was held in May 2008 - it might have been worth waiting until receipt of the fund's 2008 financials which revealed that as at 30 June 2008, unitholder equity had dropped (in one month) to about the realizable value spruiked in the EM - ($335.8m v. $341.2m)

Nevermind the $0.14/unit guess for liquidation, the $0.45/unit guess for the outcome if the assets were worked thru suddenly looked like crap. How could anyone think that a fund that dropped from $0.99/unit (31 Dec 2007) to $0.92/unit (31 May 2008) to about $0.45/unit (30 Jun 2008) could realize $0.45/unit in the future?

Actually, I would have thought the $0.14/unit by 31 March 2009 would have suddenly looked very good indeed.

Here's M.W.'s take in 2008: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-must-step-in-on-behalf-of-pif-investors-20080911-4e5o.html

"Many PIF investors believe the only options available to them are to either accept the offer by Wellington Capital to run their fund, or watch it liquidated at 14c a unit.

They have been led to believe a "no" vote means liquidation and therefore losses. This is wrong. ASIC needs to step in. Now that PIF's parent Octaviar (the old MFS) is bound for administration and PIF has $200 million in claims to pursue, the imperative for clear and independent instructions is even greater.

The best outcome for PIF would be the orderly work-out out of the fund's external investments and loan book and a return of capital to investors.

The best way for PIF investors to achieve this would be to vote "no" to the Wellington proposal and appoint their own manager to wind-up the fund and pursue any legal claims." (emphasis added)

Well, the PIF was listed - since then, all fund security assets (except those under contract) have been transferred (without reference to investors) into a company called Asset Resolution Limited (ARL) in exchange for unitholders holding shares in the company.
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2012/nsx release-sale-of-assets-to-arl-5-sep-2012.pdf

I'm told that capital return has been in about the mid-single digits (cents/unit) - the value of ARL shares? no one seems to know.

Sautéed mushrooms anyone?

 

[ASICK]

... It is very odd that FTI has itself not seen fit to inform us of these changes in timetable - the FTI "LMinvestmentadministration" website remains unchanged and still today refers to the hearings due yesterday 2nd May ! So much for on-the-ball management, transparency and for the considerable hourly fees they are earning to manage things (not that Trilogy have shown themselves to be any better). ...

I agree, it's a poor show that investors aren't promptly kept up to date via the website: http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/fmif_and_feeder_funds

Nothing new on Trilogy's website either: http://www.trilogyfunds.com.au/newsroom/latest-news/
(darn, they didn't report the loss of investors' capital in the Trilogy Healthcare REIT:
http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php )

Nothing new on Piper Alderman's website either: http://www.piperalderman.com.au/firm/lm-investment-management-limited

 

[Titinet]

I'm not familiar with Australia law at all. I feel quite desparated about the procedure totally opaque:
- no clear information about where we go
- no connexion between investors (especially foreigners)
- Got impression that few investors can represent all investors
- manipulation of few investors by interested parties
- battle to dispute the cakes by few firms except participation of investors


Why FIT can't send to all investors an explication about the procedure, different possiblities and a list of candidants as potential RE. So all investors can express opinions and vote to a resolution...

Very strange for me....

 

[Taja]

I'm not familiar with Australia law at all. I feel quite desparated about the procedure totally opaque:
- no clear information about where we go
- no connexion between investors (especially foreigners)
- Got impression that few investors can represent all investors
- manipulation of few investors by interested parties
- battle to dispute the cakes by few firms except participation of investors


Why FIT can't send to all investors an explication about the procedure, different possiblities and a list of candidants as potential RE. So all investors can express opinions and vote to a resolution...

Very strange for me....

Dear Titinet - I fully agree. I am also not Australian but was persuaded by my financial advisor to invest in LM because I was told that the Australian financial market was very well regulated. Well, at least in regard to mortgage funds, this seems to be very questionable. And, like you, I also find it incredible that the arrangements leave individual investors like us so isolated from each other and that any form of collective action is so difficult - and not only for foreign investors, like us, but also for Australians too. FTI were unwilling to provide me with any the list of other investors even though I understand that legally we are entitled to apply for this information.

And, on top of that, knowing how and where to get "disinterested" guidance on the best options is also very hard. The financial advisor who persuaded me into this is unable and unwilling to offer any help at all to me or to the many other investors on their books - no surprise perhaps.

What surprises me from my perusal of the Australian media is the lack of any apparent public stirrings of anger and outrage at the way LMIM (and predecessor outfits such as Equitrust) have been treating investors - I would have thought the retirement community in Australia might have had some political muscle and would have been pressing for legal/regulatory reform. Or maybe it all takes time ..

 

[Titinet]

Fully agreed. By the way, who can control the expenses on the funds? If it's trustee or RE who base their fees on the managements of the funds, of course they will keep the fund as long as possible under their management, instead of manage the fund to minimise the loss. Is it possible to link their fees to the value of the funds?

The class action may not be a good option, taking into account of procedure and lawyer fees. To sell the assets can be an option, or find another solution to continue the projects and make them valuable. That's the role of FTI or replaced RE, for the best interest of investors...

Quite strange also that they don't talk about Mr Drak, the main responsible of all the mess...

 

[ASICK]

ASIC - Drake - The PIF is at an End

For information of those not familiar with Australian law - ASIC is not a prudential regulator. ASIC regulates form, not substance. That is, if the manager is hopeless, that's the problem for investors, not ASIC. If the manager doesn't fill a form out properly or comply with law, that's a matter for ASIC.

Mere losses of money are not concerns for ASIC. I get the impression there'll be no recovery of loss from Mr. Drake for any LM fund - it seems to me that a bank holds sway over the mansion on the Gold Coast. If Mr. Drake is bankrupted, then that's it - remember, his super is safe.

As I understand it, there only one directors' indemnity insurance policy held by LMIML with a maximum (total) claim of about $20m - so it seems to me that the $20m will potentially be shared by all LM investors (if a director/or directors of LMIML is found by a court to be negligent) - of course, I'm sure that the facts relating to a potential claim and the $20m will be verified in due course.

It's interesting that I posted about Wellington Capital this afternoon - look what's just been sent to me:
In June 2013: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021726980.PDF

After all of this in May 2008:
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf

now Wellington wants to move all the assets off to ARL and close the fund. Sure, there's gold in those assets, just not for investors.

Yep .. that's working in investors' best interests ...

 

[Titinet]

Re: ASIC - Drake - The PIF is at an End

It's really encouraging to invest in Australia, the most safe country for investors as told by our FA!

 

[Mysteryman]

Latest email rom Piper Alderman:

"LM First Mortgage Income Fund (LMFMIF)

The application to seek a replacement RE for the LM First Mortgage Income Fund was listed yesterday. A number of parties intervened in those proceedings including ASIC and some members of the LMFMIF. The unit holders who appeared thought that a winding up application of the LMFMIF was appropriate and that LMIM should undertake that process with a supervisor.

Our clients opposed that application and pressed that the application to wind up the Fund be heard first before any application to wind up the LMFMIF was heard. Any application to wind up the LMFMIF with supervision will necessarily mean two sets of costs will be incurred. Unfortunately, the Court was not minded to adopt an approach where the application to appoint a new RE was heard and stood the matter to wind down the LMFMIF over for hearing to 13 May 2013. At that hearing we will again urge the court to hear the application for a new RE prior to any application to wind up the LMFMIF and appoint someone to supervise that occurring.

It is only in the event that an application to change the RE is unsuccessful that our clients will seek that a receiver and manager be appointed to the LMFMIF.

We have now also been served with another application by ASIC to wind up the LMFMIF, appoint a supervisor for the winding up and a receiver and manager over the LMFMIF.

It is our strong view that members will not be best served if two people are doing the job which can be best done by one. We do not understand, on present information, that the winding up order or the appointment of a receiver in any way diminishes the entitlements of the RE to its fees and expenses or would otherwise be in the interests of members.

We are disappointed that applications have been filed to wind up the LMFMIF and appoint receivers or supervisors. Our clients are only seeking orders in this regard if the application to replace the RE is unsuccessful.

We remain of the firm view that the appointment of a new RE is the most cost effective way for the LMFMIF to operate. Our clients are seeking to replace the RE to ensure unit holders retain some value in the LMFMIF and to prevent what has occurred in the Equititrust funds. In Equititrust the RE remained with liquidators in control and receivers are in control of the assets with two sets of fees being incurred and sought to be recovered from that LMFMIF. We do not believe this a case like Equititrust where the RE cannot be changed without penalty to the LMFMIF accordingly we think that approach is not appropriate in respect of the LMFMIF.

It is also our firm view that the best approach is for the RE to be changed."

 

[Taja]

Good on you Mysteryman for making public this letter from Piper Alderman (I had also received it). A lot of what she says or claims here is not clear to me and goes over my head - I would much appreciate a commentary from someone who knows the issues better!

Thanks in advance - and, to echo other posts on this page - many thanks again to those who post so frequently and knowledgeably here and who have helped educate other investors such as myself.

Regards.

 

[rachelg]

It seems a positive step that Kordea have been appointed (even if to be appealed) as supposedly independent to deal with the LM Managed Performance Funds. However, their latest letter does not give positive reading - seems lot of dubious dealings, loans to top guy in LM, many of loans are not properly secured....and all this fighting between parties sounds like we will get little back as investors.

Certainly winding things up and getting something back sounds preferably - otherwise long delays and court fees and legal fees....nothing left for investors.

 

[ASICK]

That Pesky Piper Alderman & Other Things

... It is only in the event that an application to change the RE is unsuccessful that our clients will seek that a receiver and manager be appointed to the LMFMIF.

We have now also been served with another application by ASIC to wind up the LMFMIF, appoint a supervisor for the winding up and a receiver and manager over the LMFMIF.

It is our strong view that members will not be best served if two people are doing the job which can be best done by one. We do not understand, on present information, that the winding up order or the appointment of a receiver in any way diminishes the entitlements of the RE to its fees and expenses or would otherwise be in the interests of members.

We are disappointed that applications have been filed to wind up the LMFMIF and appoint receivers or supervisors. Our clients are only seeking orders in this regard if the application to replace the RE is unsuccessful.

We remain of the firm view that the appointment of a new RE is the most cost effective way for the LMFMIF to operate. Our clients are seeking to replace the RE to ensure unit holders retain some value in the LMFMIF and to prevent what has occurred in the Equititrust funds. ... We do not believe this a case like Equititrust where the RE cannot be changed without penalty to the LMFMIF accordingly we think that approach is not appropriate in respect of the LMFMIF.

It is also our firm view that the best approach is for the RE to be changed."

A communication bloated with the first person, "we" and "our" (not relating to its client) - when one writes on behalf of a client, one uses the term "my client", or on behalf of a firm, "our client", this document from Piper Alderman is most certainly not merely one sent on behalf of its client, but rather from itself also.

Examples of Piper Alderman's content "We remain", "We think the approach is not appropriate", "It is also our firm view". Seems to me that Piper Alderman meddles too much, and it could very well be that investors might be getting sick and tired of that meddling.

"In Equititrust the RE remained with liquidators in control and receivers are in control of the assets with two sets of fees being incurred and sought to be recovered from that LMFMIF." - well, No Trust might comment on this little gem. A read of the "Equititrust" thread on ASF might be illuminating:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19877&page=162 [see post 3230]

Also see:
http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Receiver/Receivers Reports - 20130418 - 12th Report to Investors.pdf [para 2.3 on page 4]

Let's not forget, Piper Alderman is meddling in Equititrust too.

It's great to see investor participation and it's great to see documents posted by members.

It's refreshing to see ASIC take a more active (and positive) role - I only wish they'd acted for the PFMF back in 2009.

 

[No Trust]

Re: That Pesky Piper Alderman & Other Things

Exactly ASICK, what are Piper Alderman on about... The court appointed David Whyte from BDO and McIvor appointed Hall Chadwick as an administrator in a hair brained sheme to save his ass with some very dubious individuals some who have now been banned by ASIC. Hall Chadwick promised on 2 occasions to not claim fees from the funds and then in a very gutless move decided to go back on their promise... The QLD Supreme Court also set out the responsibilities of each of the multiple insolvency practitioners to prevent duplication... The only ones duplicating fees are Hall Chadwick and in a delusional move now want to claim against the funds. As you can see from your attached links the claim went no where and nothing was filed in the Supreme Court...

In the event that they do, they will have a hell of a fight in the media and the court of public opinion... They will lose and be portrayed as a greedy opportunistic insolvency firm that goes back on its word and attacks innocent elderly investors...

Piper Alderman should get its facts straight...

A communication bloated with the first person, "we" and "our" (not relating to its client) - when one writes on behalf of a client, one uses the term "my client", or on behalf of a firm, "our client", this document from Piper Alderman is most certainly not merely one sent on behalf of its client, but rather from itself also.

Examples of Piper Alderman's content "We remain", "We think the approach is not appropriate", "It is also our firm view". Seems to me that Piper Alderman meddles too much, and it could very well be that investors might be getting sick and tired of that meddling.

"In Equititrust the RE remained with liquidators in control and receivers are in control of the assets with two sets of fees being incurred and sought to be recovered from that LMFMIF." - well, No Trust might comment on this little gem. A read of the "Equititrust" thread on ASF might be illuminating:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19877&page=162 [see post 3230]

Also see:
http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Receiver/Receivers Reports - 20130418 - 12th Report to Investors.pdf [para 2.3 on page 4]

Let's not forget, Piper Alderman is meddling in Equititrust too.

It's great to see investor participation and it's great to see documents posted by members.

It's refreshing to see ASIC take a more active (and positive) role - I only wish they'd acted for the PFMF back in 2009.

 

[ASICK]

Sharing

Exactly ASICK, what are Piper Alderman on about... The court appointed David Whyte from BDO and McIvor appointed Hall Chadwick as an administrator in a hair brained sheme to save his ass with some very dubious individuals some who have now been banned by ASIC. Hall Chadwick promised on 2 occasions to not claim fees from the funds and then in a very gutless move decided to go back on their promise... The QLD Supreme Court also set out the responsibilities of each of the multiple insolvency practitioners to prevent duplication... The only ones duplicating fees are Hall Chadwick and in a delusional move now want to claim against the funds. As you can see from your attached links the claim went no where and nothing was filed in the Supreme Court...

In the event that they do, they will have a hell of a fight in the media and the court of public opinion... They will lose and be portrayed as a greedy opportunistic insolvency firm that goes back on its word and attacks innocent elderly investors...

Piper Alderman should get its facts straight...

It really is important to post all communications which aren't listed on open websites - this is because there are those amongst us who have interests and knowledge about other events and names - additional information is useful in piecing together a more complete picture of what's going on - additional information brings the broader context to communications.

I remember being shown the list of names of those who attended the LM meeting in Sydney last year - as soon as I saw "Rojacan Pty. Ltd." listed then I knew that Trilogy was interested in LM funds - Rodger was there - Drake was not. I knew of Rojacan Pty. Ltd. as the entity associated with Rodger Bacon which seeded the Trilogy Healthcare REIT - the fund in which investors lost ALL of their capital - crikey, the ANZ bank lost near $900k (the only good news) - Rojacan Pty. Ltd. took a handsome interest rate and existed the fund without loss - punters lost all:
http://www.moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php

I'm sure "Rojacan Pty. Ltd." meant nothing to LM investors, and particularly, I'm confident that it meant nothing to LMIML - but such is the power of knowledge, it can forewarn, and it can educate, and if appropriate action is taken with that knowledge in mind, it can protect.

If you receive documents and choose not to post them, that is your prerogative, but it also might be a costly mistake. Many entities are fearful of disclosure because the internet has brought instant communications and a broader range of critical views - there's no need to alone in these messes anymore - get the most from the internet: post and disclose.

MORE: on the losses in the Trilogy Healthcare REIT and elsewhere - I wonder why Piper Alderman isn't forthcoming about Trilogy's failures? I would have thought it should have disclosed the failures:

http://www.moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php

and Trilogy's Philip Ashley Ryan's breach of trust in the Supreme Court of Queensland? http://www.moneymagik.com/trilogy1.php

 

[ASICK]

Philip Ashley Ryan

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...nd-was-once-sued/story-e6freon6-1225736498354

It's worthwhile speaking to this issue.

"Mr Ryan stressed that he and his fellow directors had to bear personal liability for the actions of a rogue employee, who made the loan back in 1999. "There are completely different regulations today. Our compliance is totally different to what it was then," he said."

He's right about the rogue employee - whose name happened to be "Blackadder" - yipes !!!!
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...ailed+solicitors+mortgage+scheme?openDocument
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2006/520.html

but what Ryan didn't volunteer was that he (and others) was found to have breached a client's trust in a completely separate matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

At first instance:
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2006/QSC06-003.pdf

On appeal:
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2006/QCA06-432.pdf

The defendants (Ryan et al) attempted to appeal on issue estoppel - that's where they plead that the matter had been dealt with before and so, the judge in the Supreme Court of Qld should have followed the judge in the Federal Court (the ASIC case) - but the Qld. Court of Appeal wouldn't have a bar of it - and dismissed the appeal.

To be clear, there were TWO cases, in the Federal Court (the ASIC case) and the fault was put down to a fraud by a fellow named "Blackadder" - the second was in the Supreme court of Queensland where Ryan and others were found to have breached a client's trust.

"Trilogy chairman Rodger Bacon defended Mr Ryan. "He's a fine guy with great skills and abilities and has never been restricted by any legal body," Mr Bacon said."

and while that may be true, Bacon also didn't bother to disclose Ryan's breach of trust.

I'm afraid to say that Anthony Marx's reporting of this matter was quite pitiful - superficial research has simply let Trilogy off the hook once again.