LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence
- Thread starter dinga
- Start date
ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
Hi Rodent, any idea how much (per unit)?
I just noticed a heap of new documents listed on LM's site re: ASIC (bottom of page):
http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation
and the grounds?
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Statement_of_Grounds__ASIC_.pdf
A substantial and interesting affidavit:
http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation
(see page 44 - )
Read the letter at page 81 - wow!
and page 101 - wow!
Hi Rodent, any idea how much (per unit)?
I just noticed a heap of new documents listed on LM's site re: ASIC (bottom of page):
http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation
and the grounds?
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Statement_of_Grounds__ASIC_.pdf
A substantial and interesting affidavit:
http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation
(see page 44 - )
Read the letter at page 81 - wow!
and page 101 - wow!
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
What what what???
I can't seem to find any letter that is more than a couple of pages long....
Ah... found it.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
ASIC is going after ... the trustees? Am I reading that right? Is that good for investors?? Too many new terms for me to digest it fully. Help?
What what what???
I can't seem to find any letter that is more than a couple of pages long....
Ah... found it.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
ASIC is going after ... the trustees? Am I reading that right? Is that good for investors?? Too many new terms for me to digest it fully. Help?
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
Of course you can't .. . I posted the wrong link !
Here's the correct link: http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
ASIC letters at:
Page 81
Page 101
Page 108
Page 110
Also note replies.
Sorry .. I had a number of windows open & picked up the wrong link.
Actually the whole Affidavit is a good read.
ASIC is really playing hardball. I suspect the meeting is going to get a good run in court next month.
Of course you can't .. . I posted the wrong link !
Here's the correct link: http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
ASIC letters at:
Page 81
Page 101
Page 108
Page 110
Also note replies.
Sorry .. I had a number of windows open & picked up the wrong link.
Actually the whole Affidavit is a good read.
ASIC is really playing hardball. I suspect the meeting is going to get a good run in court next month.
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
So how is this good for investors? I do get how ASIC is basically a watchdog and them playing hardball is good for the public, and therefore investors, but can anyone spell this out in financial terms? What if the administers are found to be in violation of some law or something? I don't understand!!
So how is this good for investors? I do get how ASIC is basically a watchdog and them playing hardball is good for the public, and therefore investors, but can anyone spell this out in financial terms? What if the administers are found to be in violation of some law or something? I don't understand!!
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
In order to gain an understanding, I think you should take the time to read the documents I referred to.
So how is this good for investors? I do get how ASIC is basically a watchdog and them playing hardball is good for the public, and therefore investors, but can anyone spell this out in financial terms? What if the administers are found to be in violation of some law or something? I don't understand!!
In order to gain an understanding, I think you should take the time to read the documents I referred to.
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
Oh I am. I'm a techie, not much of a lawyer. I do appreciate your help.
Oh I am. I'm a techie, not much of a lawyer. I do appreciate your help.
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
Dear ASICK - thanks again for bringing this ASIC Affidavit to our attention (on the previous Page of this thread) at http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
In addition to the documents and pages you have highlighted, I think the letter from ASIC to FTI's lawyers on page 31 of the Affidavit is very important. Basically ASIC is highlighting the various areas where FTI has been wilfully misleading investors before the Vote in regard to the pros and cons of options to steer the Vote in its favour ... And I know at least one IFA that bought this line and was spreading it around amongst the investors on its books. Of course, the whole Vote of 13th June has now been revealed as a charade and waste of time and money.
Regards.
Dear ASICK - thanks again for bringing this ASIC Affidavit to our attention (on the previous Page of this thread) at http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
In addition to the documents and pages you have highlighted, I think the letter from ASIC to FTI's lawyers on page 31 of the Affidavit is very important. Basically ASIC is highlighting the various areas where FTI has been wilfully misleading investors before the Vote in regard to the pros and cons of options to steer the Vote in its favour ... And I know at least one IFA that bought this line and was spreading it around amongst the investors on its books. Of course, the whole Vote of 13th June has now been revealed as a charade and waste of time and money.
Regards.
Money, Money, Money.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
pp. 101 - 103
As it goes (in my view):
FTI (as administrator of LMIML) caused a feeder fund to call the meeting via the fund's custodian (s. 252B).
ASIC alleges the meeting is void because there is no evidence that members of the feeder fund (the members whose votes may be cast) were consulted.
The "see through voting" provisions would be defeated if the manager (LM(FTI)) did not consult investors.
The votes of the custodian do not satisfy the meaning of "votes that may be cast" (s. 253E).
Corporations Act 2001:
s. 601FL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fl.html
s. 252B: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s252b.html
s. 253E: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s253e.html
s. 1322: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s1322.html
Yes, even ASIC recognizes that it's about $$$$$ (affidavit p. 102, document page 2, paragraph 1.)
"a process likely to generate significant professional fees for the persons or entity so involved"
Could be that FTI might have some trouble in court over the meeting - golly, another costs order won't be pleasant.
Hi Taja, yes, the whole affidavit is worth reading. Thanks for pointing out that particular document.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
pp. 101 - 103
As it goes (in my view):
FTI (as administrator of LMIML) caused a feeder fund to call the meeting via the fund's custodian (s. 252B).
ASIC alleges the meeting is void because there is no evidence that members of the feeder fund (the members whose votes may be cast) were consulted.
The "see through voting" provisions would be defeated if the manager (LM(FTI)) did not consult investors.
The votes of the custodian do not satisfy the meaning of "votes that may be cast" (s. 253E).
Corporations Act 2001:
s. 601FL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fl.html
s. 252B: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s252b.html
s. 253E: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s253e.html
s. 1322: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s1322.html
Yes, even ASIC recognizes that it's about $$$$$ (affidavit p. 102, document page 2, paragraph 1.)
"a process likely to generate significant professional fees for the persons or entity so involved"
Could be that FTI might have some trouble in court over the meeting - golly, another costs order won't be pleasant.
Hi Taja, yes, the whole affidavit is worth reading. Thanks for pointing out that particular document.
Financial Advisors
Taja, you have to keep in mind that it's in the advisors' best (financial) interests to see FTI(LM) stay as RE of the LMFMIF - the advisors are creditors of LM and so the income stream from the LMFMIF is the ONLY way that LMIML is able to derive an income to repay creditors. I think that investors should seek alternative professional advice (on a fee for service basis) to that of any "free" advice from an advisor who is a creditor of LMIML.
Taja, you have to keep in mind that it's in the advisors' best (financial) interests to see FTI(LM) stay as RE of the LMFMIF - the advisors are creditors of LM and so the income stream from the LMFMIF is the ONLY way that LMIML is able to derive an income to repay creditors. I think that investors should seek alternative professional advice (on a fee for service basis) to that of any "free" advice from an advisor who is a creditor of LMIML.
Re: Financial Advisors
Okay, you see this is why I need you guys. I read everything cover to cover ”” sometimes several times ”” and didn't pick up AT ALL the stuff you're going on about. Maybe all my contributions to Open Source forums is paying off in some weird karma equation...
This professional, independent advice I should be seeking. I would appreciate any and all pointers. I'm an American and live in China; I don't know diddly about Australian law nor have any such contacts.
What's a costs order? Unpleasant to whom? I don't understand the implications (esp to investors).
Okay, you see this is why I need you guys. I read everything cover to cover ”” sometimes several times ”” and didn't pick up AT ALL the stuff you're going on about. Maybe all my contributions to Open Source forums is paying off in some weird karma equation...
This professional, independent advice I should be seeking. I would appreciate any and all pointers. I'm an American and live in China; I don't know diddly about Australian law nor have any such contacts.
What's a costs order? Unpleasant to whom? I don't understand the implications (esp to investors).
Re: Financial Advisors
Some helpful links - other than these, search Google for any particular subject.
Legislation: http://www.austlii.edu.au/
Wiki (Law of Australia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Australia
ComLaw: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/
A costs order (from Google): http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Costs_Orders.htm
A costs order is unpleasant for the party which loses a legal case.
Some helpful links - other than these, search Google for any particular subject.
Legislation: http://www.austlii.edu.au/
Wiki (Law of Australia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Australia
ComLaw: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/
A costs order (from Google): http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Costs_Orders.htm
A costs order is unpleasant for the party which loses a legal case.
Re: Financial Advisors
In tech, the saying goes is never use stuff in production software you don't understand how to maintain. I was a complete idiot and invested stuff I have no idea about, although I was thinking the financial advisor would abstract this stuff away from me. He hasn't replied to my emails in a while....
In tech, the saying goes is never use stuff in production software you don't understand how to maintain. I was a complete idiot and invested stuff I have no idea about, although I was thinking the financial advisor would abstract this stuff away from me. He hasn't replied to my emails in a while....
Scuttling its Boat
You're not alone ... when I invested in the PFMF, I didn't take the time to really suss it out - I thought it was a safe investment. More fool me too. It's been a sharp learning curve for all of us.
The Trouble with No Independence
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
The letter at p. 44 is most illuminating, especially "ASIC CONCERN #8", that the "see through voting" provisions had not yet been granted ASIC's relief to be utilized.
The feeder funds over which LM(FTI) had control seem to have been used as a mere tool in an attempt to accomplish what LM(FTI) as manager of the LMFMIF was not prepared to do.
If members wanted an example as to why independence is important, then (to my mind), this is such an example. It seems to me, that by calling the meeting in the way it did, FTI has "scuttled its own boat" (so to speak) - see pp. 101 - 103.
I should add - I'm impressed with ASIC on this one, and with the WC matter. While I feel that ASIC didn't act promptly to appoint a receiver to each of the LM funds (which may have avoided the present fight over the carcass of the LMFMIF), and further feel that ASIC hasn't given PFMF investors a decent feeling of "comfort" over the past four years, it's pleasing to see ASIC take a firm stance in regard to the WC and LMFMIF meetings.
You're not alone ... when I invested in the PFMF, I didn't take the time to really suss it out - I thought it was a safe investment. More fool me too. It's been a sharp learning curve for all of us.
The Trouble with No Independence
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_-_Hugh_Copley_swon_11_June_2013__ASIC_.pdf
The letter at p. 44 is most illuminating, especially "ASIC CONCERN #8", that the "see through voting" provisions had not yet been granted ASIC's relief to be utilized.
The feeder funds over which LM(FTI) had control seem to have been used as a mere tool in an attempt to accomplish what LM(FTI) as manager of the LMFMIF was not prepared to do.
If members wanted an example as to why independence is important, then (to my mind), this is such an example. It seems to me, that by calling the meeting in the way it did, FTI has "scuttled its own boat" (so to speak) - see pp. 101 - 103.
I should add - I'm impressed with ASIC on this one, and with the WC matter. While I feel that ASIC didn't act promptly to appoint a receiver to each of the LM funds (which may have avoided the present fight over the carcass of the LMFMIF), and further feel that ASIC hasn't given PFMF investors a decent feeling of "comfort" over the past four years, it's pleasing to see ASIC take a firm stance in regard to the WC and LMFMIF meetings.
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
ASICK- and other interested parties
Based on the fact that WFMIF should receive $844,695.05 and there are 89,722,301 units in the WFMIF as at 30 June 2012 then if my calc is correct the cents/unit will be 0.00941455. That should be the base amount BEFORE Trilogy takes any fees. I will not be able to confirm actual CPU amount in about 10 days time.
Triology has previously advised it may take additional fees OR it may not, we never know what to believe with what they say!! Either way this payment will not clear the outstanding Income Distribution catchup payment of about $1.2mil. Trilogy will again pay this as Income Distribution to WFMIF investors, not effectively as a "capital payment" which is how investors in the FMIF will actually receive it.
ASICK- and other interested parties
Based on the fact that WFMIF should receive $844,695.05 and there are 89,722,301 units in the WFMIF as at 30 June 2012 then if my calc is correct the cents/unit will be 0.00941455. That should be the base amount BEFORE Trilogy takes any fees. I will not be able to confirm actual CPU amount in about 10 days time.
Triology has previously advised it may take additional fees OR it may not, we never know what to believe with what they say!! Either way this payment will not clear the outstanding Income Distribution catchup payment of about $1.2mil. Trilogy will again pay this as Income Distribution to WFMIF investors, not effectively as a "capital payment" which is how investors in the FMIF will actually receive it.
Re: ASIC in the Supreme Court Proceedings
Sorry simple answer is no- I am not invested in the MPF, hence not following everything about it with the same interest.
Sorry simple answer is no- I am not invested in the MPF, hence not following everything about it with the same interest.
MPF Information
Here's the best place to go for the MPF: http://www.kordamentha.com/creditor-information/australia/109
Next best: This forum
Here's the best place to go for the MPF: http://www.kordamentha.com/creditor-information/australia/109
Next best: This forum
re LM Australian Income Fund
On the FTI website under AIF is an interesting doc regarding this fund. Its an RG 45 Update and it covers both the fund update and the return of Capital Process
A statement in the doc is interesting it says that based on current assumptions for the fund a full return of Capital can be achieved by the 4th Qtr of 2014
If that's true, and actually happens then investors in this fund will achieve a much better outcome than others in the FMIF, Feeder funds and the MPF. I wonder how this is possible?
On the FTI website under AIF is an interesting doc regarding this fund. Its an RG 45 Update and it covers both the fund update and the return of Capital Process
A statement in the doc is interesting it says that based on current assumptions for the fund a full return of Capital can be achieved by the 4th Qtr of 2014
If that's true, and actually happens then investors in this fund will achieve a much better outcome than others in the FMIF, Feeder funds and the MPF. I wonder how this is possible?
Similar threads
