Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

OCV - Octaviar Limited

ITS ABOUT TIME ALL INVESTORS STOP THEIR BABBLINGS AND ACCEPT THE FACTS NOW THAT THE NATIONAL WELLINGTON INVESTMENTS ROADSHOW PRESENTATION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

--THE FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS IS AS PRESENTED IN ITS VARIOUS THREE MODES AS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE INDEPENDANT VALUATIONS BY PRICE WATERHOUSE.
--- WELLINGTON CAPITALS PRESENTATION WAS EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT, EXEPTIONALLY SO,AND IF PIF INVESTORS HAD BEEN TO OR EXPERIENCED OTHER SIMILAR FUND/CORPORATE FORUMS THEN YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THE QUALITY OF WILLINGNESS TO GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE TO ALL ATTENDEES.
-- WELLINGTON CAPITAL, PRIOR TO TAKING OVER AS THE PIF MANAGER WAS AND IS A VERY RESPECTED AND SUCCESSFUL FUND MANAGER.
FOR J.H TO TAKE ON THIS FUND PUTS HER OVERALL CREDIBILITY, CONSIDERING HER FAITH IN MAXIMISING AND RESURECTING THE PIF AT CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC EXPOSURE AS PRINCIPAL OF THE ENTIRE WELLINGTON CAPITAL OPERATIONS.
-- NO OTHER PARTIES HAVE COME FOREWARD AND I DOUBT IF THEY DID WOULD SHOW SUCH PERSONAL COMPASSION FOR INVESTORS WOES--
-- THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS IS A 3--5 YEAR REBUILDING PROCESS, MAYBE LONGER FOR THE FUNDS RECOVERY TO WHAT OPTIMUM LEVEL WOULD BE CRYSTAL BALL FORECASTING, BUT IT WILL GO FOREWARD !!!
---FACTORS TO CONSIDER ARE:
THE OVERALL STATE OF THE INVESTMENT MARKETS IN ALL SECTORS OF WHICH THE MANAGER HAS NO CONTROL.
TIME AS HISTORY DICTATES WILL SEE MARKETS IMPROVE ALONG WITH GOOD FUND MANAGEMENT TO MAXIMISE OPPORTUNITES.
THE FUND IN ITS CURRENT STATUS HAS LIMITED CASH FLOW AND MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW FROM ITS CURRENT ASSET BASE.
IT IS NO LONGER AN INCOME FUND AND MUST BE ALLOWED TO STABILISE, WITH THE PRIORITY OF REDUCING DEBT.
DISTRIBUTIONS AND REDEMPTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A BONUS INITIALLY AND PATIENCE PRACTICED FOR THE FUND TO GROW ITS WEALTH.
I APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE INVESTORS WHO ARE HURTING AND REQUIRE FUNDS TO EXIST, BUT TO GIVE PREFERENCE WITH REDEMEMPTIONS WILL ONLY SLOW THE FUNDS RECOVERY AND BE INEQUITABLE TO ALL UNIT HOLDERS.
COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE NSX LISTING.
AGREED THIS IS A SECONDARY EXCHANGE, BUT THE FACTS ARE AGAIN THAT THE FUNDS POSITION WILL ATTRACT LITTLE ATTENTION IN THE MARKET IN THE SHORT TERM. INVESTORS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE MARKET BY DEMAND AND ASSESMENT WILL DICTATE THE FUND MARKET PRICE.
IF YOU WANT TO SELL THEN USE IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE AT AN OPPORTUNITY PRICE TO BUYERS??
LISTING WITH THE ASX WILL GIVE NO ADVANTAGES IN THE FUNDS CURRENT FINANCIAL POSITION.
AS THE FUND GROWS THE STRUCTURE WILL / CAN BE REVISED TO BE POSITIONED TO BE MAXIMISED AND VALUE ADDED TO UNIT HOLDERS.

THERE HAS BEEN COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND!!
THIS QUITE FRANKLY WOULD BE FINANCIAL SUICIDE AND BE ASSURED IN TODAYS MARKET AND THE FUND FINANCIAL STATUS WOULD CERTAINLY REALISE AT BEST THE ESTIMATES OF WELLINGTONS 14 CENTS PER UNIT.
IN CONCLUSION REGARDLESS OF YOUR SITUATION HAVE CONTROLLED AND ACCOUNTABLE CONFIDENCE IN WELLINGTON CAPITAL AS IT IS YOUR ONLY OPTION TO MAXIMISE YOUR INVESTMENTS.
 
!.

Presumably legal oversight and advice to the MFS PIF came from its legal advisers Mallesons Stephen Jaques in Brisbane. This would include one imagines what the controlling entity could and couldn’t do.



2.

Here is a list of those were on the Compliance Committee of MFS PIF. A compliance committee ensures that the fund operates in accordance with the Constitution and PDS.



Andy Esteban, Chairman, external member, resigned?

Ray Kellerman, external member, resigned?

David Kennedy, internal member, 13 Feb to 7 Mar 2008.

Mike Skepper, Compliance Mgr, left day unknown

Phil Colley, Sr. Compliance Officer left 16 April 2008



By invitation:

Craig White

Guy Hutchings

John Whateley, independent non-executive director

Guy Farrands, CEO of MFS Diversified, now called GEO Property

Craig McIntosh, CEO MFS Alternative Asset Mgt, left 7 March 2008



Here is a list of those on the MFS Related Party and Conflicts [of interest] Committee;



Jack Diamond, non-executive director, resigned 2 May 2008

Deborah Beale, non-executive director, resigned 18 Feb 2008

John Whateley, non-executive director, resigned 2 May 2008



By invitation:

Guy Hutchings, resigned 4 July

Kim Kercher, company secretary, resigned 22 Feb 2008

Tasso Corolis, resigned 12 Feb 2008, head of risk and compliance
 
Re: OCV - Octaviar PIF (was MFS PIF)

Some rights of members:

1.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 247A
Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme

(1) On application by a member of a company or registered managed investment scheme, the Court may make an order:

(a) authorising the applicant to inspect books of the company or scheme; or

(b) authorising another person (whether a member or not) to inspect books of the company or scheme on the applicant's behalf.

The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that the applicant is acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose.

(2) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

(3) A person who:

(a) is granted leave under section 237; or

(b) applies for leave under that section; or

(c) is eligible to apply for leave under that section;

may apply to the Court for an order under this section.

(4) On application, the Court may make an order authorising:

(a) the applicant to inspect books of the company; or

(b) another person to inspect books of the company on the applicant's behalf.

(5) The Court may make the order only if it is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is acting in good faith; and

(b) the inspection is to be made for a purpose connected with:

(i) applying for leave under section 237; or

(ii) bringing or intervening in proceedings with leave under that section.

(6) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.



2.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601JD
Duties of members

(1) A member of a scheme's compliance committee must:

(a) act honestly; and

(b) exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in the member's position; and

(c) not make use of information acquired through being a member of the committee in order to:

(i) gain an improper advantage for the member or another person; or

(ii) cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and

(d) not make improper use of their position as a member of the committee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for themselves or for any other person or to cause detriment to the members of the scheme.

(2) A member of the compliance committee is to take all reasonable steps to assist ASIC in carrying out a check under subsection 601FF(1).

(3) A person who contravenes, or is involved in a contravention of, subsection (1) contravenes this subsection.

Note 1: Section 79 defines involved .

Note 2: Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E).

(4) A person must not intentionally or recklessly contravene, or be involved in a contravention of, subsection (1).

3.



Civil liability of responsible entity to members

(1) A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

(2) An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

(3) This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws.
 
Hi people,
This popped up in the news section in comsec yesterday, however it is quite vague:cautious:.... can anyone shead a bit more light on this one???:confused:

Octaviar feels the heat from lawyers

Date: 25/8/2008
Author: Ben Wilmot
Source: The Australian Financial Review --- Page: 57

Maurice Blackburn has warned Octaviar that it faces a potential $A80 millionclass action from former and current Octaviar/MFS shareholders

who is leading the class action???

Cheers:D
 
Hi people,
This popped up in the news section in comsec yesterday, however it is quite vague:cautious:.... can anyone shead a bit more light on this one???:confused:
who is leading the class action???
Cheers:D
The same was mentioned in their last announcement released 22/08; former and current shareholders have allegedly initiated the class action. No names, no details. Probably talking about the IMF initiative that was announced in March.
 
See following link from the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24314985-30538,00.html

-------article start-----------------------

When fund managers turn predators


SHAREHOLDER: Stuart Wilson | September 09, 2008

HAPLESS investors in the Octaviar Premium Income Fund have a gun pointed squarely at their heads by the funds manager, Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital.

This sick property fund is a remnant of the MFS implosion earlier this year, and has more than 10,000 small, income-seeking investors. It is circling the drain, with investors locked in limbo and distributions no longer flowing. Yet Wellington is using every tricky tactic in the book to wring out its fees.

Investors have few options. The proposal put forward by Wellington is to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange. This means that instead of redeeming their units for cash, investors will have to sell them on-market.

But as the number of sellers will likely heavily outweigh buyers, and with unitholders' dwindling trust in Wellington, the price at which PIF units trade is virtually guaranteed to be below the $0.45 value quoted in the documentation sent to investors.

If buyers have been scared off after experiencing Wellington's bullying tactics designed to lock itself in as manager, the market price could easily wallow under the somewhat rubbery $0.14 per unit investors are told they could receive on liquidation.

Wellington has some legitimate reasons for seeking changes to the funds constitution to effect the fund's listing on the NSX. To emerge as a listed vehicle, the whole structure of the fund would need to be overhauled to work properly.

In particular, the fund would need to become close ended, which means units would no longer be issued or redeemed. Rather, units would be purchased or sold on-market, and the price struck would be based on supply and demand rather the net asset value of the unit.

Unfortunately for the proposed new model, demand seems to be in short supply.

In addition, the existing constitution proclaims that the manager is entitled to any surplus income after unitholders have been paid. This clearly does not sit well with Wellington Capital, which has proposed a more traditional asset-based fee. The fee is steep and would provide greater certainty for Wellington. The benefit of this proposed change to investors is not entirely clear.

The most abominable, oppressive element of the Wellington proposal is that in addition to proposing changes necessary to ensure the NSX listing works, they have attempted to slip in a few clauses for their own benefit. In particular, in the event that Wellington was removed as manager -- even for poor performance -- it would be entitled to a massive termination payment, currently about $8 million.

It would be difficult to turf out Wellington anyway, as a separate proposed change to the way the fund's meetings are structured will effectively entrench Wellington as manager until there is nothing left to gouge.

One hopes that investors finally declare they will not be treated as fee-generating fodder any more. Although an orderly sell-off of assets and winding up of the fund is the simplest and most certain of available options, some investors may wish to take the risk of monetising additional value through an NSX listing.

If that is the case, they should propose alternative changes to the constitution (without the clauses that only benefit the Wellington mob), either before or after voting down the current scheme.

Stuart Wilson is CEO of the Australian Shareholders Association

---------------end of article-------------------
 
Today's Financial Review:

Octaviar creditors opt for administration

Wednesday, 10 September 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen

Gold Coast financial services company Octaviar was on the brink of collapse last night after its major creditors, owed about $1 billion, finally agreed to appoint a voluntary administrator.
 
does this mean its curtains...

shareholders lose everything??

this will get drawn out for some time i would have thought
 
if only it had gone head up before 30 June - i could have used the losses ..... instead it has been in a trading halt for over six months, so as well as being worth nothing, people havent even been able to use the losses against the very few gains that were made in the 30 June 08 financial year.
 
We can only hope that it is finalised by the end of next financial year...not that I am confident of any gains to offset my OCV losses.
Too late for me for the last financial year...have to disclose some modest gains...very modest!
 
Top