ASIC Notice see HERE
AD08-09 Premium income fund
Friday 12 September 2008
ASIC commenced proceedings yesterday in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).
ASIC is seeking an order restraining Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM) as the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with a meeting of unit holders scheduled for 18 September 2008.
ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain WIM’s agreement to adjourn meeting.
ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting.
The proceedings will be heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008.
Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...
ASIC Notice see HERE
AD08-09 Premium income fund
Friday 12 September 2008
ASIC commenced proceedings yesterday in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).
ASIC is seeking an order restraining Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM) as the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with a meeting of unit holders scheduled for 18 September 2008.
ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain WIM’s agreement to adjourn meeting.
ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting.
The proceedings will be heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008.
Maybe there are some unit holders who can't read......
....or comprehend!!
Rance
Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...
Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:Hi GD,
This page with give you the option to lodge a complaint online or download the form and post:
http://fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/How+to+complain+to+ASIC?openDocument
WELL SAID ????Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:
WELL SAID ????
Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:
Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::I agree ASIC should have done something earlier. But they didnt. You dont like that they didnt act, but now that they are, you dont like that either.
It would simply seem that you are not happy that they are doing something because it does not correspond with what you think is right.
The fact that this may have been instigated by the minority (that we do not know) should not matter. Presumably they are just seeking to make sure that everyone makes an informed decision.
I think most would agree that the information forwarded by WC was not as clear as it could be. This is obvious by the posts here. If ASIC can do something that clears any ambiguity up that must be a good thing.
Also you say that it is unasked by the majority. Well couldnt it just be the culmination of all the complaints and requests for help? Also how would anyone really know what the majority want? Im sure people who voted yes would have called asic in the past.
Also in relation to people acting in their own interests - do you expect them to act in other peoples interests? Of course not. Each person should vote to what they think is best. I someone thinks something is wrong, they have as much right as any other person to do any act to achieve the outcome that they feel is the best. This applies to both sides in this case.
Someone who wants a no vote should do all they can to achieve that result, likewise a yes vote.
My question is why is WC advocating the appointment of an administrator to "provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets" when it relates to Chris Scott and his fortunes (within Octaviar), but it is inferred (in no uncertain terms) that WC would liquidate (irrespective of the results for the PIF unitholders).
As an observer of all the plots and stories that seem to be circulating at this time, I find this opposite tact both confusing, and somewhat disturbing.
Maybe someone on the forum may be able clear this up?
Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::IF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.:::::::One would assume next weeks intervention is a direct result from this or can the 95% of unitholders in favour of WC look forward to more hindering/delaying tactics by others trying to achieve outcomes they think in our best interests? Seamisty
One can only assume that the issues are in relation to the vote. To say that they are seeking to undo months of hardwork is a little incorrect. More like a month. It has only been a little over a month since the Explanatory Memorandum was issued.
If they have a problem with certain things in that, you cannot say they have been tardy in acting upon that. It was not like they could have acted on issues which did not exist prior to the release of the document. Further, the various newspaper articles today suggest that there has been discussions between ASIC and WC and they were unable to come to an agreement.
I have been told by WC that they are under constant scrutiny from ASIC. The whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released. Perhaps Michael West should have asked for a comment from ASIC and the majority of investors in the PIF who have chosen to support WC before offering unprofessional financial advise which could result in a far worse financial outcome for unitholders. A very poorly researched article with dodgey content in my opinion. Seamisty
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?