Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[like2ski]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I was just wonderng what some body has paid to rent a crowd Hmmmmmmm Cheers //////////

Well said great dame LOL... LOL....

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Like2ski
Where did you get pseudonymn from ?

Could you contact me on the private users forum

 

[demodocus]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Well said great dame LOL... LOL....

This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.

I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again.

My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

goldfinger 38 et al regarding the PIFI LETTER which I have just received today.

In addition to possible breaches of Privacy legislation I decided to refresh my knowledge of various sections of the Corporations Act namely S177 so I pulled up the section on the screen and guess what happened - the phone rang and it was an efficient ASIC Officer returning my call to complain about their action in relation to the WC meeting. He explained that ASIC are not seeking to delay the meeting they simply believe that unitholders should have more information on which to base their decision. Fair enough.

I then told him I had just today received the PIFI letter - he seemed to know all about it. So while we were on the phone I thought I might get his view of how a party could get hold of my address and then send unsolicited information urging me to vote in a particular way at the EG meeting. I even said to him that by a strange quirk of fate I had S177 of the Corporations Act on the screen and that it looked like a person or persons may have contravened that provision. Naturally he could not give an opinion or disclose what ASIC might do about it - for confidentiality reasons. Again fair enough.

I suggested that perhaps the right way would have been for PIFI to have handled the matter was within the framework of the Act to get 100 unit holders to petition the RE to include material that they thought would be useful for unit holders to make their decision.

So this is what S177 says:

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 177
Use of information on registers

(1) A person must not:

(a) use information about a person obtained from a register kept under this Chapter to contact or send material to the person; or

(b) disclose information of that kind knowing that the information is likely to be used to contact or send material to the person.

Note: An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material.

And further into S177:

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage because of the contravention.

(3) A person who makes a profit from a contravention of subsection (1) owes a debt to the company or the scheme. The amount of the debt is the amount of the profit.

(4) If a person owes a debt under subsection (3) to the scheme:

(a) the debt may be recovered by the responsible entity as a debt due to it; and

(b) any amount paid or recovered in respect of the debt forms part of the scheme property.

Well there you go PIFI guys and girls, and pay particular attention to S177(2)

Kind regards

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

goldfinger 38 et al regarding the PIFI LETTER which I have just received today.

In addition to possible breaches of Privacy legislation I decided to refresh my knowledge of various sections of the Corporations Act namely S177 so I pulled up the section on the screen and guess what happened - the phone rang and it was an efficient ASIC Officer returning my call to complain about their action in relation to the WC meeting. He explained that ASIC are not seeking to delay the meeting they simply believe that unitholders should have more information on which to base their decision. Fair enough.

I then told him I had just today received the PIFI letter - he seemed to know all about it. So while we were on the phone I thought I might get his view of how a party could get hold of my address and then send unsolicited information urging me to vote in a particular way at the EG meeting. I even said to him that by a strange quirk of fate I had S177 of the Corporations Act on the screen and that it looked like a person or persons may have contravened that provision. Naturally he could not give an opinion or disclose what ASIC might do about it - for confidentiality reasons. Again fair enough.

I suggested that perhaps the right way would have been for PIFI to have handled the matter was within the framework of the Act to get 100 unit holders to petition the RE to include material that they thought would be useful for unit holders to make their decision.

So this is what S177 says:

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 177
Use of information on registers

(1) A person must not:

(a) use information about a person obtained from a register kept under this Chapter to contact or send material to the person; or

(b) disclose information of that kind knowing that the information is likely to be used to contact or send material to the person.

Note: An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material.

And further into S177:

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage because of the contravention.

(3) A person who makes a profit from a contravention of subsection (1) owes a debt to the company or the scheme. The amount of the debt is the amount of the profit.

(4) If a person owes a debt under subsection (3) to the scheme:

(a) the debt may be recovered by the responsible entity as a debt due to it; and

(b) any amount paid or recovered in respect of the debt forms part of the scheme property.

Well there you go PIFI guys and girls, and pay particular attention to S177(2)

Kind regards

Perhaps 'the rent a crowd' was in fact the PIFI in disguise, haviing seen the error of their ways, trying to make amends for the potential backlash from their actions. But no, it wasn't, just some very concerned PIF holders trying to undo some damage. I'm afraid even with my warped sense of humour, I find nothing funny about this situation.:nono:Seamisty

 

[BootsnAll]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.

I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again.

My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.

Please Demodocus, don't give up the ship!

Your presence is needed to raise the intellectual level of this forum.

BootsNAll

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.

And that's what the PIFI letter, which I also received, was saying. But the next question is - who? I asked my Financial Advisor but got nothing in the way of an authoritive answer. We've asked financial advisors on this forum - no authoritive answer.

The law is never easy to comprehend. Let me give you an example:

Marcom - you left out 177 (1A).

" (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the use or disclosure of the information is:

(a) relevant to the holding of the interests recorded in the register or the exercise of the rights attaching to them; or

(b) approved by the company or scheme."

So what do we do? Take off through the long grass and risking stepping on a snake and not reaching our destination? Who do we trust to be our guide?

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped

You are the best damn Fence Sitter i have ever had the pleasure to be in contact with on this Forum

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Marcom - Well, if ASIC "don't want to delay the meeting," what are they actually doing? ASIC must surely have been monitoring all the WC material being sent out well in advance at draft stage. Seems pretty strange to me. Any further delays on distributions will cause increased hardship for many.

ASIC resources at present should be used to ferret out anything untoward that may have taken place prior to the MFS collapse. Perhaps they are sleuthing and don't want to let on yet (classic police tactic). Also, we don't know what explosive files, if any, the OCV Administrator may discover in the months to come. All your other info was very interesting.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Please Demodocus, don't give up the ship!

Your presence is needed to raise the intellectual level of this forum.

BootsNAll

Explain that to us poor dummies who in all likelihood are going to be severely financially penalised by the actions from a few of these self professed beings of superior intelligence who have seen fit to jeopordise unitholders October distribution and further dilute the unit value by creating additional expenses to the operating of the PIF :::::Ms Hutson said it would cost
more than $100,000 to adjourn the meeting with some investors travelling
from Tokyo and Auckland as
well as from every Australian city ::: Perhaps she can just foward the bill to the intellectually supreme elite committee. All beings of superior intelligence, please raise your right hand and be sworn in and keep your cheque books handy thanks. Seamisty

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

And that's what the PIFI letter, which I also received, was saying. But the next question is - who? I asked my Financial Advisor but got nothing in the way of an authoritive answer. We've asked financial advisors on this forum - no authoritive answer.

The law is never easy to comprehend. Let me give you an example:

Marcom - you left out 177 (1A).

" (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the use or disclosure of the information is:

(a) relevant to the holding of the interests recorded in the register or the exercise of the rights attaching to them; or

(b) approved by the company or scheme."

So what do we do? Take off through the long grass and risking stepping on a snake and not reaching our destination? Who do we trust to be our guide?

S177(1A) does not apply as the information was distributed illegally - this is not a case of using the information from the register:

- for any proper purpose relevant to the holding of a unit interest or the rights attached thereto as there is a formal procedure in the Act and PIFI failed to follow it.

- and certainly the use was not approved by the company of scheme.

Just look at the practice notation in that section of the Act:

" An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material".

And frankly PIFI have gone a lot further than just placing my name on a mailing list and that's a breach!

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped

You are the best damn Fence Sitter i have ever had the pleasure to be in contact with on this Forum

Yep. I'm here on business.

And this little wheel is going to squeak, squeak, squeak all the way to a government backed rescue.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Yep. I'm here on business.

And this little wheel is going to squeak, squeak, squeak all the way to a government backed rescue.

Maybe get a can of oil and some spare tyres duped, could be a long winding road.:luigi:

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Marcom - Well, if ASIC "don't want to delay the meeting," what are they actually doing? ASIC must surely have been monitoring all the WC material being sent out well in advance at draft stage. Seems pretty strange to me. Any further delays on distributions will cause increased hardship for many.

ASIC resources at present should be used to ferret out anything untoward that may have taken place prior to the MFS collapse. Perhaps they are sleuthing and don't want to let on yet (classic police tactic). Also, we don't know what explosive files, if any, the OCV Administrator may discover in the months to come. All your other info was very interesting.

Believe me I stressed strongly to the ASIC Officer that further delays on distributions will place me and many other unit holders in dire circumstances. I used my own case as an example - we have had to rent out of our home and move in with my wife's parents so that we can afford to pay off $1000 a month to the ATO for a CGT liability on the sale of a property the proceeds of which were deposited with MFS and now lost. We just can not afford to hold on for any great length of time.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Believe me I stressed strongly to the ASIC Officer that further delays on distributions will place me and many other unit holders in dire circumstances. I used my own case as an example - we have had to rent out of our home and move in with my wife's parents so that we can afford to pay off $1000 a month to the ATO for a CGT liability on the sale of a property the proceeds of which were deposited with MFS and now lost. We just can not afford to hold on for any great length of time.

I also rang them today Marcom on behalf of myself and others who would rather ASIC not disrupt the Thurs WC meeting and they kindly lodged my complaint on the ph. ASIC had 7 days to review all the available material prior to it being due to be finalised.JH was consulted on several issues which she adjusted. Seamisty

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

S177(1A) does not apply as the information was distributed illegally - this is not a case of using the information from the register:

- for any proper purpose relevant to the holding of a unit interest or the rights attached thereto as there is a formal procedure in the Act and PIFI failed to follow it.

- and certainly the use was not approved by the company of scheme.

Just look at the practice notation in that section of the Act:

" An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material".

And frankly PIFI have gone a lot further than just placing my name on a mailing list and that's a breach!

My point exactly. You and I have reached different conclusions on a single clause of a single Act. Tricky isn't it.

I don't regard the material sent to me, in its entirety, as advertising material. To me, the signatory's opinion was relevant to my holding of interests in the register. So to me, his use of my name and address and unit holding to send the material to me falls under S177(1A)(a). That's just my lay man's interpretation. Maybe we should get a formal legal opinion. Shall we go halves? But let's get a quote 1st - one of my investments has gone belly up so I'm a bit skint.

No wonder lawyers can afford to fill the ivory towers in the CBDs.

I'm sorry to hear about your circumstances. Similar to mine. I got lucky and didn't lose the lot. My only hardship is I have to extend my mortgage for new hearing aids and i don't like debt.

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The following is an email sent me by an AG member who was today speaking with ASIC:

"He assured me that their primary concern is that voters fully understand what they are voting for,as having been voted in, WC will be there for a long time (his words) and that they believe that some of WC's wording is not that easy to understand. He said that unless "a ten-year old" is able to understand the wording, then it is not satisfactory from ASIC's point of view, and needs to be amended.

He stated that it is not ASIC's intention to postpone the meeting unnecessarily, and that he hoped that the court would give JH the opportunity to clarify the passages in question at the actual meeting, which seemed a little strange to me, as everyone will have voted by then.

He seemed a highly intelligent person, with a very good knowledge of Octaviar/PIF/Wellington matters. He obviously took my email seriously, but declined to comment directly on the issues I raised, and would not discuss the specific wording that was causing concern, saying that all would be revealed on Wednesday.

He also said that Wellington had been given the opportunity to amend their wording, but had refused to do so, hence ASIC's action.

When I mentioned the extreme hardship that would likely befall certain investors if Wellington were not able to proceed, he re-stated that ASIC understood that, and that it was not their intention to halt Wellington, just to get the wording changed."


I always said we could not do this unless we shared the load. Great work!

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The following is an email sent me by an AG member who was today speaking with ASIC:

"He assured me that their primary concern is that voters fully understand what they are voting for,as having been voted in, WC will be there for a long time (his words) and that they believe that some of WC's wording is not that easy to understand. He said that unless "a ten-year old" is able to understand the wording, then it is not satisfactory from ASIC's point of view, and needs to be amended.

He stated that it is not ASIC's intention to postpone the meeting unnecessarily, and that he hoped that the court would give JH the opportunity to clarify the passages in question at the actual meeting, which seemed a little strange to me, as everyone will have voted by then.

He seemed a highly intelligent person, with a very good knowledge of Octaviar/PIF/Wellington matters. He obviously took my email seriously, but declined to comment directly on the issues I raised, and would not discuss the specific wording that was causing concern, saying that all would be revealed on Wednesday.

He also said that Wellington had been given the opportunity to amend their wording, but had refused to do so, hence ASIC's action.

When I mentioned the extreme hardship that would likely befall certain investors if Wellington were not able to proceed, he re-stated that ASIC understood that, and that it was not their intention to halt Wellington, just to get the wording changed."


I always said we could not do this unless we shared the load. Great work!

So does that mean that ASIC will let the meeting go ahead, but they just want JH to clarify something that will be revealed Wednesday?

Well that's a bloody relief. But those ASIC people are truly retarded, they are puting the fear of God into some poor folk who are absolutely sweating on money to cover some really tight situations after not receiving a cent since January.

What's the point in making something easy to understand in a PDS etc., when if the company dishonours the commitment, ASIC will do jack about it??

 

[sugar3157]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.

I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again.

My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.

Hi Demodocus...what a shame you will not be posting again...
whether we agree or not, you made me laugh with the ky jelly...
how good it was to actually laugh for a change...
Cheers Sugar

 

[CableGuy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

QUT picket line outside the WC office today. WC provided complimentary bottled water to the chanting students.