Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Hi Marcom, I am not positive but it is my understanding that Stuart Price and Steven Kyling who are both in Dubai have not been served.
Selciper I emailed WC on Tuesday morning and asked about the IAC results but have not received an answer. Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Mary & K Smith

I have had two meetings with Bernie Ripoll, who is the chairman of this Commission and believe me every single letter that this enquiry receives will be of value.

Bernie informed me that the enquiry primary purpose is to identify the core of the problems in the financial Industry. Obviously the recent mayhem and carnage caused by the global financial crisis has highlighted the fact that there is a fundamental structural flaw in the somewhere in the system and this urgently needs to be addressed. Of course what it is also permeating the collective political consciousness of the politicians is that the consequent drain on the social security of this country and the losses to self funded suppeannuation will, over time be enormous.

My own view is that these failing and inadequacies in the financial industry can be squarely laid at the feet of ASIC.

ASIC in my humble opinion lacks the fundamental organizational and investigative structure required of a Regulatory Authority. I think it needs the same level of oversight and accountability as the police forces if investors are ever to be protected from corporate crime. In fact I think ASIC should be integrated into the police forces, but unfortunately that will not happen, to many highly paid bureaucrats will lose an easy meal ticket.
.

What we basically have at the moment is 9 to 5 bureaucrats who shield a small legal team that may, or may not, provide a free legal service after the apocalypse has occurred, which of course is always after investors are financially ruined and their lives destroyed. Prevention and deterrence is not an option under the current regulatory regime


Mary, if you were mislead by Octavier employees when deciding to invest in the Premium Income fund, then yes, you should absolutely relate the circumstances of their deception and what this has done to your life both financially and emotionally.

K Smith unfortunately the logistics and costs involved in getting 10 400 investors to sign are monumental .In any event parliamentary privilege is only granted after your submission has been reviewed by the Inquiry Committee.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Forget ASIC, forget Bernie Ripoll and forget Deloitte. None of them will do anything to help us.

The only clout we have is through legal action.

We MUST get behind the class action. And 10,000 of us chipping in $100 each is a massive $10M fighting fund. $500 each will scare the pants off any big firm. The more we put in , the less we need IMF. IMF are great but don't forget that they have a duty to their share holders and that could conflict with our interests.

Deloitte didn't back us against Fortress. Deloitte chose the warm safety of the legal pack. McMurdo corrected that pack generated misconception, IMLO. But Deloitte have gone and done the same again by rolling over to CVC's heacy intimidation and handed them the rest of Stella for $3.2M. No investigation into insolvent trading. Deloitte simply dump the risk elsewhere, anywhere it will least likely return from to bite them, on you and me; then send us the bill. They are simply administrators that won't carry any risks on our behalf in the same way that Perpetual Nominees were simply administrators with as little as possible obligation to protect our interests that they can justify.

As for ASIC, have a read of the SMH article: http://business.smh.com.au/business/asic-sells-us-short-20090303-8mo0.html "Watching ... D'Aloisio flailing around on Lateline Business last night demonstrated ASIC's failure as both a watchdog and regulator, leaving it as just a legal administrator - perhaps all it aspires to be."

As for Ripoll. Please, yes, put in a submission. But I've now learnt that many in the industry have been SCREAMING about the problem of commissions for YEARS. See Alan Kohler's article of 27/02/09 'Too Little, Too Late': "It is all very well supporting the Member for Oxley’s initiative, but he [Nick Sherry] is the minister!
In fact, I interviewed Nick Sherry for Eureka Report on this subject shortly before he took over in 2007 and he explicitly declined to do anything about financial planning commissions.
“It’s far too difficult practically”, he said. “I want to focus on disclosure.”
And so he did. That went well, didn’t it Storm, Westpoint, Lift and Opes clients?""

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Financial-advice-$pd20090227-PMS7C?OpenDocument

The other option is hit them with the only other real force we have apart for legal action, hit their wallets. Signup to yourshare.com.au. Have a read of yourshare's submission to the Inquiry at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub113.pdf

Sorry if I'm coming across too harsh but today, I'm not happy Jan.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Correction for my last post, #57. $100 each by 10K investors is $1M not $10M. Aren't legal fees for protecting an investment deductable? Or just go towards increase cost base for calculating Capital Gain or Capital Loss?
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Hey Duped, Aren't we still awaiting results of the negotioations with the IMF around funding liturgation for the class action? I had assumed we are getting funded, and it is just a matter of how much it is going to cost us.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Mary Lynch said:
Hey Duped, Aren't we still awaiting results of the negotioations with the IMF around funding liturgation for the class action? I had assumed we are getting funded, and it is just a matter of how much it is going to cost us.
Click to expand...
Thats correct Mary and those negotiations are close to being finalised but I can see where Duped is coming from in relation to Senate enquiries not helping investors such as ourselves. I put a lot of time and effort into contacting Mr Ripoll (among others) in Feb with all the details of the situation with our PIF and the impact it had on investors and never even received acknowledgement! Mr Sherry at least wrote me a three page letter alerting me to all the handouts directed at self-funded retirees under the Economic Security Strategy which I must not have qualified for and assured me that ASIC were on the case of the PIF. He also told me I had the option to take private legal action against those I considered had breached the law. WELL THANKS NICK, some have taken your advice once they realised that in actual fact, that was the ONLY OPTION open to them!! While I am not discouraging others from lodging a submission I prefer to dedicate my time to the Class Action where we have a compelling case against KPMG and the former MFS/OCV directors, advisors etc with an excellent chance of being financially compensated and those responsible exposed. Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Duped , you must have really had a bad day; I have never seen you get so worked up in a post before. I guarantee two bottles of a good red wine will make the world look a whole lot better.

However, I totally agree with your basic premise of investors self funding the legal case .The whole concept of litigation funders taking 30% or more of the settlement amount from financially distressed investors is offensive and outrageous.

Whether or not self funding can be practical is another matter. For example, recently a committee member of the PIFI asked an acquaintance who was also an investor in the PIF to donate to the mail out ,to fund our preliminary legal action. She immediately contacted her financial advisor who stated not to bother, as Jenny Huston would get her money back .I mention this only to demonstrate the mindset of some investors.

The fact of the matter is that the government;i.e., ASIC should be running this action on behalf of Premium income fund investors. They have been provided with irrefutable evidence that our fund was fatally compromised by serious breaches of the corporation act and potential criminal activity; hence my recommendation that all investors put a submission to the parliamentary enquiry.

The Americans may have a lot of faults and crooks in their financial industry ,but look at their system of compensation in these instances. Take, for example the Madoff case, a situation not that dissimilar to our own., they have a government indemnity provider in place, which will at least compensates investors for the original capital amount invested .

.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Thanks Seamisty....I wholeheartedly agree.....and for all of your tireless hard work. There are many of you who have been just so amazingly generous with your time and energy. I have no idea how we will ever thank you, but hopefully we will find a way in due course.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Maybe it's the quality of the wine that's the problem. The clean skins and cask white aren't doing the job.

The following is not directed at you Jadel.

If there's any chance that ASIC will help us then we should all push. Our case seems to tick one of the criteria for ASIC to take the risk of litigation. Over whelming evidence and a clear cut breach. Unfortunately that's not so for some of the other criteria in our case.

Public image: while there's 10K investors, for some reason the press sees us as comlplicit through our own greed, not quite the innocents as a Storm clients. Even Wayne Swan was intimating he took this view when he answered the question from the PIF investor at the London School of Economics earlier this year. Totally inaccurate though. But when you have the rarely accurate journalists in this country reporting things like the first NSX PIN transaction of 2000 shares @44c being worth $35,000 instead of $900 (in the Australian, no less) - what can we do. And don't forget the two slappings we've had from the ASA's Stuart Wilson. All sowing the seeds of doubt of our plight.

Public interest: We're hardly an Enron. We're just one of a number of failed businesses that failed in a system with conflicted financial advisors that Nick Sherry explicitly declined doing anything about shortly after taking over in 2007 saying "It's far too difficult practically". And why would ASIC spend money on a case that proves him wrong. It seems financial planners are a protected species. Hence the need for such a high level inquiry. So the pollies can say, well that all is a surpirse; or we had a high level inquiry and there wasn't the evidence that the commissions knockers are claiming. (Maybe I've been watching too much Hollowmen)

Easy target: MFS is hardly an Eddy Groves, a Bernie Madoff, the Cassimatis, with no influential friends and no bite and extroverted or displaying other character flaws so they can be easily isolated from their peers and not bring the whole system into disrepute in the minds of us punters. Add to that the Andrew Peacock factor. An untouchable? A holy cow? ASIC would be attacking one of the Melbourne establishment.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

This is a bit of a revelation to me. Would explain a lot. It wouldn't be the first time that pollies didn't understand the forces that shaped the better parts of their country and went messed them up.

Am I allowed to post the whole article?

"The 'irresponsible' entity
MICHAEL WEST
July 8, 2009 .
"The administrators have done the analysis and found that, first of all, Timbercorp, the responsible entity, is hopelessly insolvent."

This was the finding of Timbercorp's administrator last month. Likewise, the verdict on Great Southern's responsible entity - "totally insolvent".

Unfortunately for investors in these entities, and a legion of others in the likes of managed investment schemes and mortgage funds, their REs have failed them.

Then again, they were never "their" REs, which brings us to the essential policy problem: independence.

It was the RE which was supposed to be looking after the interests of investors. Now that there are more lost savings, recriminations, lawsuits and inquiries than you could poke a stick at, the question can be posed: is the RE a failed experiment?

There used to be an independent third party whose role was to look after investors: the trustee. That all changed under the Managed Investments Act of 1998, a reform of the Peter Costello years. The RE was born.

Under the new system the product promoters - be they the spruikers behind a Timbercorp, City Pacific, Allco, or Great Southern - would now operate their own fiduciary (trustee). They would fund it, too.

These fiduciary reforms were espoused in the first place by the BTs, AMPs and Macquaries of the world who argued, with some reason, that third-party scrutiny by a trustee only added another layer of costs. Why not take it

in-house? they asked. Let's have a "single responsible entity". We will fund it, and be responsible.

This was all OK for a financial giant with ample resources. The only problems were that costs marched merrily higher anyway as investors were gouged by ever-imaginative fee formulas, regardless of the savings to have been made via an in-house fiduciary.

And meanwhile, at the racier end of the investment market we get Babcock, MFS, Allco and the MIS schemes such as "hopelessly insolvent" Timbercorp running their own scrutiny, veritably monitoring themselves. Kids in charge of the lolly shop.

It should be noted that the trustee system was, and is, far from perfect. The collapse of the debenture players such as ACR, Fincorp and Bridgecorp is testament to that.

At least the trustee was independent though, not to mention alive and still kicking in the aftermath. The notion of a promoter having to provide data to an independent fiduciary must carry some measure of deterrence.

The "single responsible entity" regime appeared to have served investors reasonably well, until the ructions of the global financial meltdown exposed its frailties. And how frail they were, dead-frail. As good as unregulated.

The excess of bull market spawned such a welter of dodgy financial products that the system was effectively out of control. With lost savings from investment schemes and products bloating into the billions the integrity of the financial services system in Australia is at stake.

If it is accepted wisdom that best practice in corporate governance entails a truly independent board of directors for public companies so that shareholders' interests are represented, then why not exact the same principle when it comes to investment schemes?

Who is independent, if not the fiduciary? Who can provide comfort that the interest of investors will be upheld?

In the recent disasters the RE scheme was often tangled in a conflict between perpetuating its own existence - and therefore fees for the holding company - and putting investors' interests first, which would in many cases involve winding the scheme down.

The complex structures of most of these schemes made it impossible for the investor to see a clear line of responsibility.

An independent fiduciary is in a far better position to appoint an administrator while there are still assets left to be sold. It can also bring scrutiny to related party transactions, a prolific factor in almost every collapse."

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

http://business.theage.com.au/business/the-irresponsible-entity-20090707-dbu2.html
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Duped

Committee members of the PIFI have spent over three hours in intensive discussions with Bernie Ripoll .We are unfortunately unable to divulge any sensitive information, however we can tell you ,that he now has a very clear and comprehensive understanding of the exploitation and abuse that has devastated our fund and the suffering this has caused investors.

This is why we strongly recommend that investors tell their story and put in a submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry .

Eos adiuvat Deus qui se ipsos adiuvant
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

I am not knowlegeable about these things, but my barrister son-in-law says that the legal fraternity frowns upon the IMF funding class actions because it foretells the outcome of the case.

This throws light on what you guys are thinking for me, in that if the IMF are willing to back us, then it is (almost) a foregone conclusion that we will win, is it not?

Thus, with them taking a third of the $$ outcome, it makes sense for us to fund our own case, especially as I believe we have the register of unitholders.. Does the register include names and addresses?

So maybe, once it is definite that the IMF have accepted us, we should do an "ask around", as to who would be prepared to contribute say $1000 (or get an estimate from Carneys and apportion pro rata $s per units) and see what everyone thinks, before we accept the IMF terms.

One question though...Does the IMF charge more if the risk is higher?

If this was greed on our behalf I'd be worried; but this money is OURS...not the IMF's; so let's put our mony where our mouth is!
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Hi Mary,

It's nice to see a lot of people posting there thoughts and views on the forum again. Helps us all to be informed.

The point I would like to add is that if we self fund, and if we lose, we could then be liable for there costs, which would run into the millions of dollars. From what Carney's said at the meeting 6 or so weeks ago, is that if we go with a funding litigator (eg IMF) they would pay all legal costs as well as damages should we lose. If we are successful and the judge orders them to pay interest as well, then the provider will be entitled to the 30% of the interest component as well.

Keep posting everyone,

Michael
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

seamisty said:
Hi All, Please find attatched link to the ASX announcement regarding IMF Funding for the PIF Class Action.http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090713/pdf/31jjgl8m44rblv.pdf

Regards Seamisty
Click to expand...
Here is a copy of the announcement which can also be found on the IMF website, http://www.imf.com.au/ in the shareholders section. I imagine IMF will contact all elligible investors by mail with further information as soon as it is available, Regards Seamisty RELEASE TO AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES EXCHANGE (“ASX”)

13 JULY 2009

NEW FUNDING AGREEMENT

UNIT HOLDERS OF PREMIUM INCOME FUND

V MFS DIRECTORS & KPMG PARTNERS

1. The Board of Directors of IMF (Australia) Limited announces that it proposes to fund claims

that certain unit holders in Wellington Investment Management Ltd (formerly MFS

Investment Management Ltd (MFSIM), being the Responsible Entity for the Premium Income

Fund, have against:

(a) Directors of MFSIM; and

(b) Partners of KPMG as auditors of MFSIM’s Compliance Plan

2. The claims relate to alleged beaches by the MFS Directors and KPMG partners of the

Corporations Act in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

3. All unit holders who held units as at 29 January 2008 are eligible to participate in the claim

which IMF will fund subject to due diligence and a level of unit holder participation

acceptable to IMF.

4. The claim is currently envisage to be in the form of a representative proceeding for all of

those unit holders who held units at 29 January 2008 and who sign a litigation funding

agreement with IMF.

5. IMF will include the claim value in its quarterly Case Investment Reports as they are

published.

Diane Jones

Chief Operating Officer
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Do we know the terms of the IMF funding????

They were indicating a level of 30%.

Michael
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

WAHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

My wholehearted thanks to a brilliant hard working team of incredibly generous people.
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Thanks Mary and Michael, I believe all relevant information will be fowarded to investors in due course. I assure you that the applicants negotiated to the best of their ability to achieve the final terms with IMF on behalf of every elligible PIF unitholder. Having pursued many other avenues in the past 14 months seeking legal representation to no avail, I am really happy to have the opportunity to participate in the Class Action. Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund

Hi All, PIF unit holder Class Action participation will impact on the success of the IMF due dilligence so apart from you MaryLynch and myself who are extremely excited at the strong chance of financial compensation what do other investors think? Even though elligible investors are still waiting for all the relevant details I thought there would been more enthusiasm and comment on the forum in regard to it? Cheers, Seamisty
3. All unit holders who held units as at 29 January 2008 are eligible to participate in the claim

which IMF will fund subject to due diligence and a level of unit holder participation

acceptable to IMF.
 

Similar threads

System
MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
486
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Garpal Gumnut
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Sean K
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
Garpal Gumnut
Garpal Gumnut
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
ducati916
Top