Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty

You may be right about moving from the frypan to fire regarding Trilogy.

However the more I look back on the thread, the video's etc and the promises made versus what has been achieved I get the view that investors were conned by Wellington and the lady in red.

Recently she was singing the praises of Raptis and I even found an article where JH was talking up how smart and astute Michael King was !

The primary thing you need from your RE is honesty and openess and so far there has been very little of this.

In a fin review article JH stated that the final purchase price that Wellington would pay for acquiring the fund was "north of twenty million" then they convienently side stepped any payment by getting investors to vote to change the RE for "administration" purposes to their own company. Where was the disclosure about what this meant in relation to the purchaser price to be paid.

No wonder Qld trustee's are not happy with this as they are chasing every cent for their investors. Wellington should be doing the same but on this one how could they as they are so conflicted.

The changes that investors voted through were done on the back of a fear campaign of accept this or be liquidated which was not the truth. It is the unit holders who control the fate of a fund not a manager telling you do this or face oblivion.

It appears investors on this forum ended in two camps and two action groups both going at each other's throats. The thing was both groups had investors interests as their primary concern. Just one group seemed like they saw through the threats made by RE about the implications of not accepting the changes.

If investors are serious about change then a media campaign with a contact point would flush out interested alternative RE's.

I am sure the exit fee voted through could be challenged based on a number of statements made about "accept this or face liquidation".

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The exit fee came about by a constitutional ammendment and can be removed by a vote at a meeting of unitholders. To go to court would be expensive and the outcome would be uncertain. What was voted in can be voted out..two ammendments..
1. delete the clause relating to the exit fee
2. change the manager...providing we can find an alternative RE standing by !

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:

... Tuesday 30 May 2006 ...

‘Fortunately these schemes are no longer a significant issue because all such schemes are now required to be registered with ASIC and to hold an AFSL. However, this outcome will assist ASIC in formulating future regulatory responses in relation to losses incurred under the old scheme’, Ms Redfern added.

Click to expand...

This is not directed at you seamisty.

Fat lot of good it did us. This is exactly the sort of government propanganda that disarmed me. It's so insidious. Even ASIC were probably caught out by believing their own spin. What's the point of Commissions like ASIC anymore? The functions might as well be brought back into the Departments again because the objective of having an impartial Commission ASIC failed the likes of us.

APRA on the other hand looks like a far more effective instrument.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Gardie and others, I hear you!!! Unitholders priority must be the Class Action as we have a far better chance of recovering some of our losses through a succesfull outcome from that than relying on our current RE, BUT, JH is meant to be cooperating with our lawyers and we don't want to take any action which would could be detrimental to the legal proceedings at this point in my opinion. In saying that we do have the power and there is nothing to stop us as a united group to investigate other options which may need to be implemented at some furure stage so I would not deter anyone from making enquiries regarding what those options are. I think we are well on the way to closing the previous 'split in ranks' and I am prepared to work with anyone willing to pursue a result which will ultimately(hopefully) benefit all concerned as in the CA. Some speak of apathy and lack of interest from PIF investors, personally I think most have become so disheartened and dissillusioned with the lack of result from WC and the sliding value of their investment that they have put their faith and hopes in the CA. Many I have been in contact with who were once as hopefull and believing as myself in WC and her 'travelling sideshow of promises' are now so depressed and shattered or suffering deteriorating health, that they sit on the sidelines and rely on a few who are stronger and more determined to do the work. I know many are truly greatfull for the efforts of others on their behalf. We need to discretely continue working and exploring all our options and carefully do our homework. Regards, Seamisty

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Thank you for your insightful comments Mellifluous.

I agree with your remarks regarding the integrity of fund managers. Given that they are all basically tarred with the same brush the question then becomes how can you extract the best deal from these people and ensure that they do not put their proverbial snout in the trough?.

I note, that you stated, staying with the previous City Pacific management was out of the question and investors in your fund have now accepted what is probably the best they could get out of the situation. I think PIF investors are exactly the same position at this point in time .

With regard to the NSX listing , unfortunately the effort and costs of reversing these changes are almost impossible to carry out in practice by investors acting independently and unaided. Regrettably I can state this with some experience on the subject. . By the way I attended the Trilogy Balmain EGM as an interested observer and it was apparent that the organization to put that endeavor in place ,would certainly not have come cheaply.

However ,I agree with you that listing on the NSX or ASX will become permanent if nothing is done . If I recall FMF investors were dead set against any listing by City Pacific and this is one of the primary reasons the majority decided to go with Balmain Trilogy.

Listing is unquestionably a slow cancer, in that new “Vulture” investors enter the fund with absolutely no allegiance to the original investors in the fund. Of course the amount of PIF shares traded at the moment is tiny , but as you have pointed out this will inevitably reach a ‘,Tipping Point’ ,after which it will be impossible for the former investors to effect change. This , I have no doubt is the primary reason WC choose to leave us on that benighted Index, as they were well aware the vast majority of investors wanted nothing to do with the NSX .

Of course, WC was well aware they were unable to keep their promise of a 6 cents per annum dividend yield for any great length of time. This missive below was written when listing on the NSX giving information ,concerning the capacity of the to the Fund to pay a dividend . This memorandum, was in fact made ,before WC held the vote to become RE of the PIF .

The above link has a document entitled:
Information Memorandum For An Application For Admission To The Official List Of The Nation Stock Exchange Of Australia (‘NSX’)

It was written on the 18th August 2008 and released on the NSX on the 15 Oct 2008.

Here are a few extracts:
Page 2 is a one-page address to unit holders from JH

For some reason this did not copy correctly, but it basically states that WC will not be able to pay a dividend in the forseeable future .

If you look at submission No 63 at the Parliamentary enquire you will find that efforts were made to give investors the benefits of considering all available options including a controlled sale of the assets. However most people trusted WC at that time, nobody can be blamed for this belief, considering how desperate the circumstance were for some investors. It is after all human nature to live in hope . I also hoped that WC would be able to deliver ;I can tell you there have been some drastic changes in my families lifestyle recently.


Perhaps investors will now look at the grim reality and make some hard decisions regarding their best long-term interests , taking into account all available factors. Personally I think there is only a very small window of opportunity left to effect any change .The alternative is to accept WC as RE and the pittance that other are prepared to pay for our assets as a listed entity, as interminable and unending fixtures..

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I certainly agree with Seamisty that we should do nothing to adversely affect the progress of the all-important class action. It looms as our best hope for some cash to be returned into empty pockets. Nevertheless, we should be quietly considering all credible scenarios and be ready to strike when the time is right. But Jadel correctly underlines the need for some speed in coming to conclusions. The longer we allow this mess to roll on, the more financially damaging it becomes. Meaningful options will sooner or later have to be drawn on.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It is good to hear that bridges are being mended as investors are all in the same boat and need to row in the same direction !

There are ethical managers out there that will run this fund for members benefit if investors push for change. THis fund doesnt need a fund manager in terms of where your funds are, you needs property experts.

The fee structure rather than a percentage of FUM (which is open to manipulation) should be result driven. The more recovered the more they earn.

It would be interesting to see how Wellington Capital reacted if they knew there was was a real push for change. If they felt threatened they would either take a legal approach and fight or they may realise that they have to be open and accountable to keep the job.

THis time araound there is no OCV to write a big cheque out to fund the propoganda machine like paying students to protest.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It is good to see some sensible and constructive debate on the forum. Please bear in mind it is a public forum and monitored by all who have a vested interest in matters pertaining to the PIF. Without appearing paranoid please accept that we are dealing with issues that need to be dealt with responsibly and some information at this stage should be dealt with the same non disclosure we as unit holders have recently experienced regarding the JV with one of our assets in the Fund. It seems it was well under way prior to the release of the last PIF update and used as a carrot to dangle as the only positive to take the spotlight off the dismal non performance of management indicated by the sliding unit value. I was informed in Mar 2009 that the PIF had been stabilised and left with a strong asset base which could be built on. I think the foundations are crumbling or our operating costs are too high!! Why else would the proceeds of the last two PIF assets be totally absorbed into running costs of the PIF( not to mention incidental earnings of the PIf)? I had been reassured by WC staff ( on 19th Mar 2009) that operating costs of the PIF hotline costs were absorbed by WC operating costs and other PIF expenses were being absorbed by WC infrastructure. Was this information correct? If it wasn't and the PIF is being billed for staff manning a phone providing information of a generic content and contributing to costs we are expected to pay for, can the PIF justify the expense of having access to a facility used solely for the purpose of placating irrate investors? I think we have had a huge wake up call. On the 20th Jan 2009 I was told the financier of the short term loan at 25% would be disclosed in the annual financial report. This information certainly was not correct, sorry JH, not good enough and if this service is what we can expect to have to pay for, I for one am not prepared to sacrifice any more of our diminishing assets so you can be seen to be running a successful business and justifying a hotline profiding incorrect or misleading information. Regards Seamisty

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Amadeus a sour note for PeacockCBD
September 8, 2009

Gun for hire...Andrew Peacock tried a Kansas play. Illustration: John Shakespeare.
Scott Rochfort knows when it's time to fold 'em.

A FORMER Liberal leader, Andrew Peacock, is a shrewd operator of the political process. A man who knows when the numbers are stacked against him. A man who knows when to fold.

So it has come as no surprise Peacock has decided to ''retire'' as the chairman of Amadeus Energy after a face-off with the group holding 2.65 per cent of the company, CVC Limited (not to be confused with the private equity group that has dud investments such as Stella Group and PBL Media).

After some rants from CVC's managing director, Sandy Beard, over Amadeus's plans to raise $25 million in a private placement that would dilute existing shareholders by 50 per cent, Peacock finally buckled yesterday.

In a statement to the market, Amadeus said a vacancy had suddenly appeared on its board for Beard following Peacock's decision to step down, along with another director, Caroline Bentley. Apparently, ahem, Peacock ''had previously indicated his wish to retire at this time''. The company additionally announced plans to replace its managing director, Geoff Towner.

Amadeus also relented by announcing why it actually wanted to raise the $25 million (to buy a company based in Wichita, Kansas, called TNT Engineering) and that it would also allow its current shareholders to participate in the raising via a share purchase plan.

CVC all of a sudden appears OK about the raising now it has a seat on the Amadeus board. The group has withdrawn its request for an extraordinary general meeting to block the raising.

Adviser at large
And it is not the first time Peacock has resigned the chairmanship of a company following intense pressure from a minor shareholder.

Peacock pulled the pin on his chairmanship at the now collapsed MFS Limited (rebadged Octaviar) after some agitation from a banana-bending businessman, Chris Scott, who at the time had allegedly received a margin call over his 3.5 per cent stake.

Scott managed to get himself planted on the MFS board with two of his business chums. The 70-year-old Peacock is now without a seat on a public company. His previous boards include Boeing Australia; the company that never made an orbital engine, Orbital Group; and Child Care Centres Australia.

At least Peacock has enough to see him through the next few months. His 2 million options in Amadeus are now in the money. But it is unclear if the former politician will continue his consultancy agreement with Amadeus. On top of his modest $87,500 in chairman fees, Peacock earned an extra $25,000 offering his ''corporate advisory services'' last financial year. It is unclear if his corporate advisory skills helped with the group's planned $25 million raising.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty

Would you please look at the Private Message Folder

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.

Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF.
We did vote for Wellington to take over the fund, but not to go on the NSX.

The facts are the following:-
1. Wellington promised(or indicated) that we will get a 3c distribution by December 2008.
2. Wellington would then pay quarterly distributions.
3. Wellington proceeded with legal actions, to get owing funds from MFS(Octaviar) windup.
4. Public Trustee Queensland won their case, and Octaviar is to be liquidated.
5. Wellington did payoff the $100 million debt facility.
6. Wellington now have the strategy of selling 11 properties and consolidating the other properties.
7. The unit value has gone from 45c down to around 39c, at this point in time.
8. NSX prices range from 5.6 cents to 45 cents per Unit. The 45 cents was back on 22 October 2008.
The last 2 months it has gone from 6.6 cents to 12 cents.

The following is my conclusions:-
1. Wellington thought that Octaviar would not be completely liquidated, and thus receive around $22 million
from the Deeds of Agreement(which was squashed by the PTQ). This $22 million was going to pay the
3c distribution.
2. Wellington employed several legal firms on behalf of the PIF, but the PTQ(the government) won their
case, and so our PIF will receive an equal slice of the liquidated Octaviar, which will be a few million dollars,
but when. Our PIF has paid for all these legal actions.
3. Wellington is now back to square one, and our fund has no money to pay any 3c distribution or any other
payments.
4. Wellington is paying staff, CEO and administration, from the PIF fund.

From the above facts and conclusions, Wellington Capital, should resign and voluntary hand the PIF to someone
else(Perpetual or a Bank), to manage.
To my way of thinking, Wellington has mis-mangaged our funds, and paid themselves along the way. Nothing given to us.

If Wellington had sent a letter or memo, explaining the situation, and how sorry that things have not panned out
as expected, and giving us some sort of distribution(eg 1cent distribution), then I would be happy and not embark
sending opinions on their questionable performance.

We all make mistakes.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Judgements in the Octaviar cases will be delivered by Justice McMurdo tomorrow at 9.30am Brisbane Supreme Court.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:

This is not directed at you seamisty.

Fat lot of good it did us. This is exactly the sort of government propanganda that disarmed me. It's so insidious. Even ASIC were probably caught out by believing their own spin. What's the point of Commissions like ASIC anymore? The functions might as well be brought back into the Departments again because the objective of having an impartial Commission ASIC failed the likes of us.

APRA on the other hand looks like a far more effective instrument.

Click to expand...

duped ive been reading quietly ,and for what its worth i believe that the sooner Breaker1 can get his hands on that list of investors names and address's the better, we are very rapidly reaching the point where she (JH)must be removed, she made some changes to our constitution, that at the time beggard belief. i asked this question of breaker some time ago how can IMF work on our behalf when JH is the controlling entity of our fund, surely the restrictions placed on IMF because of the connections JH has, to all of the previous RE's must make the whole process that much more difficult, If as things were explained to me (regarding IMF/JH )i was told that IMF are going at an Insurance Group which was quite separate from JH, if that is the case why are some on this forum reluctant to address the problem of JH.
flatback

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

k.smith said:

The exit fee came about by a constitutional ammendment and can be removed by a vote at a meeting of unitholders. To go to court would be expensive and the outcome would be uncertain. What was voted in can be voted out..two ammendments..
1. delete the clause relating to the exit fee
2. change the manager...providing we can find an alternative RE standing by !

Click to expand...

Hi all, Just back on line after a period in a "non broadband" location.

I don't know whether it was mentioned at other September meetings, but at the Gold Coast JH stated when challenged that "if she was judged not to have performed" then the exit fee would be waved. How that is quantified???- but I am sure there are 900 + investors who would be prepared to sign an affidavit that it was said!!!
.............. John H:angry::iamwithst

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Re the Investor Advisory Committee election results: why were the successful candidates' names published but no relevant statistics provided? Surely it's a democratic right to know how votes were distributed. The result seems meaningless without the figures.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Welcome back JohnH. I am sure there would be many prepared to sign statuatory declarations re the waiving of exit fees. Does anyone know if that discussion was ever recorded or documented?
Selciper who counted the votes, WC or Computershare? I think Breaker was chasing up on that. Cheers, Seamisty

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

marcom said:

Judgements in the Octaviar cases will be delivered by Justice McMurdo tomorrow at 9.30am Brisbane Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-283.pdf

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

As a result of Justice McMurdo's judgement today the new liquidators for Octaviar and Octaviar Administration are William Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet of Bentleys Chartered Accountants Brisbane. Here is their web site http://bris.bentleys.com.au/index.cfm/Home/index.cfm/Home

The judgement is a bit tedious to read through but it is well worth the effort to see what has been going on with the administrators and the 35% Stella sale, and the $19.5M transfered to Fortress, and the "prospect that the present liquidators are in a position of conflict between their duty to investigate the circumstances of that payment and their interest in an outcome of that investigation favourable to them".

Wellington was there again (at our expense) and in an interesting plot twist the new liquidators (Fletcher and Barnet) appointed by the court are the ones suggested by counsel for Wellington. Talk about "hoisted on ones own petard" - I can hardly wait for the liquidators investigations and report.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-283.pdf

Click to expand...

Pure Gold.
Looks like Deloitte got slapped by Fortress. Just as OCV got slapped by Fortress in the first place - demanding their money back.

Basically from my lay reading McMurdo is saying:

The boys from Deloitte wanted access to OCV cash so they could pay themselves. To get CBA to release the cash they exchanged a few letters with the ATO and Fortress.

Then Deloitte appears to have been a bit enthusiastic in interpreting their legal advice and handed ~$20M to receivers in December 08 and didn't instruct the receiver not to pass the $20M to Fortress. Fortress won't give the $20M back and Deloitte potentially could be sued by the rest of us creditors for that amount.

Deloitte have been busy getting Fortress to agree to put the $20M in an escrow account to remove Deloitte's conflict of interests. McMurdo wouldn't give the agreement his blessing. (Who paid for all that negotiation and court time? Us creditors?)

Wasn't enough and McMurdo found that Deloitte are now conflicted.

McMurdo got stuck into the question of solvency in para [34]: "But it was one thing to say that the company may have been solvent as at that date. It was another to express the opinion that it was probably solvent."

Deloitte at least got some reprieve. "Absent such an enquiry", McMurdo didn't agree with the PTQ that Deloitte's sale of 35% of Stella warranted sacking Deloitte.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

New liquidators appointed to Octaviar:::BRISBANE, Sept 9 AAP
September 09 2009, 5:39PM
The Queensland Supreme Court has appointed new liquidators for beleaguered fund manager Octaviar.

The Public Trustee of Queensland, supported by the tax commissioner, sought to have liquidators John Greig and Nicholas Harwood replaced.

The court agreed to the request on Wednesday, concluding a potential conflict in relation to an issue surrounding trust monies "is of itself a sufficient reason for appointing someone other than Mr Greig and Mr Harwood as liquidators".

The new liquidators for Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and Octaviar Ltd are William Fletcher and Katherine Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery.

The Public Trustee successfully sought the wind-up of the two Octaviar companies in July.

The Public Trustee started legal proceedings in its role as trustee for more than 560 noteholders who were owed $359 million by the failed Octaviar Group.
Source:::http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2009/9/252/catf_090909_173900_5070.html