Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Crikey 2 November 09:

ASIC takes a serious swing at MFS
Adam Schwab writes:

Perhaps stung by public criticism that it hasn’t done enough to prevent and prosecute corporate fraud, ASIC has launched a second action in as many weeks, announcing a civil claim against various directors of collapsed fund manager MFS. The $147.5 million claim alleges that various MFS executives, including former managing directors Michael King and Phil Adams, created false documents and provided fabricated information to its auditors and creditors.
The action appears more serious than the claims launched against various Centro directors in late October (the Centro claim alleged that directors failed to accurately report current liabilities to shareholders).
Of the corporate collapses of the past few years, MFS appeared to be the one laced with the most stupidity. The white-shoe Queensland fund manager adopted the worst elements of the Macquarie Model and combined it with a business plan that appeared to consist of buying assets for more than what they were worth and raising money from gullible punters. MFS utilised a network of financial planners to raise money for its satellite funds (including the Premium Income Fund) -- some of those financial planners (from Avenue Capital Management) also happened to be non-executive directors of MFS.
Some of MFS greatest fiascoes included buying the Mount Hotham and Falls Creek ski resorts and quickly selling them to satellite funds MFS Living and Leisure for a $15 million "profit". Within three years, Living and Leisure wrote off $40 million from the value of the ski resorts while paying millions on "management fees" to MFS for the privilege. MFS also paid more than $2.2 billion to acquire a string of tourism assets including BreakFree, S8 and the Sheraton Mirage to form the Stella Group. After slipping into administration, MFS sold 65% of Stella to private equity firm CVC for $430 million. It would give the rest of Stella to CVC for nothing a year later after CVC sued MFS for misleading behaviour after MFS allegedly overstated Stella’s profitability. It takes a truly incompetent business to turn $2.2 billion into less than $500 million in a couple of years.
ASIC’s statement of claim gives the impression that in its dying days, desperate MFS executives adopted a similar tactic to that used by one of Australia’s most colourful corporate characters, Alan Bond. That is, pilfering money from one part of the empire to prop up another. While Bond diverted $1 billion from Robert Holmes a Court’s Bell Resources, the MFS crew allegedly used $147.5 million from its PIF satellite to repay a $103 million loan to hedge fund Fortress Capital. MFS’ desperation may have stemmed from the fact that Fortress is known as being a brutal creditor, unafraid to tip borrowers into administration if not repaid.
At the time, MFS allegedly had only $40 million in its account and would have been unable to repay the US lender.
The problem with what the MFS executives appear to have done is that PIF was a completely separate fund, which was meant to be a safe, reliable investment for mainly older investors seeking a stable yield. Few investors in PIF would have expected their savings to be used as a cashbox to prop up MFS’ ailing empire.
ASIC alleges that Craig White (who was King’s deputy and took over running MFS after King’s resignation in January 2008) authorised the $103 million transfer and the creation of false documents to "disguise" the payment. Former KPMG employee David Anderson, who is remarkably still being paid almost $1 million per year to work at MFS (now called Octaviar), was also charged with "aiding and abetting" the payments. KPMG was MFS’ auditor.
Colourful former MFS boss Michael King, who is believed to spend most of his time at his multimillion dollar polo complex in Queensland, told the Financial Review that he looked forward to having the matter resolved in open court. (Admittedly, such confidence is not out of character for King, who claimed days before the company’s collapse that MFS didn’t "actually need the equity … We could stay as we are and keep going. Our earnings guidance is unchanged and there is no change to our debt position.")
King’s partner, Phil Adams, has not commented, with the former BRW Rich List member remaining in Dubai running an investment advisory firm called Agilis. Agilis’ website claims that its "business is conducted with ethics and integrity, with a corporate governance structure that underpins a sustainable business and enhances our reputation". There is no mention of the civil charges that have been laid against Adams nor the fact that Adams’ former margin-lender, Lift Capital, moved to bankrupt him last year after the he failed to repay debts of more than $13 million.
While the civil claim will be welcomed by PIF unitholders (and MFS shareholders), some may be questioning whether the conduct of various MFS executives, especially that of creating false documents, may have been more fitting of criminal action, rather than civil charges.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

If there was a concern re funding for class actions it has now been resolved. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...for+funded+class+actions?openDocumentSeamisty
09-218MR ASIC grants transitional relief from regulation for funded class actions

Wednesday 4 November 2009


ASIC today announced its intention to grant transitional relief to lawyers and litigation funders involved in legal proceedings structured as funded class actions.

The relief, which will apply until 30 June 2010, is from the requirements that would otherwise apply to funded class actions as ‘managed investment schemes’ under Chapter 5C and Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act). These requirements include:

appointing an AFS licensed public company as 'responsible entity' to operate the scheme
adopting a complying constitution and compliance plan for the scheme
registering the scheme with ASIC
preparing a Product Disclosure Statement for the scheme
providing ongoing disclosure to members of the scheme.

The Full Federal Court’s recent decision that a funded class action was a ‘managed investment scheme’ within the meaning of the Act has the potential to disrupt the conduct of a number of class actions currently underway.

ASIC will grant transitional relief to avoid any disruption that could adversely impact plaintiffs in those actions, or interfere with the timely and efficient conduct of the subject litigation. The relief will allow time for Government and ASIC to consider and consult on how funded class actions should be regulated under the Act in future. Depending on the outcome of that process, existing class actions may need to be restructured to meet the requirements of the Act by the end of the relief period.

Relief will generally be granted, on individual application, to lawyers and litigation funders involved in the conduct of class actions that were commenced before 4 November 2009.

Applications in respect of class actions to be commenced after that date will be considered separately and ASIC will assess whether or not and on what terms it will grant transitional relief. Applications should be prepared in accordance with ASIC Regulatory Guide 51: Applications for Relief and lodged through applications@asic.gov.au.


Background

On 20 October 2009 the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down its decision in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147. The Full Court held that a funded class action currently being maintained against Brookfield Multiplex was a ‘managed investment scheme’ within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act.

A managed investment scheme must be registered with ASIC in certain circumstances, including where it has more than 20 members or is promoted by a professional promoter. To qualify for registration, it must be operated by a public company that holds an Australian financial services licence and must have a constitution and a compliance plan that meet the requirements of Chapter 5C of the Act.

The offer of interests in a registered managed investment scheme must generally be made through a complying Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) that contains information about the scheme.

In deciding to grant the relief, the Commission's considerations included the consequences of the decision in Brookfield Multiplex, the options currently available to existing class action plaintiffs and the consequences of ASIC not providing relief, the case for and against regulating class actions as managed investment schemes and what additional obligations would be imposed if class actions were so regulated.

Commission noted the full Federal Court has not yet made orders in the Brookfield Multiplex matter, but has ordered a timetable for submission on the form of orders over a period until 12 November 2009, and there is likely to be a further period while the Court considers those submissions before orders are made, perhaps in early December 2009.

Commission also noted that without any form of relief from ASIC, existing class actions with members who would qualify as retail clients under the Corporations Act will immediately suffer considerable delay, expense, uncertainty and disruption as a consequence of the decision.

ASIC has power under the Act to modify or grant exemptions from some or all of the regulatory requirements. Government may, by regulation, declare a particular arrangement not to be a managed investment scheme.
ASIC Website: Printed 05/11/2009
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty, here is an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin 5 Sept 2008 saying she had 97% of PROXIES: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/09/05/15894_gold-coast-business.html

Wellington's results update: http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/PIFResultsOfMeeting.PDF

"... Ms Hutson has said a wind-up would deliver only 14c in the dollar for investors who poured $770 million into the fund.

She said Korda Mentha had estimated it would be worth 45c in the dollar as a going concern. ..."

I wonder if any evidence was furnished to support the propositions?

Generally speaking, investors aren't given reports in order to make decisions about their fund's future.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped, an excellent and timely article.

So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail.

Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I don't know marcom. I haven't studied the Act yet. Shall do when I can.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped, an excellent and timely article.

So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail.

Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.

couldn't this requirement be removed by the same process as it was "inserted" ...by a vote of unitholders??
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

My two bob's worth (constitutions are always interesting).

Duped, an excellent and timely article.

So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail.

Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.

I think the constitutional amendments made by Ms. Hutson are legal.

I think you could vote to pay for a clown to dance down at the Queen Street Mall every Thursday at 2pm if you wished to.

couldn't this requirement be removed by the same process as it was "inserted" ...by a vote of unitholders??

Yes.... special resolution (75%).
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Can anyone tell me if there has been any information come from our "elected" investor committee members.
Have they added anything to this thread ?

Perhaps someone could help me with what the election results were and how the votes were distributed from our vote

Cheers
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...-liquidators-fees-expenses-20091105-i0aq.html

".....THE corporate regulator has launched a review of the fees and legal expenses of One.Tel's special purpose liquidator, Paul Weston.

Mr Weston has spent $9.5 million, mostly on legal bills, since his appointment by the NSW Supreme Court in 2003.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission began its review after an acrimonious annual meeting of creditors in August, when Mr Weston traded sharp criticism with the four-member committee representing One.Tel's creditors....."

What about our legal bills...???
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Can anyone tell me if there has been any information come from our "elected" investor committee members.
Have they added anything to this thread ?

Perhaps someone could help me with what the election results were and how the votes were distributed from our vote

Cheers

We were invited to participate in a novel electoral process which is undoubtedly a rare one in western democracies: the successful candidates are named but no scrutinised figures are provided when the results are eventually announced.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

We were invited to participate in a novel electoral process which is undoubtedly a rare one in western democracies: the successful candidates are named but no scrutinised figures are provided when the results are eventually announced.
Leading up to the 'election' I enquired at WC as to if JH would use the voting power of the wholesale premium income fund and was assured that no, that wouldn't be an issue. I asked because I knew that if JH used that voting power it would be a complete waste of time to even nominate. The three extremely popular investor advisory group representatives who obviously were 'overwhelmingly elected' are very conspicuous by their absence! Unless there is another well used PIF forum or contact point that none of the regulars on here are aware of I find it rather intriguing as to how they canvassed support to get the majority vote and more importantly, what means do the reps have of communicating with other investors other than through a WC screening process? I have lost all confidence in JH and her experienced team of professional staff. Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

To add further insult to injury, PIF investors can kiss another $20million plus interest goodbye. Thanks for the update Jenny, your openess and transparency is 'overwhelming'. Seamisty

Business Gold Coast, source: gold coast bulletin






Sheraton Mirage sold for under $60m
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 7th, 2009



Sheraton Mirage has been sold to Indian company, Pearls Infrastructure Projects.

THE drawn-out haggling over the Sheraton Mirage has come to an end with an Indian company yesterday signing a bargain deal for the Gold Coast's biggest beachfront resort.

Apartment and shopping centre developer Pearls Infrastructure Projects is understood to have snared the trophy asset for less than $60 million from receivers to a Raptis Group subsidiary.

A year ago, it was thought buyers would be looking to spend up to $100 million.

The deal has been locked down by a strict confidentiality clause with no one prepared to comment.

But news of a sale has been circling the market for the past few weeks, lifting the hopes of market observers that the Coast's paralysed property market may be on the move again.

More Gold Coast business news
Have your say on the feedback form below
The deal is Pearls' first foray outside India and is expected to lead to a major refurbishment of the ageing hotel, developed in 1987 by failed tycoon the late Christopher Skase.

It also opens the floodgates for a rush of new money from India into a capital-starved Coast market that has claimed some of the city's biggest developers.

Pearls already has flagged its intention to pursue new opportunities in Australia to add to its residential and commercial portfolio in India.

Representatives from Pearls have been on the Coast all week inspecting the property and making final adjustments to the Sheraton contract.

The Pearls executives, who have been staying across the road at Palazzo Versace, are believed to have signed the deal yesterday.


The 3.4ha property went on the market in September last year, put on the chopping block by Jim Raptis after his company's Southport Central development was placed in receivership.

Tired of waiting for a buyer, St George Bank, which is owed $60 million plus costs on the property, appointed receivers to the Sheraton in March.

While the sale will largely pay out St George, the deal leaves nothing for unit holders in the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund which is owed $20 million as second mortgagee.

The five-star Sheraton Mirage cost Raptis Group $82 million to acquire from MFS and the Ray Group in 2005.

The sale is the latest in a string of bargain deals on the Coast and comes on the heels of a Chinese buyer paying $80 million for the Pacific Beach site on the southern end of Surfers Paradise. That property, controlled by failed financier City Pacific, cost more than $100 million to amalgamate.

The Sheraton had been expected to sell for $70 million to $80 million, with Casuarina Beach developer Don O'Rorke linked to a deal about that level a year ago.

The Pearls purchase is understood to require regulatory approval from both Indian and Australian authorities
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty,the article is too long to post in it's entirety so will Post it in two parts herewith part one..........part two to follow ,regards, Blueboy1:-

How Michael King's dream turned to dust
IAN MCILWRAITH
November 7, 2009

Michael King ambitiously named his estate after the paradise rewarded to fallen heroes in Greek mythology. Investment group MFS has left its investors only an angry regulator and a tale of woe.

On the Saturday night that John Howard's dynasty was swept into history in November 2007, Michael King stayed up campaigning by email for the one vote he needed to keep his $1.5 billion investment group, MFS, from a similar fate.

While Kevin Rudd was making his victory speech at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium just after 11pm, down the Pacific Highway in the Gold Coast region, King was continuing the negotiations he had begun at 7am, via computer ”” well before the polling booths even opened. Coincidentally, MFS's chairman was someone who had also swept Howard aside 20 years earlier ”” former Liberal leader Andrew Peacock.

For King, the political battle of that day was persuading David Kelleher, the Sydney-based chief of the Australian arm of US hedge fund Fortress Investment Group, to give MFS yet another stay of execution on the $250 million it needed to repay within a week.

Fortress had been an opportunistic lender to other property-based groups like City View, which bid for MFS in January 2008, just before the balloon went up and the shares went down, and payday lender Amazing Loans as well as a host of finance companies in New Zealand.

The bargain King eventually struck with Kelleher, and other actions to meet Fortress' November 30 deadline, are now the subject of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission civil suit in Queensland's Supreme Court.

ASIC is trying to claw back up to $147.5 million from King, three other former executives and three MFS subsidiaries ”” money the corporate regulator claims was debt drawn against the assets of the then MFS-managed Premium Income Fund, but wrongly used to repay liabilities of MFS companies rather than benefit the fund's investors.

ASIC not only wants to prove that the MFS management team wrongly used other people's money to bail out their companies, but that King's deputy and brief successor, Craig White, the then chief financial officer, David Anderson, the head of its investment management arm, Guy Hutchings, and former fund manager Marilyn Watts also tried to “legitimise” the late 2007 financing arrangements by organising the fabrication and backdating of documents in the opening months of 2008.

(King and Anderson have told BusinessDay they are looking forward to having the matters aired and resolved in court. BusinessDay was unable to get responses from White, Hutchings or Watts.)

The MFS case is ASIC's second such law suit in as many weeks against officers and directors of companies, designed to both bring to account people it believes have breached their duties, and send a message to others in corporate Australia that the watchdog can bite, as well as bark ”” even if it has had to go the "soft" route of civil actions, where the hurdle for proving guilt is set much lower.

Both the first case, against current and former directors and executives of the Centro shopping centre group, and the MFS action contend, among other things, that it is not just what you do that could see you in court ”” what you do not do, could land you there, too.

Among documents filed by the regulator in its MFS case is a draft statement of claim based on ASIC investigators' forensic ferreting in the hard-drives of those involved. It meticulously details what it believes are the timing and content of emails and other electronically created documents on which its case is based.

ASIC also revealed that King, and others from MFS, were subjected to an interview under section 19 of the Corporations Act ”” which compels people to attend, and forbids them from telling anyone it even happened, let alone the content. One positive for anyone grilled in such "star chambers" is that any evidence gathered there cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal proceedings.

It is not known whether ASIC, before turning to a civil suit, tried to persuade the Commonwealth prosecutor it had enough evidence to support criminal charges in relation to MFS ”” but it is telling that ASIC's claim states that King appeared before it in August last year, or 14 months before it went to court.

In one of life's little coincidences, ASIC's Brisbane office in Queen Street is high up in the Commonwealth Bank's tower. Many of the transactions King and White were quizzed on involved money cycling through their companies' accounts at CBA's Southport branch.

Ultimately MFS, which King and fellow solicitor Phil Adams had created out of their property lending within Gold Coast law firm McLaughlins, collapsed just a few months later under the weight of $2.7 billion of debt.

By that time, Adams had already been gone almost a year, relocated to Dubai and running Agilis Global Holdings, a renamed MFS subsidiary that he had wanted to develop into the international version of the Australian parent.

King, who in recent months signed a three-year personal insolvency deal with his creditors, says he is living in a "shed" on his ambitiously named "Elysian Fields" polo estate in the Gold Coast hinterland. The estate is now being managed for those to whom he reportedly owes up to $130 million ”” much of it due to margin calls on his and Adams' now worthless, jointly owned stake in the deceased MFS.

In Greek mythology the Elysian Fields were the after-life reward for the heroic and virtuous. Located about 30 minutes' drive west of brash Surfers Paradise, closer to Wonglepong than Canungra, King's version not only has several polo fields, hedges cut to spell out its name to passing satellites, and $15 monogrammed stubby holders for sale, but offers itself for weddings, parties and almost anything.

On the Sunday evening after the federal election, while King and Kelleher were still bargaining over their computers, Elton John was belting out tunes at the polo estate before a crowd of almost 10,000 on his “Knight Under the Stars” tour.

Technically, MFS subsidiary MFS Castle had borrowed the money from Fortress, but was backed by guarantees from the parent company and MFS Financial Services. The $250 million had been due on August 31, but MFS had won one extension to November 30.

According to the commission's claim, King showed, in an email sent at 6.03am on November 22 to the then head of MFS's lucrative Stella tourism arm, Rolf Krecklenberg, he was aware that MFS group did not have the money to pay Fortress ”” and that he "admitted" it in his section 19 examination.

It was little surprise King and Krecklenberg were communicating. All during the debt renegotiations in November, Stella was pumping out statements to the stock exchange about its performance because MFS was looking at selling half the business it valued at nearly $3 billion, but intriguingly decided to drop the idea two days after a deal with Fortress was struck. MFS's tourism business was the company's star performer, too, providing more than half the profit.

In his first email to Fortress' Kelleher on election morning, ASIC claims King offered to repay $25 million of principal to Kelleher immediately, so long as it won an extension on the balance.

A flurry of emails over the next three days, many of them copied to White and Anderson, ended just after lunch on the Monday with MFS agreeing to pay $100 million by Friday, and the rest by February 29 ”” but Friday's payment had to include a $3 million "extension fee" to Fortress.

The crux of ASIC's case is that King and his team then signed off on a loan amendment for which MFS would struggle to find the cash. That hovers on the brink of trying to argue that MFS was trading while insolvent (that a debt had been incurred that company officers knew could not be paid when it was due).

On that Monday evening, King received an email from his CFO, Anderson, telling him there was $40 million in MFS Investments ”” the arm run by Hutchings and responsible for the funds of Premium Income Fund (PIF) and others.

PART TWO TO FOLLOW.....
 
Top