- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
"BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
Michelle Singer
Where did they get the money from?
"BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
Michelle SingerIt was money OCV had left when it went into administration, possibly left over from the original sale of Stella, that is why I could never understand how PIF did not get the $50million support facility which was triggered in Jan/Feb 2008. The question is in veiw of the evidence that ASIC now has regarding the alledged theft of $150 million from the PIF by former MFS/OCV employees, is PIF entitled to jump the queue of ALL the OCV creditors and have that money returned to PIF investors? Below is a couple of older media articles relevant, SeamistyWhere did they get the money from?
Octaviar collapse mired in Supreme CourtArticle from: By Anthony Marx
March 03, 2009 11:00pm
NEARLY six months after the $1.8 billion collapse of the Octaviar finance and tourism group, the legal battles continue in Brisbane's Supreme Court.
The Public Trustee of Queensland, which had failed to wind up the Gold Coast group formerly known as MFS, continues in its bid to overturn a deed of company arrangement over two of the key entities.
The Trustee this week has sought to have the court determine the validity of a $38.5 million charge held by Fortress Credit Corporation, the only secured creditor. As part of the deed, Fortress agreed to accept just $25 million of its money owing.
The deed might be restructured or eliminated if the charge is ruled invalid and about $50 million previously paid to Fortress by Octaviar could be clawed back by a liquidator, a source said.
Administrators with accounting firm Deloitte maintain the charge is legitimate.
The liquidators of Octaviar Investment Notes and Octaviar Investment Bonds have also taken legal action seeking an extension to the time they are allowed to file an application to overturn the deed.
These cases are among at least seven applications to the court which have been filed in relation to this dispute and related matters since October.
Acting Public Trustee Patrick Wedge said yesterday he was still seeking the best possible return for about 560 listed noteholders owed about $359 million.
''The current deed ... assumes that Fortress holds valid security and so therefore enjoys certain priority in any distribution of Octaviar's assets,'' he said.
''The Public Trustee continues to believe that the best interests of its noteholders are served by the Octaviar Group being placed into the control of liquidators.''
Octaviar appointed administrators in September and creditors voted three months later for a deed, with the expectation of recouping no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
Administrator John Greig of Deloitte has overseen the deed for Octaviar Administration and Octaviar Limited, which collectively retain about $140 million in cash and a 35 per cent stake in the Stella Group of tourism assets.
Mr Greig, who continues to review proof of debts for dividend purposes, declined to comment about the matters before Justice Philip McMurdo.
Major creditors include OPI Pacific Finance, Premium Income Fund, Challenger, and the Australian Taxation Office.
Mr Greig, in his capacity as administrator over Octaviar Administration, applied to the court last month to wind up Octaviar Financial Services.
MFS directors falsified documents: ASICIAN MCILWRAITH
November 3, 2009 ::SMH
FIVE former directors and executives of companies in the failed investment and leisure group MFS are accused by the corporate watchdog of falsifying and backdating company documents to disguise having wrongly used almost $150 million to repay debts.
Court documents in a civil suit filed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission allege that the group was involved in a complex deal in late November 2007 to avoid defaulting on a $250 million loan from Fortress Credit Corporation to an MFS subsidiary, which was already overdue and needed to be partially repaid by November 30.
It is the second big legal suit in as many weeks from the corporate regulator designed to challenge whether company officers have fulfilled their ''core obligations'' as either directors of a company or managers of a responsible entity.
Last month it initiated proceedings against directors and executives of the retail property group Centro, seeking financial penalties and disqualifications for the individuals.
The MFS action seeks fines of up to $800,000 for the five people, and indefinite disqualification.
The major difference is that ASIC is seeking to recover $147.5 million it says is owed to investors in the MFS-managed Premium Income Fund (PIF), with multi-million dollar claims against four of the individuals and three companies from within the MFS orbit.
The transactions ASIC is challenging, it says, used $150 million borrowed from the Royal Bank of Scotland by PIF, but instead spent repaying MFS's debt to Fortress and to fund redemptions in a New Zealand offshoot.
The once-listed but now in liquidation MFS, which changed its name to Octaviar, used to count aquariums in Melbourne and Korea among its assets. PIF is under different management and listed on the NSX.
ASIC's allegations, pieced together from its investigation of email and computer document trails, go on to say that the PIF deal, and a separate $17.5 million in December to a New Zealand subsidiary, were only recorded as ''a one-line entry'' in company accounts until January 23 last year.
ASIC says that on that date Craig Robert White, the former deputy chief executive of MFS, and David Mark Anderson, the former chief financial officer and company secretary, instructed staff to draw up documents saying the total $147.5 million had been invested by an MFS subsidiary on behalf of PIF.
The commission's draft statement of claim then alleges that from early February last year various officers in the MFS group took part in the creation of false documents, designed to show there had been meetings and an approval process for the various transactions.
PIN is in a Trading Halt. But there is no Request for a Halt under PIN Announcements. How does that happen?
No Panic - looks like the whole NSX is on hold.
Here is Decembers list of scheduled Class Action court appearances. Cheers, Seamisty
03-Dec-2009 9:30 Directions Justice Perram
16-Dec-2009 10:15 Hearing Justice Perram
18-Dec-2009 10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram
Thanks k.smith, as usual, the answer you get from WC results in more questions! I am so over WC and their non commital responses and open ended promises that to date have delivered PIF investors ZIP!!! I seriously question the continuation of PIF as a going concern under our current management. What is the cut off point where our assets are so eroded to cover WC inoperating expenses (which I was told on several occasions by WC hotline staff were being met by WC staff) that it will be impossible to deliver the return of PIF unit value in a 3-5 year time frame??When is JENNY HUTSON of WELLINGTON CAPITAL going to reassess her unfulfilled promises and come clean??? Payments from income?? What income?? Any profitable assets have been sold and absorbed. And exactly when in 2010 will we see a return of our capital?? Not forgetting we were promised the same in Oct 2008? IMO = in my opinion, WC has not and will not deliver and like milk, their use by date is questionable. Any one still have faith in WC??? SeamistyI have just.received a reply from Wellington Capital regarding an email I had sent them about the sale of the Wollongong property.
They acknowledge that the sale ..."will enable a cash payment to be made to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund in 2010"
The issue that should be a big concern to all of us is how will we receive this payment...
In the same letter from Wellington Capital they say..
"...at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unitholders...."
So how will we be paid...if we receive this as income, that is, a credit from the fund....we will have to pay tax on the income....is the alternative that the fund will have to pay tax on the income? Isn't that us anyway? So why the listing? Would't we be far better off delisting the fund and receiving the what is now classed as income as redemptions with no tax? Is there anybody here that could advise us?
MARCOM!!!! Thanks for keeping a close watch and consistantly informing us all on PIF related court activity. Well this latest action is VERY INTERESTING. I am sure all will be revealed in due course. Regards, SeamistySeamisty, there is more movement at the station!
From the daily list of applications before the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday: APPLICATIONS TO COURT
10:00AM– The list of applications will be called over in COURT 5 FLOOR 1 for allocation to a Judge and an order of hearing will be indicated for contested matters. Practitioners should be prepared to deal with adjournment and consent orders immediately before the callover of contested matters.
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others 10:00 AM Monday 7 December 2009
This application is in addition to the ASIC application lodged on 29/10/09.
Managed Investments is the MFS/Octaviar company which transfered PIF to WC. MI is a respondent to the ASIC action.
The first directions hearing is also on in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday. I wonder if this is also over a problem with obtaining documents?
I have just.received a reply from Wellington Capital regarding an email I had sent them about the sale of the Wollongong property.
They acknowledge that the sale ..."will enable a cash payment to be made to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund in 2010"
The issue that should be a big concern to all of us is how will we receive this payment...
In the same letter from Wellington Capital they say..
"...at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unitholders...."
So how will we be paid...if we receive this as income, that is, a credit from the fund....we will have to pay tax on the income....is the alternative that the fund will have to pay tax on the income? Isn't that us anyway? So why the listing? Would't we be far better off delisting the fund and receiving the what is now classed as income as redemptions with no tax? Is there anybody here that could advise us?
K. Smith - How we can mange to ensure members' interests come first is a real challenge. You wrote "With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
to a pro rata payment at $0.45c.?"
I seem to have missed something. Would you kindly explain more about the 0.45 cents proposition? Is it the once-touted buyback which, I thought, had was abandoned?. Thanks.
K. Smith - How we can mange to ensure members' interests come first is a real challenge. You wrote "With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
to a pro rata payment at $0.45c.?"
I seem to have missed something. Would you kindly explain more about the 0.45 cents proposition? Is it the once-touted buyback which, I thought, had was abandoned?. Thanks.
Yep, selciper, and I recall that a few of us who were prepared to back WC and JH also said that if in 12 months investors weren't happy we would review the the RE management situation. I continually ask on this thread if there are any PIF investors who still think JH will deliver on the BS offered to us that 'encouraged' us to vote for her but no support appears to be forthcoming so I take that as a 'NO' vote of confidence. I strongly suspect JH is otherwise occupied with court appearances, providing legal documentation and representation and pleading her case to ASIC and the Supreme Court etc to expect any transparent PIF investor related updates. I hope there is a comprehensive list of LEGAL FEES being accrued so that we know which PIF is accountable for and which WELLINGTON CAPITAL investmnet management should be responsible for! I assume these fees are being monitored in house, because I can assure you that the 'small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH', who are a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact who also 'constantly waffle on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric' are constantly on the case 'outhouse' (doesn't outhouse and WC have something in common?) Anyway, to cut the waffle short I am sure the next few weeks will be interesting and I for one will not be spending any promised income, distribution or return of capital from WC before Xmas because I strongly believe this Xmas will be much the same as the last one and Santas stocking will be empty. SeamistySeamisty -
From a position of weakness, a majority of PIF investors in 2008 voted in favour of a new regime. Any doubts were cast aside and the rosy future that was outlined gave everyone hope. In effect, we were unwittingly voting to be shunted into a thick fog.
For example, the NSX listing (few investors really wanted it) has been a massive flop. You can hardly say that it has provided any solution for us. And one could go on about the list of continuing disappointments - but we all know what they are, so I’ll just say bluntly, ”Give ‘em the flick.” Of course, there may be strategic legal reasons for not doing so now. That’s for the experts to decide.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?