Thank you seamisty. As with other progresses, this will be a slow one. But signs are there that information will be forthcoming more readily once the IAC channels are firmly established.
And to JOHN H re """"Just had a relook at the "September Update". Wellington have given an email address for our representatives - iac@newpif.com.au! They say it will be checked daily, and forwarded on to the relevant member.
Has anyone invited them to contribute to this forum???"""" ............
We can rightly claim that recent pushes to open the communication channels have hit their marks. A modest pat to our collective back is apropriate. With best wishes to all, simgrund
Extracted from Article in SMH :::: Hedge fund could be back for secondsSCOTT ROCHFORT
December 15 PALM IN A GALE http://www.smh.com.au/business/hedge-fund-could-be-back-for-seconds-20091214-ks9d.html
Philip Adams, the co-founder of the sunken Gold Coast financial engineer MFS (aka Octaviar), could be forgiven for having a sense of deja vu.
Adams, who left Australia to help MFS's expansion into Dubai before the firm's multi-billion dollar collapse, might be getting the wobbles living on one of the fronds of the giant man-made palm tree island which juts out of the emirate.
Yesterday Nakheel, builder of Palm Jumeirah, was desperately seeking a reprieve from the repayment of a $US3.52 billion ($3.9 billion) bond issue that is due. At the time of its listing, it was the largest listed sukuk (Islamic bond) on issue.
Adams, meanwhile, continues to keep a low profile. Last month he was sent a bankruptcy notice from the liquidator of Lift Capital, McGrathNicol.
Adams and MFS co-founder Michael King took $13.7 million in loans from Lift. Altogether, they had $127.2 million in margin loans over their now worthless 13 per cent stake in MFS. While King struck a two-year insolvency agreement with creditors in August to avoid bankruptcy, Adams has so far proved harder to track down.
PRICE IS RIGHT
Adams appears to be struggling to find clientele for his corporate consultancy in Dubai, Agilis Global. The firm still has Stuart Price listed as its chief executive, despite the former head of MFS's international (aka Dubai) operations having returned to Australia midway through the year.
Price is now chief executive of the Adelaide law firm Kelly & Co. On the Kelly & Co website Price appears coy about his recent job history. It notes his time as head beancounter at Elders Rural Bank but makes no mention of MFS, where he worked for two years before helping set up Agilis.
When the Herald contacted Price he said he was tied up in a business lunch and would have to call back. He failed to call and also appeared to have his phone on message bank for a large part of yesterday afternoon.
Judgment
The judge and ASIC seem to be under the impression that Wellington are providing an orderly realisation of assets over a period of 3 to 5 years which will return 45 cents to unit holders. There was no mention during the 5 hour proceeding of Wellington returning $1 in 5 years! And interesting to note an orderly realisation of assets is over 3 to 5 years is assumed to be occurring despite Wellington stating to numerous unit holders the law does not permit this option and it’s not something they are interested in.
Page 3
“In broad terms what is proposed by this meeting is that the constitution of the fund would be changed in several respects with the objective of the fund continuing to trade as a going concern for a period in the vicinity of three to five years. The purpose of that is to return to unit holders far more than they would be likely to receive on effectively a winding up of the fund by the redemption of units in march next year. In broad terms the comparison is between an estimated 14 cents per unit in the event of a redemption in March of next year and about 45 cents in the event that the fund continues to trade, is able to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and otherwise is able to conduct it’s affairs over the next three to five years.”
Page 13
“I have had regard also to the financial material within this explanatory memorandum and to what is said about the likely proceeds from the orderly realisation of assets over a period of three to five years, …”
Page 17
“Of course that is not the only thing which is proposed and there are other financial considerations involved in a choice between effectively terminating the fund early next year and allowing it to trade on for three to five years….”
It looks like ASIC decided to abandon the issue of resolution 3 being an ordinary resolution instead of an extraordinary resolution. I find this disappointing as it should have been easy to prove an extraordinary resolution was appropriate for our fund due to it not being listed and I think it's also important as it's likely resolution 3 will meet the requirements of an ordinary but not an extraordinary resolution. Meaning we will have to pay the 2% RE fee if WC are removed.
Page 16
“The notice here refers to that an ordinary resolution. Originally complaint was made in that respect that that point was abandoned by ASIC.”
The judge agrees that unit holders will not have entitlement to receive any cash payments, the buy back or the advisory committee.
Page 7 “These are things WC are saying they will do but they are not legal obliged to do . In my view unit holders should not understand the material to represent that the passing of the resolutions would have the result of giving a legal entitlement to those interim payments, a buy-back of unit or the establishment of the investor advisory commit.”
Looks like the judge will hold WC to their statement of not taking the management fee before unit holders receive a 3 cent per unit distribution as the new constitution allows management fees regardless is the fund can afford to pay them (unlike the existing constitution). i.e. before expenses and distributions.
Page 8
The material, and particular the chairperson’s letter, represents that this management fee would not be paid to the entity until after “the 3 per cent cash payment has been made to unit holders”. That is a reference to payments totalling 3 cents per unit to be made by 24 December 2008. However, if the constitution is amended as proposed, there would be no limitation by the constitution which postponed the entity’s entitlement to the management fee paid monthly until after payment of that 3 cents per unit. Recognising this, the respondent offers an undertaking, the effect of which is that it would not claim the management fee until after those cash payments totally 3 cents per unit were paid, as is proposed, by 24 December next.”
Judge agrees the quarterly thereafter statement is misleading.
Page 12
“Ultimately, as I read this material as a whole, the various references to the quarterly payments could be reasonably understood by unit holders as references to quarterly payments in each quarter of 3 cents per unit.”
Page 13\14
“…(this) does not appear to have emerged until this morning when further affidavits came from the respondent’s side. In particular, it was only within an affidavit sworn today that the relevant resolutions of the board of the respondent were disclosed.
The result of the conclusion I have reached as to what might be reasonably understood about the size of these quarterly payments is that what is said about them is, in my view, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.”
If you have not yet realised from the audit or the figures\spreadsheets your fellow unit holders have generated that WCs statements of 1.5 cents per quarter and returning $1 in 3 to 5 years is not going to happen perhaps the above judgment will open your eyes. All spreadsheets and figures that have been produced to date have shown even the buy back will cripple the fund.
No redmeptions, no return of capital, no distrubtions. How about saying No to the resolutions and putting forward a decent resolution.
-----
"Wake up lil snoozy! Smell the smelling salts!"
I hope you folk enjoy my effort to give you all a piece of light refrain.
seamisty, Yet another example of the types of cosy business relationships that got us into this situation!
Exactly k.smith, unfortunately for JH though, most of the trophies on display in the bargain bin still retain their full faculties and even though the key to the cabinet has been thrown away, the glass is smeared and the shelves covered in dust, the contents are not prepared to sit idly by while others grow fat on the spoils!!! SeamistyI feel like we the PIF are just a collector item...we are like bone china locked in the display cabinet, to be looked at and spoken about.
We in the display cabinet along with a few other bargain bits...must take a lot of time and energy to put the collection together. The sad reality is that we are not bits of bone china, we are real people who have been collected and displayed and we are waiting and waiting for justice and the return of what is rightfully ours.
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?