This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


What is it in the email from Carneys worries you the most about our class action.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Melbourne Herald Sun - 23 Dec. 09 Extract:

MULTIPLEX has failed in its latest bid to quash a $150 million class action over its disastrous Wembley Stadium project but won a victory over evidence in the long-running case.



The full court of the Federal Court yesterday threw out a bid to injunct law firm Maurice Blackburn and its backer, International Litigation Funding Partners.

"The court rejected Multiplex's application for injunctive relief," Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy told BusinessDaily.

"It illustrates that this proceeding never had a point other than to derail the Multiplex class action.

"The class action will now
proceed."

Multiplex made legal history in October when the Federal Court found that the class action was a managed investment scheme.

Australian class actions were thrown into chaos because none of them have a product disclosure statement or are run by a company holding a financial services licence, as required by law.

But last month, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission acted to allow class actions to proceed.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The Owls said:
What is it in the email from Carneys worries you the most about our class action.
Click to expand...
Thanks to Selciper's post just preceding, it no longer is a threat.
Implication of 20/11/09 judgement was that ALL class actions would suffer from
added burdens of being forced into "managed investment scheme" category.
Had IMF been forced to take into account these added monetary and other burdens, they could decide to abandon its support of PIF action through Carneys.
And IT IS this that would be a worry; would you agree?
Hopefully this helps, regards
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi all, John Walker from IMF has kindly fowarded the following to me after I contacted him on behalf of several concerned PIF investors regarding the latest IMF Class Action announcement. I will also ask Breaker to include it in his next PIF Action Group update. Cheers, Seamisty

Premium Income Fund: representative proceedings
Many Action Group Members have asked for information and assistance regarding the letter from Carneys dated 21 December 2009.
Some of the common questions (together with answers) are set out below.
Disclaimer: This information set out below is not legal advice and should not be relied upon in place of legal advice. The Action Group believes this information to be accurate and complete but accepts no liability for any inaccuracy or omissions.
Q. What does the Multiplex decision mean for the class action relating to the Premium Income Fund (PIF) funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd ?
A. The Multiplex decision may mean that the funding arrangements between IMF, the representative parties and the group members in the PIF class action are a managed investment scheme which to operate legally requires registration. However, due to the exemption granted by ASIC until 30 June 2010, the Multiplex decision does not presently affect the conduct of the PIF class action or the funding agreements between IMF and participants in that action.
Q. Is IMF continuing to fund the PIF Federal Court class action proceedings?
A. Yes.
Q. The ASIC exemption expires on 30 June 2010. What happens when it expires?
A. ASIC granted the exemption on a temporary basis while it considers how to regulate litigation funding in Australia. Neither IMF nor Carneys can predict what position ASIC may adopt in June 2010. If ASIC requires more time to consider its position, it is possible the exemption may be extended for a further period of time.
Q. Does the Multiplex decision mean that the group members will have to bear any substantial additional legal or other costs ?
A. No.
Q. Does the Multiplex decision mean that the group members will now have to personally bear costs of the PIF class action proceedings?
A. No. Group members continue to be protected from liability for costs under Section 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act (Cth).
Q. Will there be an appeal from the Multiplex decision ?
A. Neither IMF nor Carneys are parties to or otherwise involved in the Multiplex proceedings. IMF did not fund the Multiplex proceedings. IMF understands that an application for special leave to appeal will be made to the High Court of Australia. It is possible that if the High Court hears an appeal, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Multiplex will be overturned. If this occurs, the matters the subject of the letter will become irrelevant. If the High Court hears an appeal, this should occur during 2010.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


What about Selciper's #4822?
[The full court of the Federal Court yesterday threw out a bid to injunct law firm Maurice Blackburn and its backer, International Litigation Funding Partners.
"The court rejected Multiplex's application for injunctive relief," Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy told BusinessDaily.]

Can Marcom or other diligent researcher post verification of this matter being closed to any further proceedings. We don't need this so early in the new year.
One hopes that ASIC, in its new found alert mode, informs all stakeholders that the "freeze" is off and all positions remain as prior to this moronic act by Multiplex back in October.
Regards,
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error. Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?

New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:
New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error. Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?
New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?
Click to expand...

Hello Duped,
These seem to be amendments to the "Compliance Plan" so perhaps that reference seemed O'K to proof readers.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:
New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error. Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?

New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?
Click to expand...
And one could ask what monumental event/crisis has occurred that would motivate Ms Hutson to be propelled into action while on holiday to post deed poll ammendmants to our constitution dated 10th Dec 2009 on the NSX today?? Did you not see fit Ms Hutson to also post PIF investors overdue Dec update at the same time or is that of little significance or of no importance to WC? One could well ask where do your priorities lie? With the best interests of PIF investors or with WC? Is your complaints department receiving more than they can handle? Oops, thats right, WC do not monitor this thread so probablly wasting my time!(yeah, right!!!)I received the following from a concerned PIF investor today.


'I find it amusing that both of
these files are dated the 10th December 2009 obviously in JH's
handwriting. Both of these files were created in the early hours of this
morning i.e. 3.09am and 3.28am and modified at approx 1.30pm. (this
afternoon) and then posted at approx 2.30pm on the NSX. Maybe it would
be wise to seek some informed opinion on this, then again it may not be
of importance, it is just an obsevation. Someone is working back late in
Wellingtons office, thought they were on holidays?'

:bs: Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

New Years wishes to all.

Seamisty, looks like ASIC may have forced the upgraded complaints procedure, probably based on the volume of complaints they have received about WC's indifference to queries and complaints. I've waited weeks sometimes for even an acknowledgement - then all you get is a sales spiel or some doubtfully optimistic projections from one of the call centre operators. This will force WC to put responses in writing so that some further action can be taken.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


I think you are right, Marcom.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

k.smith said:
I think you are right, Marcom.
Click to expand...

But isn't this bs just another example of ASIC's passion for 'form' over 'substance.

Like the S.E.C. in the U.S., ASIC is a stickler for getting the forms filled out right and for making sure the act is followed.

Everything else that goes wrong is a matter of your prudential choice - if W.C. is a lousy manager, then that's the result of your selecting the manager.

ASIC wrote us and told us our losses in the FMF were the result of our 'prudential choice'.

City filled out the forms, crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's - and lost $500m, a form complying dud.

One day investors will realise that managers protect themselves more than investors can believe, just by making sure the forms are filled out right.

For ASIC, the whole world is FORM over SUBSTANCE.

Have a read of my post on the managed group thread about payments of capital as distributions - ASIC wouldn't deal with it - I had to contact the tax office - as I said, if payment of capital to investors as distributions isn't a matter for ASIC, then what the hell is a matter for ASIC?

What good is a "complaints system" to investors in the W.C.?

If ASIC doesn't act when you complain about W.C., why would you expect W.C. to act on your complaints?

Good luck with the new integration into your fund's compliance plan.



..
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Could it be that WC are strained in trying to keep up with newly-found investor savvy. I believe that it's thanks to the internet and its forums like this one that have changed the landscape. When WC took charge in 2008, they probably expected a comfortable ride for themselves. In pre-blog days that might have been possible. So, let's keep airing our legitimate complaints - somebody is indeed hearing us.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF
So step one for making complaints includes a ph no for Caroline Snow, 07 30099800.
I called the no this morning believing WC would be back on deck after their lovely Xmas rest, full of enthusiasm and energy to enquire to the where abouts of the Dec 2009 PIF update and what do I get? A recorded message advising WC staff were on Xmas break until Mon 7th Jan when normal business hours would take effect!!!! Today is the 11th Jan, the day we were informed http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722340.PDF WC business would resume and the line is unattended. When do they resume work?
What is the point in making announcements to the NSX which relate to incorrect PIF information? I sent an email as well to 'test' the new complaints system. Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF
What is the point in making announcements to the NSX which relate to incorrect PIF information? I sent an email as well to 'test' the new complaints system. Seamisty
Click to expand...

Hey Seamisty, how many times do you have to throw the light switch before you realise the light isn't going to come on?

Although my experience with managed funds is not as lengthy as yours, I have learnt one thing, and that is -> if you don't make the manager feel real pressure, then you waste your time.

I wonder if any of your membership (or leadership) has phoned the help liine at the Tax Offfice and sought advice about the tax implications of 'distributions' and 'payments' by your manager to yourselves - I'm betting there'll be tax implications no matter how payments/distributions are made.

Your manager is able to pay taxable distributions (cost of capital - expense of the fund) even in a fund devoid of income - and that's because the fund is now listed. W.C. can't allow you to be paid redemptions because you're no longer entitled to them.

If the fund had not listed, W.C. (1) could not pay distributions because there is NO income (after expenses of the fund have been accounted for, including impairments) from which to pay them, and (2) could pay members some level of redemptions without any tax considerations.

I wonder if listing the fund is going to cause more BIG troubles than it was worth?

Would payments of 'distributions' or 'payments' comply with the Corporations Act if some members actually have to pay tax? That is, would they be treated equally to other members who did not pay tax?

Food for thought?
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hey, I'm not qualified to give advice, but I am opinionated.

I reckon that unlisted managed funds were never designed to be listed unless they have a clear history of good management, have a demonstrated growth potential (that is, they are speculative), are unimpaired, and have little to no debt (leverage).

As I've posted here before, ASIC should never had allowed your fund to list because (1) an investor's chance of getting a good price on the NSX is not good (there is no income in the fund and the fund's prospects are not good), and (2) listing separates investors from their capital which gives rise to two problems, (a) simple payments (or redemptions of money as investors might see it) are no longer able to made without tax considerations, and (b) capital is able to be repaid as assessible taxable income (this would not be allowed if the fund was unlisted).

In my opinion, the separation of investors from their investment (the listing) will bring nothing more than grief to investors in the PIF.

Sometimes I think that ASIC would allow investors to give money to a monkey.

ASIC does not care about the 'prudential' value of an investment, just whether the investment is legal.

How the listing of the PIF was in unit holders' best interests is beyond my understanding.

ASIC should really go and take a long hard look at itself.

As a 'corporate regulator', ASIC makes a great 'corporate undertaker'.



..
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Hi Seamisty
We still have a couple of days to formulate our complaints.
This quote is taken from the Wellington website "The Wellington Hotline will be closed for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) 23 December 2009 until 9.00am (AEST) 11 January 2010."
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

mellifuous said:
Hey, I'm not qualified to give advice, but I am opinionated.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As a 'corporate regulator', ASIC makes a great 'corporate undertaker'.
..
Click to expand...

Mellifuous, with all due respect, we crave constructive inputs on this thread.
I am sticking my neck out here rather than on member's message facility by pointing out that self flagellation was left behind in 2009.
Just as all are entitled to their own opinions, so too all are entitled to a consideration by fellow members.
Don't mean to patronise, but I consider posting POSITIVE to be a consideration.
Such as the news from Melbourne Herald Sun (23 Dec, as posted by Selciper) that Multiplex's attempt to have Class Actions deemed as "managed investment scheme" thrown out.
That was a big win for "reason & logic". More of the same to be hoped for in the future.
Regards
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Yeah thanks Glendalow and sorry others for that error, I was rushing again and looked at the wrong month. The recorded message does however state, Monday the 7th of Jan, so we both got it wrong!! Seamisty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
479
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
994
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
Garpal Gumnut
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...