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

NSX Release today 22/2/10 by JH

"Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 22 February 2010

Litigation Update - Class Action
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors – Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009 (‘Class Action’)

A hearing of the Notice of Motion brought by both the current and former responsible entities of the Premium Income Fund was heard on 18 February 2010. The Notice of Motion sought to have the former responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent in the class action) discontinued as a party to the court proceeding pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action.

Justice Perram today declined to grant approval of the discontinuance sought by the former responsible entity. As a consequence:

* the former responsible entity remains a Respondent in the class action; and

* the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action is at an end.

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses."

It's going to be interesting from here on.

What are the implications to the Class Action now that JH is continuing to be named as a respondent? It's certainly not a good look for her.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Sorry for the duplicate posting; Seamisty and I were obviously both posting it about the same time - she was faster!
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Well, My personal opinion is the right thing for WC to do is put their hand up and admit that not only can they not deliver on what was originally promised but it is quite obvious that in view of the fact that as the former RE, and the current RE, conflicting interests are not going to best represent unit holders long term. If a reputable judge such as Justice Perram can decline to grant approval of the discontinuance sought by the former responsible
entity which results in WC remaining as a Respondent in the class action and the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action is at an
end, where does it leave PIF investors? The NSX announcement by WC leaves me a bit confused. I received the folowing from WC on the 19th June 2009:::
As responsible entity of the Fund, Wellington will respond to all queries in relation to a unitholder's
investment in the Fund.
Wellington will not however correspond with unitholders in relation to their individual queries in relation to
a curent legal proceeding which names Wellington as a respondent. All correspondence in relation to any
legal proceeding where there is legal representation will be conducted between the parties' legal
representatives only.
As disclosed in the Fund's investor update released 29 May 2009, anupdate will be provided to Unitholders
as to the impact of the class action on the Fund as soon as the Fund is in a position to do so.
Wellington is aware of its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Constitution of the Fund to
act in the best interests of unitholders and will continue to do so.:::



Can we expect an update from WC as to our current status?


I did send the following to WC tonight::

As a result of the NSX announcement today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF regarding Wellington Capital remaining a named respondant in our Class Action, I know the Premium Income Fund Action Group will be inundated with questions in relation to who is responsible for legal expenses incurred by WC in relation to court costs. As a Former RE of the PIF, is the current RE liable for legal costs (which is ultimately us investors) or is there a provision for expenses to be met from Octaviar Funds?

I will post any response on the forum. Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

WC has lost yet another court proceeding and once again JH family has benefitted from this. Looks like the game is up for WC as the class action
will now and probably already has found mismanagement by WC.

Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.

I for one will not be happy until I get my money back and someone goes to jail.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF


thanks. i lost quite a bit of money too but have written it off. let me know what asic says.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

are the people running octaviar the same bunch of crooks as MFS?
sorry ive lost touch for a while until i saw this name appear on ASF!
if octaviar is listed now u can reach the ceo collectively on www.dearceo.com.au
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

MichaelG said:
are the people running octaviar the same bunch of crooks as MFS?
sorry ive lost touch for a while until i saw this name appear on ASF!
if octaviar is listed now u can reach the ceo collectively on www.dearceo.com.au
Click to expand...
Long story Michael, Octaviar is officially delisted and is the hands of administrators. This thread is more dedicated to the Premium Income Fund of which the management rights were 'aquired' by Wellington Capital. To get the full story you would have to do some research. Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Cookie1 said:
NSX Release today 22/2/10 by JH

"
What are the implications to the Class Action now that JH is continuing to be named as a respondent? It's certainly not a good look for her.
Click to expand...

What exactly does this mean for me as a unit holder in PIF and what does it mean for JH. Thank you in advance
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Happy landings! - I think not. The "talented team", busy with their road show spectaculars, obviously didn't envisage the truly disturbing chain of events following mid-2008. Somebody in the team has been too clever by half and is now confronted by a bizarre situation. Any attempt to charge us PIF investors for the legal fees involved in this fiasco must be challenged. (I think that the Class Action caught WC on the hop.)
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The Owls said:
What exactly does this mean for me as a unit holder in PIF and what does it mean for JH. Thank you in advance
Click to expand...
Hi Owls and other PIF investors, I have submitted the following to WC and will post any relevant response if and when received.

Dear Caroline,

As a result of the NSX announcement today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF regarding Wellington Capital remaining a named respondent in our Class Action, I know the Premium Income Fund Action Group will be inundated with questions in relation to who is responsible for legal expenses incurred by WC in relation to court costs. As a Former RE of the PIF, is the current RE liable for legal costs (which is ultimately us investors) or is there a provision for expenses to be met from Octaviar Funds?

Can you please provide the PIF Action Group with a statement as to any possible implications for unitholders regarding a conflict of interests having the former PIF RE named as a respondent in the Class Action instigated by unitholders on behalf of unitholders while WC is also our current RE? How can WC represent the best interests of unitholders while at the same time defending themselves in court proceedings relevant to the same Fund?

Why did WC not cooperate with Carney lawyers in providing relevant documentation as initially agreed to help PIF unitholders possibly regain compensation for lost funds? How can this be seen as representing the best interests of PIF unitholders?

In a separate issue, the following question remains unanswered.


While there has been several updates provided to PIF unitholders regarding the $20 million Sheraton Mirage Raptis 2nd mortgage loan owing to us there has been no mention of the other two outstanding 1st mortgage raptis loans of approx $32million.

Where does the Fund stand in relation to these two 1st mortgage loans of which I understood the Fund is mortgagee in possession?

Regards,

XXXXXXXX (on behalf of the PIF Action Group members)


I originally asked the Raptis question on the 16th Feb but have not received a reply.
Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

From my very limited knowledge of law the 22Feb2010 judgement means:

The Class Action (CA) now falls back on normal legal process. It doesn't get the benefits that the agreement between WC and the CA brought. That agreement supercharged the CA. The CA is back to regularly aspirated.

The CA now doesn't have access to look at ALL of MFSIM's files. The CA can only get access to info held by WC (who bought MFSIM,renamed as WIML) through the Document Discovery process. This puts a limitation on what info the CA can demand from WC. Also, the CA can't browse through all the info and perhaps find unanticipated gems that could rocket power our case. A prosecutors dream.

It's probably not a huge set back if the case being mounted by the CA didn't rely on WC's cooperation. But without WC's open cooperatioon, the costs for the CA will likely be higher and delays longer.

Why did the agreement fall through? Someone knows. Ill play the Devil's Advocate: Maybe some of the other respondents threatened and had good grounds to sue WC?

Why did WC push for WCIM to be discontinued as respondant? Can't blame them for trying. Was it a waste of time and money? I don't know - probably. Will it cost PIF $$$ directly? Better not!! But if not it still puts pressure on WC's finances and hence the need for WC to start getting its 0.7% from PIF.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

To Seamisty,Duped and others
Thank you for your reply. Without people such as yourselves PIF investors like me would be just swimming in circles until the whole situation goes down the sewer. Thank you again in your efforts to try and keep WC to do the best for us. The Owls.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Thanks for this, Seamisty. We will now simply wait.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

simgrund said:
Thanks for this, Seamisty. We will now simply wait.
Click to expand...
Make yourself comfortable Simgrund, WC are not renowned for their snappy helpful responses! In fact they simply do not provide answers at all for some questions. A classic example is an email I sent to WC Sept 9th last year re Justice McMurdos judgement. The response I received totally dodged the whole McMurdo question and remains unanswered.


'Hi Caroline,
I have only just received a copy of McMurdo's judgement dated 17/09/2008 regarding ASIC's intervention in the meeting that was proposed for 18 Sept 2008.
It appears from reading the report McMurdo was under the distinct impression that PIF investors were voting for Ms Hutson to conduct an orderly realisation of assets as opposed to immediate liquidation. At NO TIME did investors consider liquidation in any form acceptable and that was why Ms Hutson received a majority vote. The majority of PIF unitholders were vehemently opposed to any form of liquidation and thought they were voting for 'a far better return through the continuation of the Fund'. Would McMurdo have made the same decision if he was aware of his complete mis interpretation of what PIF investors thought they were voting for and why wasn't he made aware of this fact by WC at the time?

He also appeared confused as to what investors thought they were getting re distributions. Was this ever clarified at the time?
Is it the intention of Ms Hutson to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and return the capital in dribs and drabs under the guise of distributions, collecting management fees for acting as a glorified and expensive real estate agent or can we expect to see the long term continuation and restoration of unit value as we were led to believe?'::::

I sent the following extracts from the McMurdo judgement with the above::::


Extract from file :





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 its affairs over the next three

to five years.



and later:



In reaching that

conclusion, 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, because quarterly

payments of 3 cents per unit over three years, of course,

would be 36 cents per unit over three years and that has to be

read with what is said about the underlying value of the

units. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the documentation

could be reasonably understood in the way that I have

described, that is as providing for quarterly payments of 3

cents per unit.::::::



I wonder if Justice McMurdo has followed our plight?

Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Theres something we all have to face. JH and Wellington will only ever resign the management of the fund when they have bled it dry and there is nothing left.
She has done more to support the Octaviar and MFS directors than any legal guru could ever do. She is not a friend nor manager to the PIF and never has been looking after the best interests of investors.
ASIC is sitting on their bums because we voted for JH and Wellington.
Asic know that any action they take will only ever come out of the PIF coffers, afterall what can they do when they know that they're slowly running the fund into the ground.
The way forward is for the fund to be liquidated, thats the only way the world will see just how honest Jenny Hutson actually is and has been to the investors of the PIF.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Good day lawry1dog,
Your anger is well, no, painfully well understood.
As I am going over and over again through Explanatory Memorandum,
I can see as clearly, as Judge McMurdo did at the time of his study of this document, that we were doomed from page 17 to page 19.
These pages show different outcomes from various combinations of ticks and crosses.
Whether all were ticked (for approval), or all were crossed (for rejection);
the outcome for WIML/WCL would be the same ",,,,,will remain the responsible entity" or ",,,,will be the new responsible entity".

We need to look at bottom paragraph of page 14 dealing with revised quorum provisions for having unitholder's meetings.
The changes can then be submitted, adapted and RE replaced.

As for "I wonder if Justice McMurdo has followed our plight?" by seamisty, I also wonder if he ever got to that part to make a comment or a direction.
So there you are.
Any changes only through the meeting and then hope that somehow "removal fee" could be voted out. Or perhaps we could swallow that in return for reasonable substitute. None came forward so far.
Best regards,
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have received a response from WC regarding the following complaint:::

I would like to lodge a formal complaint as to why Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has not given PIF investors the option to be kept updated by email as opposed to the expensive alternative of a mail out?
Ms Hutson has been involved with the PIF in a managerial capacity for approx two years and has not made this option available which was ALREADY in place with Octaviar when she first became involved with the PIF.
In view of the fact that the PIF is severely impaired financially and appears to be getting more so, why is money being unnecessarily wasted in this manner?
It is my understanding that of the approx 5,000 investors who signed up with the IMF PIF Class Action, approx three quarters of those supplied an email contact which is being utilised by IMF rather than costly mail outs of which investors ultimately will have to cover the costs. Email is a far more efficient, less expensive option and I would consider any professional business would implement this cost saving strategy. I discussed it with Justine Buckley on the WC hotline well over a year ago and was told it was definitely an option and WC was collating a data base of PIF investor email addresses.
Does Print Mail Logistics provide the printing and mail out service for WC? If they have not in the past will they be in the future?::



I cannot copy/paste the response but the general answer was WC do not have enough investor email adresses (after all this time? and not once have we been asked to supply one!!) and WC think it important that they mail at least 3 updates (regardless of expense) to all investors, the rest of the time its ok for us (the not significant number of unitholders with computer access)to use the internet to read announcements etc. So it is ok for those without a computer to miss out on the other 22 NSX announcements issued in 2009 but essential that everyone, even approx 76% of unitholders(pro rata from IMF data) who have computer access and have already read all PIF related announcements don't have a choice as to whether they require an expensive mailout received approx two weeks after already having read the update.


Doesn't make sense to me:dunno:

The mail out is put to tender EVERY time!!! The Fund uses a variety of suppliers and Print Mail Logistics is one of the companies included in the panel of suppliers used for printing and mail services. The most appropriate quotation is selected.


I have sent back a response as follows for those who are interested;;

It is my understanding that approx 76% of PIF unitholders have an active email account or access to a computer. I don't recall investors ever having been asked by WC if they have access to a computer and would they prefer to be kept updated with PIF related information by computer or expensive mail outs. By what process did you ascertain that there was not a significant number of unitholders with a notified email adress?

In view of the pathetic PIF unit value which continues to deteriorate with exorbitant legal expenses, high overheads and operating expenses and the inability to generate any stand alone income under WC control I would consider it prudent to have at least made enquiries regarding the option of email as opposed to hard copy in an existing earlier investor update. I was informed by WC hotline staff over 18 months ago that this was DEFINITELY an option and WC was in the process of compiling an email data base for this purpose. Was I given incorrect information by WC staff?

Bearing in mind JH/WC is a substantial shareholder in Print Mail logistics, holding 28.65% voting power and JH is the nominated corporate advisor could WC dealing with this company not be seen as some sort of pecuniary interest hence the preference for mail outs when email could suffice at least until the PIF is profitable?

Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Simgrund

I am not sure if your comment about no one else coming forward is correct.

I know of two other responsible entities that would take this on.

They are property work out specialists not traditional fund managers. In my view this is the type of experience needed.

I had a private message from a fellow poster when I raised this subject previously saying other parties are been talked to so did not push this barrow.

However nothing to date has eventuated I notice. If anyone wants an introduction send me a private message.

New RE would need some assets to work with so the longer this is left before investors moved for a completely independent RE the less there is to work with.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Hello and Welcome,
We are aware of at least 5-6 other Applicants for the job, as admitted to by JH in her pre Explanatory Memorandum updates.
The takeover was by way of a purchase by WCL of all shares in OIML.
WIML eventually replaced by WC following the adoption of proposals contained in that EM. (p3 of Q & A Investor Information Forum booklet)
New Constitution allows for replacement of RE as I just posted above.
As pointed by you; no serious tendering eventuated by would be Saviours.
I and many others are delighted to hear your news.
This could be a kernel worth planting.
I am CERTAIN our PIF AG reps are alerted and will respond duly.
Best regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
505
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...