Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Dear Seamisty and others
thanks so much for your active involvement and your realistic analysis of a terrible situation. Without you guys I would be alone in the dark. Many many thanks

Investor262 said:

Dear Seamisty and others
thanks so much for your active involvement and your realistic analysis of a terrible situation. Without you guys I would be alone in the dark. Many many thanks

Click to expand...

Thanks Investor 262, Sorry, I had an expensive computer malfunction on Friday as well as a 'I have had enough, I am out of here, need a break and went fishing binge!!!!. Hopefully I have rectified all issues with sons help installing new modem and am back!!! Just catching up on news/emails etc. Thanks for the support, my batteries are charged, the computer is working, back to normal hopefully tomorrow. Cheers, Seamisty

charles36 said:

Did I read correctly that McCullough Robertson acted for the bank in the Sheraton fiasco, they no doubt acted for Wellington Capital. Can anyone enlighten me please. Kind regards Charles36.

Click to expand...

charles36 The judgement on the Sheraton sale is now on http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-057.pdf

Yes McR acted for the bank.

COUNSEL: D J S Jackson QC and J I Otto for the applicant
P L O’Shea SC and M G Lyons for the respondents
SOLICITORS: McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the applicant
Mary Ann Greaves for the respondents

And now for the damage:
Costs
[68] Having heard submissions on costs, I order that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed.

Thanks Marcom, I wonder whether we have to pay twice, once for M/s Greaves appearance and then pay her wages whilst she attends the Court. Kind regards Charles36.

charles36 said:

Thanks Marcom, I wonder whether we have to pay twice, once for M/s Greaves appearance and then pay her wages whilst she attends the Court. Kind regards Charles36.

Click to expand...

Charles, that is a good point - is this the "in-house" legal support promised at the road shows? Or just another way of skinning the cat?

Just received the IMF CA update with the costs allocation details of WC application to be discontinued as a respondent to the CA - "...ordering WC and WIM to pay the applicant's costs of this application". We won one!

I have just received the email from IMF with the attached letter from Carney's, "Opportunity to avoid or rescind funding agreement" I am assuming the best thing is to stay part of this action or is there something I am missing?

marcom said:

Charles, that is a good point - is this the "in-house" legal support promised at the road shows? Or just another way of skinning the cat?

Just received the IMF CA update with the costs allocation details of WC application to be discontinued as a respondent to the CA - "...ordering WC and WIM to pay the applicant's costs of this application". We won one!

Click to expand...

Rightfully so Marcom!! If ever there was any PIF investor who still had a glimmer of faith left in WC I would imagine that this clearly demonstrates that WC has/had no intention of placing investors best interests above their own:::::
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/188.htm
The Law imposes extensive duties on the Responsible Entity and its officers. These include the duty to act honestly, exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence, act in the best interest of members of a scheme and to treat scheme members equally. Breaches of the Law which relate to the scheme and which have or are likely to have a material adverse effect on the interests of members must be reported by the Responsible Entity to ASIC. Breach of a duty by a Responsible Entity attract civil penalties (up to $1 million for the Responsible Entity and up to $200,000 for its relevant officers) and in some cases criminal sanctions.



I would imagine a RE who refuses to cooperate with lawyers by not providing relevant documentation representing a class action on behalf of the Funds investors to try and recoup losses could be seen as not acting in our best interests. I guess my next question to WC will have to be if they have or intend to notify ASIC of the latest development.

I am still waiting for answers from WC for a number of questions which I re sent this morning. One of them is:::"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?"


Seamisty

Investor262 said:

I have just received the email from IMF with the attached letter from Carney's, "Opportunity to avoid or rescind funding agreement" I am assuming the best thing is to stay part of this action or is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

Just sit tight - what ever way the Multiplex case is resolved we will be covered by IMF/ASIC. Lawyers do seem to have such an unfortunate manner of describing things that could be put much more simply - but I suppose that's the lawyers mystique.

MARCOM I would like to share your confidence that we won, no doubt the fund have to pay the expenses to the class action, via IMF, but by the time book keeping etc to pay the costs we have really lost both ways. The class action has a little under 5000 members, the fund 10400 unit holders, to my way of thinking 5400 unit holders have lost out. I have faith that there must be a day of reckoning for us if there is any justice in this world. Kind regards Charles36.

According to the PIF Constitution clause 10.5 under 'The rights and duties of the RE' states Confidentiality::: Except as otherwise required by any applicable law, the contents of all Scheme records, reports, accounts and other documents must be treated as confidential and the RE must take reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure thereof to any person OTHER THAN ITS UNITHOLDERS, employees or advisors.

Why then were we subjected to a statement in the PIF Dec 2009 update that we received in Feb 2010 such as " Much of the correspondence received by the IAC seeks information that is not publically available. Whilst the committee is able to meet with the Funds management team, they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders."



Am I having another dyslexic moment or are we not ALL entitled to Fund related information? (Bearing in mind we were promised transparency in all matters relating to the fund by WC as an 'election committment')



Surely well informed IAC reps would have asked this same question on behalf of PIF investors without needing to be prompted so perhaps we can expect some more comprehensive IAC coverage in the next PIF investor update due at the end of April 2010?





Seamisty

seamisty said:

According to the PIF Constitution clause 10.5 under 'The rights and duties of the RE' states Confidentiality::: Except as otherwise required by any applicable law, the contents of all Scheme records, reports, accounts and other documents must be treated as confidential and the RE must take reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure thereof to any person OTHER THAN ITS UNITHOLDERS, employees or advisors.

Why then were we subjected to a statement in the PIF Dec 2009 update that we received in Feb 2010 such as " Much of the correspondence received by the IAC seeks information that is not publically available. Whilst the committee is able to meet with the Funds management team, they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders."



Am I having another dyslexic moment or are we not ALL entitled to Fund related information? (Bearing in mind we were promised transparency in all matters relating to the fund by WC as an 'election committment')



Surely well informed IAC reps would have asked this same question on behalf of PIF investors without needing to be prompted so perhaps we can expect some more comprehensive IAC coverage in the next PIF investor update due at the end of April 2010?





Seamisty

Click to expand...

Would it be a reasonable step for the manager to disclose information to unitholders on its webpage, accessed by way of a password given to unitholders..??
Information would then be equally available to all unitholders .

k.smith said:

Would it be a reasonable step for the manager to disclose information to unitholders on its webpage, accessed by way of a password given to unitholders..??
Information would then be equally available to all unitholders .

Click to expand...

Extremely reasonable k.smith but from WC past/present performance I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything resembling 'reasonable'. From my experience if WC do not want to answer a 'reasonable' question they either ignore it or evade the original question and replace it with something totally irrelevant!!!:bbat: Seamisty

ROFL. This is too sweet not to share. The contrast. The coincidence.

Recognoise this Teddy Roosevelt quote:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat"

It's on our fund's homepage. Why? What relevance is it? Is it us PIF victims that WC wanted to push into the arena to get covered in mud and more blood?

Or could WC possibly dare to be implying that WC is getting into the arena on behalf of us investors?

Contrast this to Peter Costello's use of the same quote on page 37 of "The Costello Memoirs".

Costello goes on to say "To Fred Stauder I said: 'You were the one marred with dust and sweat and blood. You were the one in the arena. We were just the advisors. You had your whole life's savings on the line. You had plenty of critics. But you won a place in Australian industrial history. This child of Austrian immigrants became a true Australian hero.' In an emmotional response Fred said, 'Tonight is the greatest night of my life.' He died a few months later. I was privileged to deliver a eulogy at his funeral." [Costello represented Stauder in the Dollar Sweets dispute]

"We were just the advisors. You had your whole life's savings on the line."

After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?

For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100 signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.

selciper said:

After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?

For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100 signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.

Click to expand...

selciper a lot of complaints/correspondence submitted to ASIC has been done on behalf of PIFAG members which numbers far exceed 100 so they are kept well and truly informed of the situation. Its what they do eventually do with that information that interests me, not that I would ever deter individual investors from contacting them with their own concerns.

Seamisty

Seamisty -

Thanks for the info re. ASIC. Yes, the AG certainly represents many more than one hundred investors, so the weight is there for them to pay attention to our problems..

selciper said:

After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?

For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100 signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.

Click to expand...

So, what's the answer? - day after day, month after month of the same, or what? Surely lost legal adventures must be burning away at fund cash reserves. I note the contents of a letter from W.C. which discloses a hostile state now exists between W.C. (as manager of your fund) and the class action - that means your fund will be spending money to impede class action progress - after all, the manager of your fund possesses information critical to the success of your action - now, just how such a stance is 'in the best interests of unitholders' is hard for me to understand, how about you?

You've got an IAC which seems to be no more than an echo chamber for the manager - you're got a manager which tells you next to nothing (as so many managers do) - your fund's future is uncertain. Your IAC is an invention which has no real function - it seems no more than an adornment for your fund - an ornament.

So, what's the plan? a new manager? go to the court and have a manager appointed? or more of the same?

Your manager could tell you more, but it doesn't want to - in fact, so many of these managers (bt included) given next to no information, because it suits them not to give information - uninformed investors are real delight for managers.

Investors in the PFMF and the PIF are like chooks running around with their heads cut off.

We all complain, but we get nowhere - so, what's the answer?

I understand that ASIC does not care about the prudential nature of your investment - you elected your manager, you have to accept your manager's actions - if you don't like what your manager is doing, then it's up to you to get rid of it.

ASIC worry about paperwork, they do not worry about whether a decision is, or is not, in unit holders' best interests, they don't have resourses, energy, or interest to think about such things - if you think ASIC concern themselves about the things you guys are concerning yourselves, then you haven't accepted reality. Yes, we have to make complaints to ASIC, but we shouldn't accept too much.

100 signatures or 1 signature, it won't make a difference.

We're all neatly packed away in our respective little fund 'boxes' and there is not much we can do about it - only change managers, wind up, or hold a meeting to alter the constitution for one thing of the other (including de-list the fund) - but nothing more.

..

Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
action will have to pay court costs, etc..

After years this forum has been going, nothing has ever come from it.
I certainly have not seen any money.
I think a lot of unit holders have resigned to not getting anything back
at all, now.

Lawrydog - Name your sources!

lawry1dog said:

Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
action will have to pay court costs, etc..

After years this forum has been going, nothing has ever come from it.
I certainly have not seen any money.
I think a lot of unit holders have resigned to not getting anything back
at all, now.

Click to expand...

Dear Lawry1dog,
Do not panic. IMF funding of our case comes with a caveat that in the event of losing the case, the funder covers the costs.
Please read your agreement with IMF again for your peace of mind.
IMF usually selects cases which bring them the bacon.
Check this carefully before spreading the panic virus. Good luck.