Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[erniel]

Jenny Hutson,
What was all the spin you gave us about what a wonderful relationship you had with Raptis and you were confident all would be resolved to the satisfaction of the PIF.?How many more millions have we lost again ?
You misled us into voting for you and how dearly we are paying for our naivity.


I doubt we will be recieving any returns from the PIF under Hutson and believe our only hope is in the class action of the PIF AG

 

[seamisty]

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.

Lawry1dog anyone who has already joined the class action has the choice to opt out but why on earth would they even consider it? It is in all probability the only real chance of recouping PIF losses no matter how little. I understand that the idea of paying IMF 20-30% of money recovered is because IMF take on board any risk and are liable for costs if no money is recovered. Do you have substantive information that backs up your post stating the opposite?


It is not the responsibility of this thread (which has been going for less than 2 years) or the forum to return money to you, this thread is a means of communication. If you consider it has achieved nothing, tough, there are plenty who do recognize its value.

Have you contacted Carney lawyers to confirm your source of information before posting your alarming post?

Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,blah, blah, blah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
..

[You will find comfort in the fact that this will be my last posting here - I've added everything I wanted to in order to be helpful.

I wish you all good luck.]

These are your words from #5197.
For once, be a man of your own word.

 

[mellifuous]

[You will find comfort in the fact that this will be my last posting here - I've added everything I wanted to in order to be helpful.

I wish you all good luck.]

These are your words from #5197.
For once, be a man of your own word.

Ah, 'simgrund', you pleasure at shooting the messenger, so what is it you find disturbing in the message?

Look 'simgrund', I'm sorry that I found something to add - yes, time changes everything.

'simgrund', just to balance up your nastiness - I'm acting as a proxy for an investor in your fund, and he wants me to add to this post the fact that he doesn't like you at all either.

He wants this forum to be helpful in achieving the best outcome for what remains of his investment in the PIF.

..

 

[mellifuous]

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.

Just for information, and you'll have to verify it with your lawyers, but as I understand it, your class action is fully funded and each member in the class is indemnified against loss - that is, no cost on a loss.

There is no need to worry about being personally liable. The better thing to do is to press your manager into cooperating with the class action (IMO), and if the manager won't cooperate, then at least press the manager to explain to all members why it won't cooperate.

..

 

[selciper]

Lawry1dog - Do you know this old saying? "Nothing travels faster than light except for unfounded rumours."

Anyway, your facts regarding CA members' potential costs are plainly wrong. This error diminishes the plausibility of a reckless rumour.

 

[charles36]

Thanks Lawrydog for you information. Unfortunately, throughout my life I have never placed much faith in unsolicited advice and I am too old to change now, Regards Charles36.

 

[seamisty]

Hi all, I just received a call from Carney Lawyers and my information is in actual fact the Class Action is still open at this point for those wishing to sign a funding agreement with IMF to participate if they have not already done so. The agreement does not mean investors will be accountable for any expenses/losses in the event no money is recovered.

The interesting thing is, all PIF unitholders who held/hold units prior to the PIF being frozen or have since sold on the NSX are included in the Class Action at this point . Investors who have bought since the PIF was frozen are excluded. This is because the court wants all investors to be as fully informed as possible of the court actions, statement of claim etc to make their decision before the cut off point.( I imagine the initial sign on was to give IMF an indication of investor participation to consider if numbers warranted IMF involvement in view of the costs involved.)
At some stage the judge or court will declare the Class Action closed and only those signed up will remain eligible to participate.

Also in the same token anyone who wishes to 'opt' out can still do so by contacting IMF until the CA is declared closed.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Cheers, Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Yesterday I passed on some correspondence to Carney lawyers that was between my self and WC after being told by WC to contact my lawyers if I required more information. Carney lawyers were kind enough to read it and contact me in relation to its content. I cannot post it all on here but I can post a response I sent back to WC after being told that the original agreement with Wellington Capital and Carneys regarding providing Carneys with relevant documentation which would help all the applicants in the Class Action is at an end as a result of the dispute.

In the same correspondence I received from WC it also stated that ' WC as RE of the PIF has a duty to act in the best interests of all unit holders and is aware that not all unit holders are represented in the class of persons represented in the CA. '

Now bearing in mind that I posted earlier today stating that it is only new investors not represented at this time in the CA I sent another email to WC as follows::


Why did WC Ltd the current RE file the Notice of Motion in the courts when the issue could have been resolved without doing so?

WC states that not all PIF unitholders are participating in the Class Action. At this point the only unitholders not participating are new investors who have bought on the NSX and recognise the fact that they invested in a severely impaired fund, reflected by the heavily discounted price they paid for their units, average 13cents, NOT the $1.00 per unit paid by the majority. The new investors have not lost money at this point and should not need to be represented to the same extent of long term holders at the expense of those who have been severely financially disadvantaged by current and prior management.

WC states it has to act in the best interests of all unitholders, how can this be done when there are now different catagories of investors?

Will WC be cooperating in the future with Carney Lawyers on behalf of the majority of PIF investors who remain in the Class Action by providing relevant PIF documentation necessary to best represent unitholders?:::



What I forgot to add and many of you may not be aware of, is that the Action Group and the original Class Action applicants had Carney lawyers approach Wellington Capital on investors behalf and asked for some financial assistance to help fund the claim before Carneys managed to get IMF on board.


Would you have expected an RE who had promised us so much and had already demonstrated on numerous occasions that legal representation was a priority REFUSED TO HELP!!!!! Yes, REFUSED and then alledgedly reneged on an agreement to assist the lawyers!!

Are these the actions of an RE who has a duty to act in the best interests of all unitholders? I am totally appalled!!!

Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

Yesterday I passed on some correspondence to Carney lawyers ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

WC states that not all PIF unitholders are participating in the Class Action. At this point the only unitholders not participating are new investors who have bought on the NSX and recognise the fact that they invested in a severely impaired fund, reflected by the heavily discounted price they paid for their units, average 13cents, NOT the $1.00 per unit paid by the majority. The new investors have not lost money at this point and should not need to be represented to the same extent of long term holders at the expense of those who have been severely financially disadvantaged by current and prior management.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Seamisty

It would help to request from Carney Lawyers this very reasonable clarification about an "entitlement to be represented".
Otherwise we may be faced with gross distortion by the time of hoped for distribution.
How is it decided and by whom?
Seamisty; could we have some light shed on this, thanks.

 

[seamisty]

It would help to request from Carney Lawyers this very reasonable clarification about an "entitlement to be represented".
Otherwise we may be faced with gross distortion by the time of hoped for distribution.
How is it decided and by whom?
Seamisty; could we have some light shed on this, thanks.

Simgrund not sure what you mean? Please expand, I can always contact Carneys or IMF with reasonable questions relating to the CA. Thanks, Seamisty

 

[Jadel]

Just wondered if anybody can work out what Jenny H is gouging out of our fund after reading the following article


How can a LABOR government in Australia NOT do something to prevent this type of ridiculous over-payment of executives in this country. $3,461 per hour (higher, actually, because they don’t work 52 weeks of the year) to manage other people’s money, at no personal financial risk whatsoever?



http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-probability-of-worldwide-economic-collapse.html



Very interesting material and suggestions in the above link.



Inequality and Absurbity!!!



Example (approximates) CEO's of big 4 Banks Aust..receive $9 million Yr.

Equals 50 hrs weekly times 52 = 2,600 hrs times $3,461 per hour.



50% of world’s population exist on around $2 daily times 365 = $720 per year.

Therefore, what these poor individuals live on for approx 5 years, a CEO of an Australian Bank earns in ONE HOUR?????



Further, the 50% mostly produce real wealth (Goods or Food), while the CEOs

of banks mostly produce artificial DEBT , shuffle paper, produce little or no real

goods or wealth, and probably do more harm than good by creating excess credit which

DILUTES all existing savings, creating in effect ever rising prices of most things/services,

etc.

 

[selciper]

I found Seamisty’s #5288 made for an uncomfortable read. So now hairs are being split regarding classes of PIF investors! It seems untenable to me as an argument and I don’t swallow it. But I admit to being a simple soul - after all, I voted in 08 for WC to take charge...What on earth can be in those supposedly withheld documents? Surely we can’t be blamed for being just a little bit curious.

 

[Mary Lynch]

Just an "aside".... for clarity on this issue...Seamisty mentioned that the only unitholders not participating in the class action are those who have purchased them since they were converted to shares, and are obviously not entitled to gain from the CA. ('Spose there could be some who couldn't be bothered because they had too few).

Thus, unless you have an up-to-date register then the count (for instance) on how many CURRENT unitholders there are will be very inaccurate.

Before, we sold, for example,we had 3 separate acct numbers representing 3 separate holdings....but after they were sold they would have become about 6 different acct nos, because they were sold in about 6 parcels; they must have got NEW nos., otherwise they would be mixed up with mine when it comes to taking home the LOOT from the CA!!!

 

[seamisty]

Just an "aside".... for clarity on this issue...Seamisty mentioned that the only unitholders not participating in the class action are those who have purchased them since they were converted to shares, and are obviously not entitled to gain from the CA. ('Spose there could be some who couldn't be bothered because they had too few).

Thus, unless you have an up-to-date register then the count (for instance) on how many CURRENT unitholders there are will be very inaccurate.

Before, we sold, for example,we had 3 separate acct numbers representing 3 separate holdings....but after they were sold they would have become about 6 different acct nos, because they were sold in about 6 parcels; they must have got NEW nos., otherwise they would be mixed up with mine when it comes to taking home the LOOT from the CA!!!

Mary once the CA is closed investors who have NOT signed the IMF fundung agreement will be excluded from the CA and yes you are probablly right, there would be some who have smaller holdings who probablly wouldn't bother registering. There will also be some who simply do not understand what a CA is and are reluctant to get involved.


I am sure the lawyers would have the issue of eligiblity well covered by use of the unitholder
register pre the NSX listing and computershare data etc. The following info
had to be supplied to IMF initially which I am sure would/will be verified. I can't imagine IMF making errors in relation to which units do or don't qualify.



(A) ATTACH HOLDING STATEMENTS AND/OR CONTRACT NOTES IF AVAILABLE; and
(B) ATTACH TRADE INFORMATION IN EXCEL FORMAT, IF THE APPLICANT IS CLAIMING ON BEHALF OF
MULTIPLE FUNDS.
OPENING BALANCE: Number of units held on 1 January 2006
PURCHASES LIST PURCHASES FROM 1 JANUARY 2006 TO
29 JANUARY 2008 INCLUSIVE
TRADE DATE QUANTITY GROSS PRICE PAID (incl.
brokerage)
REDEMPTIONS LIST REDEMPTIONS FROM 1 JANUARY 2006 TO 29 JANUARY
2008 INCLUSIVE
TRADE DATE QUANTITY NET PRICE RECEIVED



I wonder who is responsible for CA unit representation of the Wholesale PIF. WC or the individual investors? WC hold the voting rights so do they have control as to whether those units participate or not? Can anyone or a WPIF investor answer this please?


Seamisty

 

[charles36]

SEAMISTY, correct me if I am wrong (I know you will) but didn't we hear something about WCLtd. not exercising the vote of WPIF to enter the class action and stated that the WPIF would be looked after by WC Ltd.
Somebody might be able to clarify this matter. Kind regards to all Charles 36

 

[Investor262]

Hi all, I just received a call from Carney Lawyers and my information is in actual fact the Class Action is still open at this point for those wishing to sign a funding agreement with IMF to participate if they have not already done so. The agreement does not mean investors will be accountable for any expenses/losses in the event no money is recovered.

The interesting thing is, all PIF unitholders who held/hold units prior to the PIF being frozen or have since sold on the NSX are included in the Class Action at this point . Investors who have bought since the PIF was frozen are excluded. This is because the court wants all investors to be as fully informed as possible of the court actions, statement of claim etc to make their decision before the cut off point.( I imagine the initial sign on was to give IMF an indication of investor participation to consider if numbers warranted IMF involvement in view of the costs involved.)
At some stage the judge or court will declare the Class Action closed and only those signed up will remain eligible to participate.

Also in the same token anyone who wishes to 'opt' out can still do so by contacting IMF until the CA is declared closed.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Cheers, Seamisty

Dear Seamisty
Once again many many thanks for your efforts. I still have my fingers crossed for all of us (and everything else that I have two of). Cheers

 

[seamisty]

SEAMISTY, correct me if I am wrong (I know you will) but didn't we hear something about WCLtd. not exercising the vote of WPIF to enter the class action and stated that the WPIF would be looked after by WC Ltd.
Somebody might be able to clarify this matter. Kind regards to all Charles 36

I did hear that Charles36 but just wondered if anyone could confirm it. This would add to my concerns of there being different classes of investors and I also wanted to know if WPIF investors were given the same choice to participate in the CA as individual unitholders.

Wellington Capital LTD our current RE has the same board of directors as MIL, the former RE. MIL remains a respondant in the Class Action even though WCL had the opportunity for them to be removed by assisting Carneys with access to PIF related documents. WC agreed to this then reneged and stated in correspondence to me that the original agreement with Carneys(regarding CA cooperation) is at an end due to a dispute between the former RE (MIL) and the applicants’ legal team. WC also state that there will be no further comment forthcoming either from the board of WCL or MIL (like there is two totally different boards of directors, talk about taxing ones mentality :bonk:!!!) whilst the matter continues to be in active litigation.

WC state that WCL and MIL are two separate entities and there is no conflict of interest.

It should be of no concern to WC if MIL is in a dispute with the applicants or if they are respondents to the class action if there was not conflict of interest.

So are PIF unit holders that will continue to participate in the CA not going to have the support of their RE? Any necessary PIF documentation can be accessed by order of discovery through the court or by subpoena so why hinder the process?

Seamisty

 

[breaker1]

Why was there a name change from WIML to MIL anyway?

Was it standard procedure to confuse investors and not leave any connection?

MFS > OCV > WIML > MIL > WCL

 

[seamisty]

Why was there a name change from WIML to MIL anyway?

Was it standard procedure to confuse investors and not leave any connection?

MFS > OCV > WIML > MIL > WCL

Of course Breaker, drop the WELLINGTON CAPITAL name!! Can't have detrimental/adverse related media correspondence linked to the iconic business women of the year can we??? Who payed for the change of name????? Not WC, us of course!! Hmnn, more to come I hope.There is approx 10,400 investors in the PIF, law of averages indicates we must have some highly qualified people in this fund and I appreciate the efforts of all involved to date. Keep up the good work. Seamisty