Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

I find the latest news encouraging. There are going to be long-running revelations.

If we ever needed confirmation of the tremendous value this forum provides, today's collection of news is it! Where would we be without all of our monitors? Probably mostly in the dark, getting no information whatsoever from WC.

I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::

ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN

MFSIM does not legally own the assets of the Fund, but holds the assets through its custodian, Perpetual Nominees Limited, on behalf of all its unit holders. In addition to these custody arrangements, MFSIM has other asset management procedures in place, aimed at ensuring the security of the assets of the Fund and your investment.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS LIMITATIONS AND NO INTERCOMPANY LOANS

The Fund does not have loans to MFS Limited. The Fund's Related Party Guidelines prohibit the Fund from making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries or its Directors.
Any Related Party transactions are published in the Fund's annual financial report.::::


Bearing in mind the alledged fraud involving forged documents and PIF illegal loan activities was meant to have taken place prior to this correspondence, if proven guilty does this investor update also become a misleading fraudulent report?

It also contained info in relation to Lloyds insurance stating 62% of the 40% PIF commercial loan portfolio was insured.

I could not find a copy of this update on the internet, did everyone else get a copy?

Seamisty

selciper, we would all look like this -

seamisty said:

I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::

ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN

MFSIM does not legally own the assets of the Fund, but holds the assets through its custodian, Perpetual Nominees Limited, on behalf of all its unit holders. In addition to these custody arrangements, MFSIM has other asset management procedures in place, aimed at ensuring the security of the assets of the Fund and your investment.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS LIMITATIONS AND NO INTERCOMPANY LOANS

The Fund does not have loans to MFS Limited. The Fund's Related Party Guidelines prohibit the Fund from making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries or its Directors.
Any Related Party transactions are published in the Fund's annual financial report.::::


Bearing in mind the alledged fraud involving forged documents and PIF illegal loan activities was meant to have taken place prior to this correspondence, if proven guilty does this investor update also become a misleading fraudulent report?

It also contained info in relation to Lloyds insurance stating 62% of the 40% PIF commercial loan portfolio was insured.

I could not find a copy of this update on the internet, did everyone else get a copy?

Seamisty

Click to expand...

Couldnt find anything which you were mentioning above
I was also told time and again that the PIF assets were safe as they were totally under control of the custodian - Perpetual.
I was also assured by many employees of MFS that the PIF had insurance with LLoyds of London.
I'm positive most of the PIF investors were told that and if the need would arise would be willing to sign a formal stat dec petition

Cheers

Not sure how often WC pass on investor emails to our duly elected Investor Advisory Committee Reps but I have not had a response from my email below.
Just in case it goes astray at WC I will post it on the forum!!!
Does anyone actually know any of the reps? Reps please feel free to contact me by private message on here if you would like to become members of the PIF Ag or just to liaise with the AG considering the hundreds of PIF investors who are members of which you were elected to represent.

Wellington Capital Ltd may not have informed us that they NEVER intended to reveal the voting results of the IAC prior to the vote, but I am sure they cannot stop any of you contacting us directly in your capacity as interested, experienced individuals concerned with all issues pertaining to the Fund. Thanks, Seamisty







Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 2:30:01 PM
To: iac@newpif.com.au

Dear IAC Reps,

I do not know if you are aware that there is a PIF Action Group which represents a substantial number of unitholders. The PIF AG invite you to correspond with us independently of Wellington Capital to discuss relevant Fund issues and concerns on behalf of our strong membership base.

Alternatively you may like to participate on Aussie Stock Forums where we have our own thread titled Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=ocv

I can be contacted by email at ............. for further discussion in relation to the above request or by ph on ................

zixo said:

Couldnt find anything which you were mentioning above
I was also told time and again that the PIF assets were safe as they were totally under control of the custodian - Perpetual.
I was also assured by many employees of MFS that the PIF had insurance with LLoyds of London.
I'm positive most of the PIF investors were told that and if the need would arise would be willing to sign a formal stat dec petition

Cheers

Click to expand...

Thanks zixo, I am trying to determine if only a select few received it. This being the case it may not be available or known to those conducting legal enquiries and could be useful/important. Would others please let me know if they DID receive a copy please? Thanks, Seamisty

seamisty said:

I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::

ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN

MFSIM does not legally own the assets of the Fund, but holds the assets through its custodian, Perpetual Nominees Limited, on behalf of all its unit holders. In addition to these custody arrangements, MFSIM has other asset management procedures in place, aimed at ensuring the security of the assets of the Fund and your investment.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS LIMITATIONS AND NO INTERCOMPANY LOANS

The Fund does not have loans to MFS Limited. The Fund's Related Party Guidelines prohibit the Fund from making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries or its Directors.
Any Related Party transactions are published in the Fund's annual financial report.::::


Bearing in mind the alledged fraud involving forged documents and PIF illegal loan activities was meant to have taken place prior to this correspondence, if proven guilty does this investor update also become a misleading fraudulent report?

It also contained info in relation to Lloyds insurance stating 62% of the 40% PIF commercial loan portfolio was insured.

I could not find a copy of this update on the internet, did everyone else get a copy?

Seamisty

Click to expand...

Hi Seamisty,

I've located my copy and will email you a copy privately since our names are at the top of the letter.

Cheers, Cookie

Cookie1 said:

Hi Seamisty,

I've located my copy and will email you a copy privately since our names are at the top of the letter.

Cheers, Cookie

Click to expand...

Thanks Cookie! I highlighted parts of mine ages ago and it won't fax properly and I don't have a scanner. I will see that it gets fowarded to possible interested parties.Seamisty


Just received it, yours is dated 22nd Feb 2008, so others would have got it also. Don't know why there would be different dates? thanks

hELLO Seamisty,i received a letter dated 19th Feb 2008 from Guy Hutchings stating that Lloyds underwriters covers losses of up to 75%of each loan,& the number of loans insured was around 62% of the fund. TOWBAR

Towbar said:

hELLO Seamisty,i received a letter dated 19th Feb 2008 from Guy Hutchings stating that Lloyds underwriters covers losses of up to 75%of each loan,& the number of loans insured was around 62% of the fund. TOWBAR

Click to expand...

Thanks Towbar, I am sure this letter/update is of relevance, some investors received it
on the 22nd Feb, not sure why the difference in date as I (WA investors) were usually the last to receive notification of any description. I was eventually put on a MFS email database to receive PIF Notifications online which was way more efficient.


On many occasions I have asked Wellington Capital Ltd as to why they do not offer an email contact alternative rather than use the expensive mailout option. I have many lame/pathetic answers/excuses, my personal opinion is that Wellington Capital has never asked investors to provide email details.(Bearing in mind WC has a vested interest in Print Mail Logistics that provide services to WC if they are competitive price wise) My answer was:::
Unitholders have been given an opportunity to provide an email address to the Fund's registry,
Computershare Investor Services, since l1 August 2008::::::Email communication was the subject of your complaint received 28 January 2010 at 1 1 .46am and
the subject of a complaint investigation which was communicated to you on 22 February 2010 and
4 March 2010.
This information can be provided through the online service offered by Computershare or through
the updating of details using a change of details form. This information was provided in
correspondence accompanying each holding statement to unitholders.



Well I rest my case!! Computershare never sent me IAC nomination form, even after I contacted them twice. WC has never asked investors personally to provide email details in the 'must have printed communications'

While I am on a roll here I think I will start a new post !!! Seamisty

SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE

LAW LIST

Wednesday 21 April 2010

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
Justice Philip McMurdo
Court 16
Floor 3 2.00PM
(Application)

seamisty, we also received the Hutchings letter dated 22 February 2008.

David Kennedy is in the news again:

No saddling up for Al's polo farm
MATT O'SULLIVAN SMH CBD
April 21, 2010

Paul Keating's former piggery business partner, Al Constantinidis, will not be a happy camper. Constantinidis's plans to make a quick buck by redeveloping an old dairy farm at Windsor into polo fields and an equestrian centre for cashed-up horse lovers now seems to be further away than ever.

His Achilles heel appears to be an estimated $22 million in loans Constantinidis took out from the Mark McIvor-headed Gold Coast finance firm Equititrust.

Constantinidis has failed in his attempts to remove a receiver, David Clout, who was appointed to three of Big Al's companies by Equititrust in March after he defaulted on loans. MFS's former chief operating officer, David Kennedy, is now in the same role at Equititrust and is taking a personal interest in the matter.

Keen-eyed readers will remember that Kennedy allegedly had a heated discussion with Constantinidis and his staff at Windsor Turf in March, leading to a four-hour stand-off that ended when police intervened.

In the latest courtroom tussle, Constantinidis tried unsuccessfully to overturn the receiver's appointment by relying on a rarely used part of mortgage law which protects farmers. But Justice Reg Barrett ruled that he just wasn't enough of a farmer to qualify because the loans he took out were to redevelop the land.

The plan, had it taken off, could have been lucrative, given that the dairy farm is close to polo properties owned by the gambling mogul James Packer and property developer Andrew Roberts.

Just how much of the alledged PIF fraud did Jenny Hutson know about before aquiring the management rights to our fund?

It will be interesting to hear what Mark Korda has to say. The article below puts Chris Scott and his advisor Jenny Hutson in the picture as far back as Jan 2008 when the proposed MFS capital raising was first muted (and ultimately led to the demise of MFS)

In my opinion any money left in the Octaviar coffers should be returned to where it was alledgedly stolen from, the investors of the Premium Income Fund who are still waiting for their $50million Support Facility!!! Seamisty


http://archive.traveldaily.com.au/2008/Feb08/td150208.pdf
Fri 15 Feb 08
Stella sale to be stymied
UNCERTAINTY about the future
of Stella Travel looks set to
continue, with action by former
S8 chief Chris Scott to throw a
spanner in the works of the
planned sale of the company.
Scott, who sold S8 to MFS for a
personal stake worth about
$300m in MFS shares, has seen his
wealth shattered by the
plummeting MFS financial position.
He’s claiming the sale of Stella
is the ‘scandal of the year’, with
the Financial Review saying he
plans to call an Extraordinary
General Meeting of MFS next
month to put a stop to the deal.
“Jenny Hutson is acting as my
adviser,” he said, claiming to
have identified individuals and
institutions who together control
52% of the company to back the
move to block the sale.
Scott says that on 26 Jan he
held talks with insolvency expert
Mark Korda and MFS ceo Craig
White about rising capital to save
the firm, and “the next thing we
know they have sold Stella.
“We are hopping mad about
this,” he said

Re Hutching's letter. I for one did not receive any letter from PIF around 22 February 08. My contact with PIF was, apart from the standard internet newsletters, by phone. My queries were always met with the assurance that we had a custodian in Perpetual, that PIF was "stand alone" and that PIF had lent no money to MFS itself. Most of the phone "consultants" sounded like amateurs reading from scripts and only managed to make me more suspicious than ever about our position. The only comfort I derived was from that much-used name "Perpetual"! In the end, they proved to have been of no assistance whatsoever.

seamisty said:

Thanks zixo, I am trying to determine if only a select few received it. This being the case it may not be available or known to those conducting legal enquiries and could be useful/important. Would others please let me know if they DID receive a copy please? Thanks, Seamisty

Click to expand...

Good day Seamisty,
Yes, I wasn't forgotten in this mail out either.
GH signature reprinted, otherwise it would qualify for an Ebay auction as an original by a celebrity.
Wasn't our protection by Lloyds insurances replaced by "support facility" (read: coerced into) adapted by us at an Extraordinary meeting back in 2006?
The mail out figures could be somewhere in the records being examined now in Supreme Court.

Regards, simgrund

simgrund said:

Good day Seamisty,
Yes, I wasn't forgotten in this mail out either.
GH signature reprinted, otherwise it would qualify for an Ebay auction as an original by a celebrity.
Wasn't our protection by Lloyds insurances replaced by "support facility" (read: coerced into) adapted by us at an Extraordinary meeting back in 2006?
The mail out figures could be somewhere in the records being examined now in Supreme Court.

Regards, simgrund

Click to expand...

My recollection: the Support Facility was introduced in exchange for changing MFSIM's fee formula that ended up greatly increasing MFSIM's cut. Oh! and the 06 vote also introduced the 180/360 day suspension periods.

Duped said:

My recollection: the Support Facility was introduced in exchange for changing MFSIM's fee formula that ended up greatly increasing MFSIM's cut. Oh! and the 06 vote also introduced the 180/360 day suspension periods.

Click to expand...

Good day Duped,
I stand corrected. Checked the Explanatory Memorandum of the Special General (not Exrdnry) meeting of 23/8/06 and all 3 resolutions. On first reading, res.1 appears to be a noble foregoing by RE of fees untill "the Fund has paid all Unit Holders' distributions, outstanding valid redemptions and expenses associated with operating the Fund."
I now go back for some more pain to the 3 resolutions from Expl. Mem. of 18/9/08 meeting.

Thanks

Remotely relevant sobering read from Business Spectator's Stephen Bartholomeusz. Emphasis added.



19/4/2010
ASIC comes too late

"Long after the horses have bolted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has issued a consultation paper on improving disclosure for retail investors on infrastructure entities.

"Having regard to recent developments in this sector," ASIC says in the paper, "we believe it is an appropriate time for initiatives to improve disclosure relating top infrastructure entities to enhance investor confidence and understanding."

Appropriate time? Recent developments?

The externally managed, listed satellite funds model for infrastructure investments was demolished by the financial crisis. Babcock and Allco have gone and Macquarie has distanced itself from management of the funds that once bore its brand. There are less than a handful of those vehicles left and it is improbable that anyone would try to replicate that particular model any time soon.

ASIC is, it appears, motivated not just by what has transpired but what might occur in future. It points to expectations that $700 billion of infrastructure investment will be made in Australia over the next decade, with more than half of it likely to be raised from the private sector and the paper is presumably motivated by the fear that history might repeat itself.

The paper focuses on disclosure benchmarks to address to issues of complex financial engineering, the opacity of the models used to attract investment, management fee structure that result in inflated fees and asset prices and provide incentives for related party deals as well as entrenchment of managers. ASIC does say that if a disclosure regime – it uses an "if not, why not" approach – proved ineffective, it could use its powers to prohibit arrangements and direct entities.

The paper clearly comes too late to discipline the first flood of the infrastructure fund model pioneered by Macquarie and "refined" by Babcock and Allco and others.

Most of those entities have either disappeared or, like Transurban, have evolved into a new model of more conservatively financed, internally-managed vehicles that live within their cash flows and aren’t reliant on borrowing against revaluations to expand and generate rising fee income for their sponsors and investors.

Macquarie and others are still very active in the unlisted funds space, but that’s a territory populated by big and sophisticated investors who shouldn’t need regulatory protection.

For the generation of institutions and other investors who lived through the crisis and the collapse of the now discredited model of externally-managed infrastructure funds, the paper has come several years too late.

One shouldn’t, however, underestimate the ingenuity of financial markets to find new variations on a theme and the prospective flood of new infrastructure offerings does, given recent experience, require regulators who will be more vigilant and proactive in future than they were in the past.

The starting point for regulating any complex corporate structure, but particularly one that involves related parties, is disclosure. The experience of the crisis also argues against arrangements that entrench managers or that create poison pills that make them difficult to remove.

Disclosure by itself probably won’t be sufficient: ASIC and ASX may need to be prepared to prohibit particular structures and agreements that make it impossible or overly costly in practice to discipline or remove poorly-performed managers if another boom in collective investments in infrastructure does develop."

This bororwed from Storm thread, #4806

I am certain we qualify for the same consideration;
could our PIF IAC barrack ASIC for spreading the good work, please!

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...website-pd20100414-4H8UL?OpenDocument&src=hp7

https://storm.asic.gov.au.