Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[lawry1dog]

With the Unit price at around 7c, is a big embarrassment for WC and even
if it is staged that way, means only one thing JH can do.

RESIGN and give the Fund to someone else and do not collect any loot.

I also hope the great Class Action is not waiting for the big ASIC court case
to finish, before something happens. Come one there a unit holders in a bad
way out there.

Of course our Fund will never eventuate to anything, while there is no deposits coming from the general population. It is dependent upon only the
assets it has now.

 

[Duped]

Any bets on how long it'll be before we see our next Investor Update?

I'm not sure I ever want to see one again

Share price hasn't lifted above 9.1c since WC's last collection of revelations. Average price since has been 8.5c.

And the average share price since listing has dipped below the 12c mark for the first time

 

[seamisty]

Any bets on how long it'll be before we see our next Investor Update?

I'm not sure I ever want to see one again

Share price hasn't lifted above 9.1c since WC's last collection of revelations. Average price since has been 8.5c.

And the average share price since listing has dipped below the 12c mark for the first time

I guess thats why no one can be bothered hassling WC over it Duped. Most have come to expect nothing but more bad news and further losses!! WC continue to demonstrate their arrogance and ineptitude as fund managers, but rather than step aside and admit their apparent failure, they just add insult to injury by making investors wait until the death knock for updates. One investor who did contact them was told it will be delivered when it suits WC. What else is new??? I hope to have time to chase up this constant pathetic behaviour with the Australian Shareholders association next week, they are well aware of investor concerns relating to not only our treatment but the discontent with the overall LACK OF PERFORMANCE of WELLINGTON CAPITAL our current RE.



I did manage to get acknowledgement from ASIC in relation to some new concerns (I am not at all excited!!) not sure if it was because I sent the same concerns to Chris Bowen complaining about ASIC as well!!

I also received the following from another PIF investor in relation to the sale of the Harbour Street Hotel and Apartments.

'A banner went up on the building advertising 24 units for sale about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Daniel Lambert of Colliers International who are the sole agents told me that after two weeks on sale only one unit had been sold. 2 Bedroom units start at $550k and the banner is still there. A Certificate of Occupancy had not been granted but was expected by the construction company in May. The Wollongong property market for units above $500k is still very slow with banners on a number of buildings around the city centre advertising units for sale. One banner has been there for over two years with units still vacant. As the settlement of the sale is not due until the last unit has been sold I am sure we won't see any 3 cent disbursement any time soon.'


Thanks to those who continue to keep others updated and thanks to those who contact me off forum with fund related matters and offers of help.

Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Hi all, I have been given a couple of extra media contacts but I would really like an email address or ph no of local/relevant newspapers/journalists or TV reporters from as many PIF investors that are willing to provide it. I beleive I have information that could make very interesting reading involving the PIF.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot rely on the tax payer funded regulatory bodies that have been provided with all relevant documentation to act on our behalf in a timely frame. I conservatively put our PIF losses at a further $150 million under the management of Wellington Capital since ASIC was first notified of MFS/OCTAVIAR alleged misappropiation of investors money. Someone needs to be held accountable!!!



Seamisty

 

[JohnH]

Seamisty and others.................... save me going through the Prospectus. Is the RE obliged to hold an AGM??

 

[seamisty]

I forgot to mention that there is a very disturbing pattern emerging in relation to the handling of the disposal of PIF distressed assets by Wellington Capital under advice from 33 Capital and Korda Mentha. I have been asked to investigate if there has been possible irresponsible advice given to our RE, WELLINGTON CAPITAL, ultimately resulting to our financial detriment of which I am doing more research. It is possible that in all the current legal proceedings surrounding our Fund that more information may be revealed as to whether we will have grounds for further legal action. If WC can demonstrate that the best possible financial outcomes were achieved from their actions in relation to the disposal of our assets then there won't be a problem and I will have wasted my time.

:grenade: Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Seamisty and others.................... save me going through the Prospectus. Is the RE obliged to hold an AGM??

John H , I asked ages ago when the AGM was and was told that WC were not having an AGM.
In all honesty why would they if it was not compulsory and they had FA to report? What were they going to tell each other? It was easier to avoid having to report a negative outcome ( not exactly a well kept secret) than to have to report on a meeting that highlighted a negative outcome???
I wonder why Anthony Stanton bailed if my information is correct. I have heard he was often not in agreeance to the actions of WC (and others)

Was he concerned about possible ramifications to his reputation regarding future employment with all the immenant legal proceedings? We have many unanswered questions, most which could be answered by the very people we elected to manage our Fund on the promise that they would be open and transparent but are proving to be just the opposite!! Not exactly what we voted for.

Seamisty

 

[selciper]

This highly unsatisfactory matter whereby AGMs don't exist could continue for years to come. It's a very frightening prospect. It means that the RE does not have to face investors at a meeting to answer questions. It strikes me as a shocking state of affairs. In effect, we have no voice - unless an EGM is called. If we investors can't meet with the RE face to face, I fear that we are doomed to suffer endlessly. We are now over two years into the MFS tragedy and (apart from the legal actions) see no sign of hope. Our savings are going down a black hole. The WC board should, like good generals, at least face members of the AG Committee at an immediate meeting.

 

[simgrund]

This highly unsatisfactory matter whereby AGMs don't exist could continue for years to come. It's a very frightening prospect. It means that the RE does not have to face investors at a meeting to answer questions. It strikes me as a shocking state of affairs. In effect, we have no voice - unless an EGM is called. If we investors can't meet with the RE face to face, I fear that we are doomed to suffer endlessly. We are now over two years into the MFS tragedy and (apart from the legal actions) see no sign of hope. Our savings are going down a black hole. The WC board should, like good generals, at least face members of the AG Committee at an immediate meeting.

Selciper,
Myself as many others will enjoin you in these concerns.
Explanatory Memorandum (WIML), dated 18/09/08, provides on page 14 the info regarding quorum provisions for holding EGM's and other meetings. It is explained that a range of resolutions may be adopted at such meetings.
Do I understand these provisions correctly and they DO extend to us these rights?
Regards,

 

[selciper]

Simgrund,

Thanks. We are a patient lot, but patience should now be applied only to legal matters - that's an inevitability. However, in matters pertaining to communications with and from WC we can only lose more and more by not acting according to our rights. Clearly we are being left in the dark.. An EGM would certainly draw the media attention we so much desire. Does anybody think that such a gathering would be welcomed by WC?

I'm respectful of opinions put forward that we should wait for the Liquidators hearing to end before considering action for a meeting. But it's worth considering that such a meeting would require quite a lead time anyway.

 

[seamisty]

Simgrund,

Thanks. We are a patient lot, but patience should now be applied only to legal matters - that's an inevitability. However, in matters pertaining to communications with and from WC we can only lose more and more by not acting according to our rights. Clearly we are being left in the dark.. An EGM would certainly draw the media attention we so much desire. Does anybody think that such a gathering would be welcomed by WC?

I'm respectful of opinions put forward that we should wait for the Liquidators hearing to end before considering action for a meeting. But it's worth considering that such a meeting would require quite a lead time anyway.

If it is concluded from the Bentley public examinations that the PIF was aquired by Wellington Capital as an inhouse deal between WC and Octaviar for no real consideration when there was meant to have been other interested parties (of which jenny Hutson was the go between )what regulatory proceedures are in place to protect investors? Don't forget the PIF was considered an Octaviar asset and the Public Trustee of Queensland are looking for answers as well regarding WC PIF aquisition. Can a judge recommend WC to be removed and if so where will it leave the PIF? Do they appoint a new RE? Do investors have a say?

Wellington Capital will not answer any questions they do not want to, that has been obvious from day one. Investors may well have to take the measures of calling an EGM but I am optimistic that in the event that WC are included in the Bentley examinations there could be more valuable information recovered. Bentleys have already demonstrated that they are thorough and are interested in uncovering the truth.

If WC agreed to talk to the AG it would be a useless exercise. I have lodged numerous questions in the form of a complaint. My experience is it is a complete waste of time. My last complaint which I include under was sent to the IAC as well. Will it be passed on? Well if our IAC reps follow this thread, which they should do, one is an accountant, one promised to bring years of successful business experience to the IAC and the other has strong interests in ethics in business, they will know that I have sent this question to WC.


I would like to lodge the following complaint.

I would like to bring to the attention of WC that the Premium Income Fund lost over $267 million due to unapproved MFS related party loans. I would like to ask why no apparent action has been taken by the current RE of the PIF fund for the majority of this loss and why WC have said the financial market is to blame for the majority of the loss when this was not the case. It is alleged Wellington Capital as our current RE of the PIF has only lodged a claim for $147.5 million against MFS and have not pursued it - no defence has been filed with the court.

Please confirm if this information is correct and acknowledge that this complaint has been received both to yourself and the IAC. This complaint will also be forwarded to ASIC and the Australian shareholders Association.


The complaint has been acknowleded as received by WC.

Seamisty

 

[selciper]

Seamisty, your scenarios predicating an EGM are much appreciated. But the thought of the PIF one day being orphaned adds an extra wrinkle to my brow. That eventuality would be a real legal tangle. Nothing is simple when it comes to WC! I fear that one day we may find that we've simply been waiting for Godot.

 

[Jadel]

I think a few people on this site will probably recall that sometime ago I put in an appeal to ASIC asking them to investigate the 200 million RBOS loan based on the hypothesis that the money taken was used to unlawfully prop up Living and Leisure

This submission was signed by many members of ASF and subsequently sent in to ASIC. I thik the submission had over 100 signatures

The living and leisure loan was Guaranteed by OCV .And in the event the company defaulted OCV would have had to pay NAB a sum of something like $20 million or more immediately (I can not remember the exact sum off hand)

The payments made to prevent LLA from becoming insolvent were the only reasonable theory we had at that time. To support the immediate and unprecedented draw down of the 200 million RBOS loan .

Of course we knew nothing about the Fortress loan at this time. We now know that this loan was kept highly secretive by all a sundry in the top echelons of the OCV hierarchy, even though they were well aware it must have been fraudulent. It will be interesting to see how David Anderson, the chief Financial Officer attempts to deny any involvement today.

In any event, the LLA loan and other very substantial related party losses were unsecured and also clearly contravened the PIF Constitution and therefore should have been considered illegal by any competent RE.

One would therefore have to ask the question, ‘why in the world,’ would anybody who purportedly has the best interests of PIF Investors as their primary objective, close their eyes to these enormous losses incurred by our Fund.

 

[seamisty]

Jadel the NAB loan was for $40mill.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...spite-arctic-bid/story-e6frg9gx-1111116470893

'National Australia Bank demanded payment by 5pm yesterday of an Octaviar-guaranteed $40 million facility held by Living and Leisure Australia.'


Octaviar company secretary David Anderson, when asked whether NAB's repayment deadline last night would be met, said: "You'll have to ask LLA. They have the loan. We don't."



Are the best interests of PIF investors a priority to Wellington Capital? Actions speak louder than words (or lack of them!!!!)

Because the current board of directors are the same as the previous board I would imagine there is a good chance that WC will have to front up and answer some questions at the Bentleys public examinations also. I am still of the opinion that WC cannot serve the best interests of PIF unit holders while this conflict of interests remains but WC assures me this is not the case. Does anyone still believe anything they are told by Wellington Capital?

ASIC has been made aware (long ago) of this potential conflict of interest along with a whole lot of other PIF issues in relation to our current RE. Waiting for them to act is like waiting for our distribution/return of capital!!!

Lets hope more concrete evidence comes to light sooner rather than later.
Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Octaviar exec says intended use of loan may have changed, court May 10 2010, 6:30PM

The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Tuesday, with Mr Anderson to be questioned further.

Former directors Craig White and Michael King are due to give evidence later this week.


Full article in link below::


http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/5/130/catf_100510_183000_1964.html

 

[simgrund]

Octaviar exec says intended use of loan may have changed, court May 10 2010, 6:30PM
The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Tuesday, with Mr Anderson to be questioned further.
Former directors Craig White and Michael King are due to give evidence later this week.
Full article in link below::
http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/5/130/catf_100510_183000_1964.html

Seamisty
Thanks for that.
The article reminds us of the ASIC recovery action of 147.5 m taken against some MFS directors.
Assuming some or all funds are recovered, would it be possible for ASIC to provide vital information as to where these funds would be deposited?

1. Would they be handed to WC and converted to units for merging on NSX board?
To be avoided at all costs. Who decides?

2. Could they be deposited into a Trust for PIF members for eventual cash distribution?

Has ASIC a protocol to follow?
Can these questions be canvassed now?

Regards,

 

[seamisty]

Seamisty
Thanks for that.
The article reminds us of the ASIC recovery action of 147.5 m taken against some MFS directors.
Assuming some or all funds are recovered, would it be possible for ASIC to provide vital information as to where these funds would be deposited?

1. Would they be handed to WC and converted to units for merging on NSX board?
To be avoided at all costs. Who decides?

2. Could they be deposited into a Trust for PIF members for eventual cash distribution?

Has ASIC a protocol to follow?
Can these questions be canvassed now?

Regards,

Simgrund I sent the following to ASIC on the 12 Nov 2009 and to this day have not received an answer or acknowledgement of the enquiry. It was sent to a key person at ASIC working on MFS/OCV/WC::::::

I have been contacted recently by numerous Premium Income Fund investors asking me questions related to the legal claim ASIC has lodged against former MFS employees which I am unable to answer. Would you or one of your colleagues please clarify these issues?

In the event that ASIC is successful in recovering monetary compensation on behalf of Premium Income Investors behalf where will that money be channelled?

1. will it be paid to Wellington Capital as the current Responsible Entity of PIF

2. held by the Court in escrow for determination
3. ordered by the Court for prorata distribution to members

Apart from the concerns as to the increasing lack of confidence in our current RE to do anything other than sell PIF assets and absorb the proceeds in operating expenses, there are many who have been forced to sell their units for far less than the original cost.
There is concern that if any compensation is directed back to the current RE to be reinvested in the PIF that those investors who have had to sell will be financially penalised and the benefit will be given to those who bought units at a heavily discounted price.

And ASIC wonder why they receive so many complaints, maybe something to do with them not answering them?
Perhaps it is time I re sent the original enquiry accompanied with a complaint.


Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

'Flexibility' in MFS borrowing KATE LAHEY
May 11, 2010

Mr Anderson claimed yesterday he was only in charge of the ''boring bits'' in MFS's borrowing and did not deal with the key terms of a loan.

But the court heard he signed for the Fortress loan on behalf of the MFS borrowing company and its MFS guarantors and emailed others advising, ''I have organised a $250 million bridging facility''.

The court has previously heard MFS was struggling to repay the Fortress loan and may have used money from Royal Bank of Scotland - lent strictly to the group's Premium Income Fund - to repay the first $100 million.

Full article:::http://www.smh.com.au/business/flexibility-in-mfs-borrowing-20100510-uouz.html

 

[Duped]

Australian Financial Review
'Octaviar admits problems'
11 May 2010

"The former chief financial officer of the failed investment group Octaviar has acknowledged that hundreds of millions of dollars in loans may not have been used as told to lenders."

http://www.afr.com/p/national/octaviar_admits_problems_cwnePSPkkM1aXZUaraAuiN

 

[Duped]

AAP

'Exec says loan intent might have changed'
JORDAN CHONG
May 10, 2010 - 6:59PM

"A former senior executive of the failed Octaviar Ltd has told a court that how a $250 million loan facility was intended to be used might have changed between the time it was sought and when it was drawn down.
...
Mr Anderson said there was a degree of flexibility as to how the money was supposed to be used.

"It wouldn't surprise me if there was a variation between what the expectation was and what happened," Mr Anderson told the court.
...
Mr Anderson said he invested $500,000 in MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL), an unlisted public company MFS formed in May 2006.

MFS invested one dollar for every two dollars raised in the initial public offer, ensuring it held a 33 per cent stake in the company.

AAL was managed by MFS Investment Management Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of MFS. ..."

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-57...odC1oYXZlLWNoYW5nZWQtMjAxMDA1MTAtdW9qbS5odG1s