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
Link to article from The Age entitled "Byrnes-related bid for PIF" by COLIN KRUGER on May 19, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/business/byrnesrelated-bid-for-pif-20100518-vc8a.html

Excerpts from article (my emphasis in bold):

"A COMPANY associated with controversial business identity Jim Byrnes has announced an all-scrip takeover bid for the Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed Premium Income Fund."

"Its suitor, ALF PIF Finance, was incorporated weeks ago and currently has assets totalling $1600."

"The takeover vehicle is proposing to issue PIF unitholders with ordinary shares and preference shares, with the promise that it will use its ''best endeavours'' to pay them the equivalent of 15 ¢ for each security they currently hold within two years.

ALF PIF will effectively make the payment out of the assets PIF investors will bring to the merged entity, but said that it would bring an experienced management team to revive the PIF investment projects that stalled after the collapse of MFS/Octaviar."

"ALF PIF's largest current shareholder, with 80 per cent of its issued stock, is ALF Group Pty Ltd.

It lists Jim Byrnes as the contact person for documents lodged in January this year.

The documents announced the appointment of Mr Byrnes's wife, Catherine, as a director.

Mr Byrnes, whose career has included stints as a second-hand car salesman and debt collector, was jailed for supplying drugs and is currently banned from acting as a company director.

Wellington Capital wooed PIF unitholders away from MFS/Octaviar to become the fund's responsible entity, and told investors to reject the offer it described as ''grossly inadequate'' and ''opportunistic''."
 
Coast fund wary of takeover
Nick Nichols, business editor | May 19th, 2010

AN associate of slain Sydney businessman Michael McGurk has been linked a brazen takeover bid for the Premium Income Fund, along with the frozen fortunes of thousands of retired investors.

'Big' Jim Byrnes, the man who alleged McGurk was in possession of politically explosive telephone recordings before his death last year, is understood to be a consultant for Frankfurt-based Can Can Lingerie, the holding company that has backed the $113 million-plus bid.

Mr Byrnes' wife, Catherine, controls a significant stake in Can Can Lingerie following Can Can's 50 per cent buyout of the Byrnes family business, Australian Litigation Funders, earlier this month.

The move will see Can Can Lingerie Holding renamed ALF Group Holdings in a major restructuring of the business.
Full article http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/05/19/219135_gold-coast-business.html
 


Is that the same AFR whose Marsha Jacobs reported that PIF is "New Zealand based"? (13 May 2010)

Or the same Australian whose Anthony Klan reported that the 900 unit trade at 45c was "a parcel of $35,000 worth of shares"? (23 October 2008)
 
Looks like we are not the only investors frustrated and disillusioned with the lack of action by our regulatory watchdog, ASIC. Only difference is we have been on the case for a lot longer then Storm victims and there were more than 10,000 investors severely affected by a Fund which was meant to be a much safer investment model. Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/keeping-storms-victims-in-mind-20100518-vc6e.html

Extract from article 'However, the watchdog is perpetually constipated when it comes to explaining what it is actually doing in live investigations, fobbing off media and investor inquiries with various excuses and downplaying any emerging reportage.

(When its investigation into Storm raised media reports that ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio may be taking a personal interest in the matter, D'Aloisio promptly hosed the report down. You have got to wonder about how ASIC plays the public relations game when the boss uses the media to say he is not taking an unusual interest in a case that affected the livelihoods of 3000 Australians.)

ASIC is due to release a statement about its Storm investigation this month and it is to be hoped its work results in a better outcome than the comfortless position statements delivered so far
 
So many questions and half correct statements were do I start?

I spoke with Two of the directors early this morning, under no circumstance do they seek to have the ability to change or amend the pref share arrangement and are prepared to have this made an iron clad term and as an ASIC undertaking.

While some may think that calling informal public meetings a waste of time , many we have spoken with want to eye ball the directors and the management at a meeting and be able to ask questions and get straight answers.

While it is true the company was incorporated with 1600 dollars of shareholders funds , ALF Group and its directors have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far on lawyers , forensic accountants , investigations . The company is also supported by ALF Group Pty Ltd , that company generated over $8m profit before tax for the first 6 months and estimated it would generate $14m EBIT , these are audited accounts so we are not talking about a parent without funds . ALF Group Pty Ltd has an undrawn $20m facility . ALF Group Holdings AG the listed company has shareholders approval to raise $10m plus now and seeks shareholders approval next month to undertake a 50million ( $70m AUD ) institutional placement. So it’s a bit unfair to say the company is only a 1600 dollar company.

Out of interest , just to print the bid and post it costs close to $50,000.

As for court cases .

Please all write to Wellington Capital Limited GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001 or investorrelations@newpif.com.au or ... jhutson@wellcap.com.au

Ask the following .

Dear Ms Hutson
We have been made aware that Wellington capital as responsible entity for the premium income fund is a party to a number of legal proceedings .
We understand that borrowers who entered into funding contracts with MFS on behalf of PIF and were unable to complete the various construction projects when MFS /PIF defaulted on the loans . A number of these borrowers have sought compensation via damages claims in the federal and Supreme court . We further understand that one claimant in Victoria has made a substantial claim for damages and seeks an amount more than the current market cap of PIF units .
Why have we not been informed of all claims against the RE and the fund ?
Is it not an obligation of continual disclosure for you to keep unit holders properly informed ?
Is it correct that you maintain that you are entitled to be indemnified out of the fund’s assets for any fees costs damages that Wellington incurs arising out of these court cases?
In the event that you do seek to seek an indemnity against the PIf Fund would you be so kind as to detail by way of announcement details of the following
• all claims against the RE by borrowers
• all claims against the RE by investors and
• all claims against the RE by others,
Additionally Please detail how much you have spent on each matter to date .
Please detail the estimate of future legal costs for each ongoing matters.
Please provide details of were in the accounts you have allowed for any potential damages claims.
 
Now many are very upset and with good reason . Now here is a turn for the books . Jenny Hutson is a lawyer . Let’s face it she is one smart tough business woman . She has built up Wellington into a business worth a lot of money . she she she ...it’s all her , she is smart . She is resilient.

This fund should not be viewed as a mortgage investment fund to be managed , it’s a fund that contains borrowers or their liquidators who all have claims against the fund , all of which need to be resolved , it contains 74.50% ( see JH latest update ) of defaulting loans , these are all projects that need to be worked through and finished and sold to maximise value . We do not accept that accepting a joint venture , giving away all the upside is a smart way forward .

Look she is a good fund manager , when she jumped on board I believe she had the absolute best intentions of turning things around and re investing the funds money to but good assets .
You all fell in without asking some key questions at the time .
Now I am sure jenny Hutson was appalled when she found out what a dog PIF was and still is . everything was in a terrible state of affairs .
So to her credit she has acted like a smart lawyer and defended every action to preserve the assets.

In my personal view , many of these matters may have been better resolved by some old fashion talking , negotiating , Most of the borrowers knew all about the projects and would have worked with PIF to finish the projects . Why alienate the people who know the most about the security .
But hind sight ....
Next . your units are not redeemable .
Jenny only needs to build up a blocking stake and unit holders really have a problem .( how many does Armstrong capital own) You see there is no obligation to distribute the funds , the funds can be used to buy new assets which in turn will allow dividends to flow and after the fund has paid 3c she gets her fees and has a tidy fund with properties she can manage ....well that was probably her idea ....maybe it still is .

The investor update confirms the fact that there are court cases , it however does not go close to providing a proper and detailed informative update to unit holders .
 
Hi All, Just so you know I sent the following to Ian Craig at the NSX on the 3rd May 2010::


It has come to my attention that there has been an alleged serious breach of the Corporation Act in respect to non-disclosure by Wellington Capital of a current legal action against the PIF while units are actively trading on the NSX? In the event this legal action is successful it will have a huge detrimental impact on our Fund.

The details of the action in the Supreme Court Of Victoria at Melbourne Commercial & Equity Division is Claim No XXXXX of 2009. Claim dated XXXXXXXX 2009.


When I did not hear back from Mr Craig I called him and asked why PIF investors should not be notified by Wellington Capital of this pending claim.

His response was of the effect that did I expect WC to divulge every legal case in relation to the PIF? My response was to the effect that when the claim was serious enough to have reached the Supreme Court and WC had refused to provide discovery that yes I considered it to be serious enough to be disclosed to PIF investors. Mr Craig responded that it did not neccesarily mean the case had merit, just that the person lodging it must have plenty of money!!!!!!!

I was so disgusted with this apathetic attitude I proceeded to lodge an official complaint to Misconduct & Breach Reporting
Stakeholder Services at ASIC which has been acknowledged as being received.
I also contacted the Australian Shareholders Association and asked them to investigate the matter.

I did NOT bother contacting WELLINGTON CAPITAL knowing full well that from past performance the issue would either becompletely ignored or I would be told WC did not have to provide this information.


ASIC may well be sick of receiving Wellington Capital PIF related complaints but until investors see some sort of intervention by ASIC as a result of what I consider inappropriate PIF management, I will darn well keep sending them!!

Seamisty
 
In the midst of this frenzy, a point about the update. One paragraph states, “Public examinations of the officers of Octaviar Limited (In Liquidation) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) by the Liquidators have commenced. The Fund is not involved in the public examinations.”

Does that mean that Wellington are not being called to give evidence?
 
selciper I spoke to Katherine Barnet at Bentleys and was told that WC would not be called but details in relation to the PIF aquisition by WC will be investigated during the public examinations. I was told that this information would be sought from/provided by MFS/OCV directors being examined.

It is my understanding that the PTQ are very interested in this information also.


Seamisty
 

All of the above and since posts of 17/5/10 is very alarming!!! And similar to precedents which led to most recent suspension.

This is an APPEAL to the MODERATOR to either issue a WARNING that these posts may be in breach of FORUM GUIDELINES or ASSURANCES that these posts DO NOT breach those guidelines.
We as PIF Unitholders are naturally concerned and need your guidances.
Regards

PS. Should it bother PIF unitholders that this thread became a "Jim to Jim" correspondence exchange?
 
Seamisty, thanks for the Public Examinations info. Good to read it.

Simgrund, I share your apprehensions regarding some of the recent posts. Moderator, help!
 
Now here is an alarming snipet
i recieve an email from PIF Initiave from a Chris Robinson
i respond , my emails have a delivery reciept which tells me who recieves the email and when . the email is recieved my Kready@wellcap.com.au

So it seems that the so called investor group is a scam
 

Hi All,
Just want to reassure you PIF Initiative is a genuine investor group. It appears the mailbox has been compromised. We have changed the password and will investigate.
Regards,
Dora.
 
I have just received an email from Chris Robinson who assures me quote 'Chris Robinson is not and has never been and has no intention of ever seeking employment
from WC .'

He has asked me to post this on his behalf to clarify any confusion relating to this matter.

Seamisty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
479
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
994
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
Garpal Gumnut
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...