Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Dexter, interesting point you raise. This recent article is about the Westpoint case.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bu...says-asics-westpoint-action-unconstitutional/

Duped

The article you quoted about RBOS raises some interesting questions.

RBOS advances money to PIF

PIF buys or loans money left, right and centre to prop up MFS and its subsidiaries including Geo and Living and Leisure

A whole lot of PIF assets sold quickly including interests in Geo and LLA so that RBOS got its money back or else they supposedly would have foreclosed.

Included in what sold down was a debt owed to PIF which was acquired by a subsidiary of RBOS who I assume provided debt and equity to Geo.

At what price did the PIF debt get sold ?

Would this have not been an asset that should have been JV'd ? Its land and doesnt need huge amounts of extra capital to develop unlike say a highrise.

What knowledge did RBOS have of the use of the funds advanced ?

Until you know at what price the debt was sold we wouldnt know if RBOS took a haircut or was this just another way of others getting to keep PIF funds.

Dexter said:

Can someone "please explain" how we can expect a worthwhile settlement from our Class Action when, as quoted recently in the Financial Review, any claims against "auditors and other professionals" are capped at $75m?

This case was also against KPMG.

Regards, Dexter.

Click to expand...

The same AFR that stated PIF was New Zealand based.
Did the article offer any reasoning? Legislated? The extent of their insurance? Common law?

gardie said:

Duped

The article you quoted about RBOS raises some interesting questions.

RBOS advances money to PIF

PIF buys or loans money left, right and centre to prop up MFS and its subsidiaries including Geo and Living and Leisure

A whole lot of PIF assets sold quickly including interests in Geo and LLA so that RBOS got its money back or else they supposedly would have foreclosed.

Included in what sold down was a debt owed to PIF which was acquired by a subsidiary of RBOS who I assume provided debt and equity to Geo.

At what price did the PIF debt get sold ?

Would this have not been an asset that should have been JV'd ? Its land and doesnt need huge amounts of extra capital to develop unlike say a highrise.

What knowledge did RBOS have of the use of the funds advanced ?

Until you know at what price the debt was sold we wouldnt know if RBOS took a haircut or was this just another way of others getting to keep PIF funds.

Click to expand...

More interesting Gardie is how the same names keep emerging, link after link. Craig Wallace(ex KPMG), Andrew Kemp(ex KPMG), Chris Scott, Jenny Hutson


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/no-mates-rates-says-fund-buyer/story-e6frfh4f-1111116351614

Octaviar sells its stake in MFS offshoot
Ben Butler From: Herald Sun May 16, 2008 12:00AM
A FUND formerly controlled by debt-laden financier MFS - now known as Octaviar - has sold its stake in an MFS offshoot for a bargain price.

Business associates of new Octaviar executive director Chris Scott feature on both sides of the deal.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.

At 25.5 a share, this represents a significant discount to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents.

Octaviar sold management rights to the troubled fund to Wellington Capital, a company headed by Jenny Hutson, last month.

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp.

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS.

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done "a pretty good deal" but denied getting mates' rates.






http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/s8-gets-a-turbo-charger/story-e6freqmx-1111112392092

S8 chair Jenny Hutson, who will join the board of MFS if the proposed merger proceeds, was bullish about the deal.

"Chris Scott and Michael King have put a lot of energy into briefing the market about the upside of the deal and now the share prices have rallied," Ms Hutson said.

Shareholders re-elected Andrew Kemp, Robert Steel and Peter Lacaze as directors.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Sunnycove Management PTY LTD::irectors and Executives:
Mr Andrew Kemp (Chairman)
Mr Mark Roberts (Managing Director)
Mr Matthew Madsen (Director)
Mr Craig Wallace (Director)

S8 Limited:irectors and Executives:
Ms Jennifer Joan Hutson (Chairman)
Mr Chris John Scott (Managing Director)
Mr Craig Graeme Chapman (CFO)
Mr Gary Smith (Director)
Mr Andrew Kemp (Director)
Mr Bob Steel (Non Exec. Director)

S8 Property Trust Compliance committee:

Peter Fahey, Craig Wallace and Robert Pitt


Octaviar Investment Managegement Ltd (2 May 2008) Directors
Jenny Hutson;
Robert Pitt; and
Craig Wallace.
Wellington Capital Pty Lt:irectors and Executives: (May 2008)
Ms Jenny Hutson (Chairman)
Mr Robert Pitt (Managing Director)
Mr Christopher Scott (Director)
Mr David Burke (Director)
Mr Peter Fahey (Director)

Chris Scott was a director and shareholder of Wellington Capital. Wellington Capital was Responsible Entity for S8 Property Trust. As to the best of my research, McCullough Robertsons were named as Legal Advisor to all of the above, and so it goes on.


Seamisty

An interesting little snippet managed to find its way into my email inbox this morning re Wellington Capital.

http://www.gazettes.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/Folder/SITE83/GAZETTES/GA2010/GA112010.PDF
Struck-off List
THE COMPANIES LAW
(2009 Revision)
TAKE NOTICE THAT the Registrar of Companies, having reasonable cause to believe that the
undermentioned companies incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands are no longer carrying on
business or are not in compliance with Section 170, intends to strike the said companies from the Register as
of the 30th June 2010, in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 of the Companies Law.

WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED


Amazing where the name Wellington Capital Ltd turns up!!! Wasn't Agilis Global, formerly MFS International Investments Limited registered there as well?

Seamisty

seamisty said:

An interesting little snippet managed to find its way into my email inbox this morning re Wellington Capital.

http://www.gazettes.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/Folder/SITE83/GAZETTES/GA2010/GA112010.PDF
Struck-off List
THE COMPANIES LAW
(2009 Revision)
TAKE NOTICE THAT the Registrar of Companies, having reasonable cause to believe that the
undermentioned companies incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands are no longer carrying on
business or are not in compliance with Section 170, intends to strike the said companies from the Register as
of the 30th June 2010, in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 of the Companies Law.

WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED


Amazing where the name Wellington Capital Ltd turns up!!! Wasn't Agilis Global, formerly MFS International Investments Limited registered there as well?

Seamisty

Click to expand...

The following is from a website offering their services re registering business offshore.

http://www.offshore-professional.com/?gclid=CIXpi4mwgKICFQcupAodW23tEA
Going offshore nowadays is the most popular way of starting or managing your business. Offshore companies do not only offer tax exemption. That's surely what made them famous and popular. More important however is the freedom of operations, confidentiality and ease of running your business. There will be no paperwork, no hassle with filings and audtings.

Incorporate your new company today! Go offshore now, no visit required.

Quick, easy, affordable.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Perhaps the allure of offshore company registrations have lost their usefullness since 'The Governments of Australia and The Cayman Islands have signed an Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes. The Agreement provides for exchange of information on request in both criminal and civil tax matters' (Thursday, 1 April 2010)
http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=007&ContentID=1776


Seamisty

Dexter said:

Can someone "please explain" how we can expect a worthwhile settlement from our Class Action when, as quoted recently in the Financial Review, any claims against "auditors and other professionals" are capped at $75m?

This case was also against KPMG.

Regards, Dexter.

Click to expand...

Dexter

Would you be kind enough to forward the link to this Financial Review article to my email: pifactiongroup@gmail.com

Thanks

Thanks for contacting me Dexter and all the best with the move!

Duped said:

The same AFR that stated PIF was New Zealand based.
Did the AFR article offer any reasoning? Legislated? The extent of their insurance? Common law?

Click to expand...

If the AFR report that claims against auditors are capped at $75m. is correct, we must surely have an extra worry. However, ASIC not long ago chased KPMG for $200m. on behalf of Westpoint investors and won. (There's an appeal.) Hopefully someone can shed light on the discrepancy. $200m. is well beyond $75m!

atlas1950 said:

I, like many others have been caught up with this awful mess.

But can we really blame Westpac for looking after there interests.

Please remember they held first mortgage on the Sheraton Mirage property.

We only held a second mortgage.

As sad as I am to say, they had every right, as holders of the first mortgage,to get all of the money.

We can't blame them, but we should be jumping up and down on the MFS board who allowed us to be holders of a second mortgage.

I was always told that they could only lend our money on first mortgage security, so please tell me why we were there on a second mortgage basis.

Good luck to us all, and am looking forward to the next six months and the progression of our class action.

Michael

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying but disagree. This get-out-of-jail-free-card excuse of "only obliged to get the best possible outcome for shareholders" is losing its potency. Arguably it was never a valid claim anyway. In contrast to Westpac's apparently cold surgical treatment of us, have a read of 'The Buffet Way' about Warren Buffet. Buffet ALWAYS examines how management balance the competing interests of the 3 key groups in any enterprise: employees, clients and investors. Westpac/St George has just hurt ten thousand potential clients. The Westpac/St George secured loan came after the PIF unsecured mortgage didn't it? If so then Westpac/St George is complicit in the destruction of our wealth because it knew about our subordinate mortgage BEFORE it lent money to Rap[a]ti[ou]s. But did it care? Are you all going to sit there and turn the other cheek. If yes then we all deserve what we get. Westpac had and still have a choice to do good business with PIF.

Of course Westpac/St George could always have or still save us from the hustling and equity serfditude imposed on us by MFS/Octaviar and its progeny WC and become a model RE for us but .........noooooo. Nowhere to be seen. Gone missing. MIA. We're on our own to fend for ourselves and hence should be throwing punched (metaphorical) where ever and when ever we can. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. The class action is one big long loud squeak but not the only one in our capacity. C'mon Westpac/St George, lets do business, lets make money together, where is your bid to rival ALF PIF? ..... silence. C'mon, prove me wrong. I welcome it.

In the meantime the only power I have against Westpac is the choice not to give them my business. And I'm going to use it. Already have. My partner used to be with St George. Not any more.

breaker1 said:

Thanks for contacting me Dexter and all the best with the move!

Click to expand...

Thanks Dexter. All AFR articles are behind its pay wall and searching 'KPMG' returns many irrelevant hits. (The newspapers are busy writing about KPMG's duplicity on the RSPT and KPMG's involvement with Securency. Our ivory tower residents are copping it. Recall Deloitte getting sacked by McMurdo for getting itself conflicted during their administration of Octaviar.) Do you remember the approximate date or e.g. if the article was about Westpoint?

Anyone a member of AFR Online?

Hi Duped

I recall reading the article also a few weeks back on my Internet

Server news page( Big Pond)

If correct and we are restricted to 75 million ,the quantum of our claim could depend on whether or not our class action has legally gone through before this legislation has been introduced .And also if the reported legislation has been backdated .

Jadel said:

Hi Duped

I recall reading the article also a few weeks back on my Internet

Server news page( Big Pond)

If correct and we are restricted to 75 million ,the quantum of our claim could depend on whether or not our class action has legally gone through before this legislation has been introduced .And also if the reported legislation has been backdated .

Click to expand...

I asked John Walker at IMF if he would comment on the issue and received the following::"I don’t know what the reporter is talking about. KPMG’s liability for causes of action arising after 1 February 2008 may be limited, but by then almost all, if not all, the damage had been done."

He doesn't appear to be concerned so I presume it does not affect our CA statement of claim re compensation from KPMG.

From memory I think I recall that directors had a PI cap of $5mill each??

Seamisty

I thought we had 1 billion insurance with KPMG. How much were we insured for if it wasn't $1B?...Surely it is to do with what OUR insurance was and how much WE were paying for OUR coverage, rather than a "cap"!

Just double checked:

IMF have no knowledge of any cap on claims

seamisty said:

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

Click to expand...

I guess I am not the only one with a gripe against the NSX management!! Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/form...irm-a-bloody-nose-in-court-20100529-wmip.html

THE listed NSX Ltd has suffered a costly courtroom defeat at the hands of the company's former managing director, Robert Bladier.

Does anybody know when Bentleys investigations starts up again in court???

Should be interesting with the next group of people under examinations.

It has been quiet on the thread for the past few days, so let's hope things sre moving in a positive direction.

Michael

Hi Atlas1950,

A 15 April letter on the Bentleys website shows 10-14 May (already past), 19-23 July 2010, 2-6 August and 16-20 August as weeks set aside for examinations.

I wish it were happening faster but I guess patience is a virtue, at least in our case.

Cookie1

I heard Wellington Capital is looking to call an EGM to vote that the MYF (Maximum Yield Fund)not be wound up for another 2 years due to current litigation consequences??? Not sure why these proceedings would have a detrimental impact on the legitimate MYF investors and ponder what benefit WC would receive (from current experience) by prolonging the winding up of this Fund? Please enlighten me? Any legitimate MYF current debenture holders care to comment? I believe there is only approx 9 original investors holding less than 2 million legitimate MYF units outside of the 85 million bogus units that WC continue to manage?? I heard WC even distributed MYF income\distributions to the nonexistent 85 million Class A bogus MYF units to the detriment of the original unit/debenture holders? I am still waiting for a response from WELLINGTON CAPITAL to clarify some issues previously raised by myself and the PIF Action Group on behalf of one of the legitimate MYF investors. I did also send it to our duly elected IAC reps thinking they may like to initiate some of their promised broad range of business expertise to take the issue on board and seek some answers on PIF investors behalf.(this particular investor has all his funds tied up in OCV related Funds including the PIF). It would be VERY encouraging to see at least one intelligent IAC response on the next WC PIF update as I consider that the Wollongong fiasco/result not yet delivered by WC less than 'encouraging' (and an issue I feel needs further investigating) and the fact that IAC reps are 'watching the Bentley Public examinations closely' nothing short of pathetic!! I seriously would like to know what it cost US, the PIF unitholders in actual $$$$ to be insulted by this whole mentally taxing IAC exercise of which our Responsible Entity, WELLINGTON CAPITAL refuses to divulge the voting results of!! PIF investors are forever trying to protect themselves from scheming, manipulating attempts to withhold correct PIF information being returned to unit holders? Eventually, perhaps some of the many attemps made by PIF investors to unravel this mess and make us feel more secure and financially repatriated will come to fruition.


I am still waiting for WC to confirm a time with me for my 'periodic discussions' with the managing director of Wellington Capital offered to me previously by WC on the 2nd Feb 2010 for June, October and February each year.

Atlas1950 I think the Bentley public examinations are due to resume in August but not certain so will try and verify. I find the Bentley website not very up to date?
Seamisty

The last posting from greatdame was in December 08. Anyone recall/know if he returned under another name?