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
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

All

What are your thoughts on this from Corporations Act 2001 Vol 3

601FL Retirement of responsible entity
(1) If the responsible entity of a registered scheme wants to retire, it must call a members’ meeting to explain its reason for wanting to retire and to enable the members to vote on a resolution to choose a company to be the new responsible entity. The resolution must be an extraordinary resolution if the scheme is not listed.

Obviously this did not happen when MFS handed over to Wellington
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Are these latest unit price estimates the ones set recently by Price Waterhouse? Hasn't JH already said that the chances of recovering 100 of the 147m is zero? Look, I cannot possibly trust any dollar figures anymore. Millions have been thrown out with reckless abandon by MSFPIF as if it were monopoly money. Tomorrow WC could make another "sudden discovery", say another $100m gone missing, and expect us to be philosophical victims of gross ineptitude (I can think of much stronger words).

With all the due diligence going on since January, how is it that the lost 147m was announced just recently? Doesn't look too diligent to me. Remember 333Capital? They were brought in to REASSURE us! Never heard a word from them via MFS. The often mentioned behind the scenes associations, as described in Crikey, are increasingly concerning.

Think about this: if a bus driver overlooks a sign and crashes over a cliff causing injury to passengers, does a new company quickly re-employ him/her to do the same job? As for the re-engagement of certain professional (hello!) investment advisers is concerned, the notion is beyond sound reasoning. Why is logic being defied? 14 cents! What have these experts been investing our money in? Tin sheds on distant drought plains or worse? We were told that our investments were to be "bullet-proofed" (newsletter August 07). Seems that there was a chink in the armour.

There may be all sorts of reasons for the low unit prices being presently quoted. Perhaps if/when WC are in place with PIF, they will start to increase values as a signal that WC are the brilliant bullet proofers we seek. They might even recover "unrecoverables." Nothing surprises me any longer Ms Hutson. Try and convince me, the stage is yours. And just who is chairing the forums?
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Our rights regarding the Register of Members are:
  • Any member has the right to inspect the register without charge.
  • If a member wants a copy of the register they need to cover the costs of producing the copy (see the Yahoo! group documentation for exact wording of the act).

I don't forsee it's going to be a problem for us to get a copy, it’s just a matter of time. I feel WC are doing everything they can to hider the process and stall - but I expect to get it.

It troubles me that the solicitor hasn't advised how to get it. I see the quote for $14,000 as a stalling tactic and a means to stop anyone from getting it who doesn't have legal advice.

WC are not winning any votes here with the way they are handling this request. I consider what they are telling me to be misleading; and taking longer than necessary to process my request. The current status is that they are negotiating a reasonable price with Perpetual and will get back to me by the end of the week!! Unacceptable!! They know full well that the 7 day limit they have to provide it doesn’t start till I cover costs – which is impossible if I don’t have a reasonable quote.

Luckily we aren’t desperate for this and we are getting it in advance of needing it.

BTW: I am also following this up with Perpetual
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Point made by Mutchy:

The old RE should be sued in relation to the 147 million in money that has disappeared. It had its own board and compliance committee who signed off on transactions. Does WC. having bought the management rights also now hold responsibility for the $147 Million transactions? - Probably not.

I think WCIM is still responsible - all they have done is to buy all the shares in MFSIM Ltd/OIM Ltd and change the name, everything else remains the same. The last Board and Officers are equally responsible, as is WIM. A formal change of RE has to be decided by a meeting of members. JH chose to buy all the shares in the RE as a means of avoiding having members decide at a meeting, where other offers may also be considered..

Section 601MA allows any member of PIF to sue the RE for loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's RE that contravenes the Corps Act.

JH has already alleged contraventions of S601FD Corporations Act, including compliance with the Australian Financial Services Licence, constitution and Compliance Plan of the PIF.

All I need as a member is a declaration of contravention against the RE by the Supreme Court and I can sue WIM for my loss or damage.

JH is already pursuing this in the Supreme Court - we just need to watch that she also gets a declaration against the RE. Remember when all this happened Craig White was both MFS CEO and CEO of MFSIM.


CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MA
Civil liability of responsible entity to members

(1) A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

(2) An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

(3) This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Hmmmm. So are you saying WC's true motivation for suing OCV is for CS to have friendlies in control of any break-up. That PIF is again being used for purposes other than ROI for investors. Was that CS' plan for JH all along?
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

If WC are playing hard ball on the register which is a side issue to the real game I feel we are in for a lot of legal hoop jumping,will WC be using our funds to fund there legals



 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped

That was a copy of a post on a comment I made about impact the $147 million plus $50 million has on any future scheme for OCV.

It is something worth considering as it staggers me that $147 million has just disappeared.

On the surface of it CS former advisor got handed an asset (management of RE) and know they are going to kill the company CS fought so hard to get control of through legal action. Why would OCV have done the deal with WC ahead of alternative potential offers ? The only reason I can come up with is to put it in the hands of a friendly party.

JH has indicated in press that she does not support a liquidation of OCV so therefore would be open to some form of scheme of arrangements on creditors.

The question is will it be the best deal for PIF or for OCV
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

BootsnAll said:
We need people with expertise to step forward & get the ball rolling. Only wish I qualified!
Click to expand...

Can we change this and ask for members with time rather than expertise to step forward. We just need members who have time to follow things up with experts such as a solicitor, accountant, whoever. I know my name was mentioned, I’m happy to assist but I am already in trouble (with boots) for the time I am speeding on this.

Dora
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Correct SPLITPIN - See my post earlier. It was done through the sale of shares in the RE so they would not have to go to a meeting with other offers on the table.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

All

So, from the Corporations Act 2001 to remove the RE we need our 100 + members etc to

2601FM Removal of responsible entity by member

(1) If members of a registered scheme want to remove the responsible entity, they may take action under Division 1 of Part 2G.4 for the calling of a members’ meeting to consider and vote on a resolution that the current responsible entity should be removed and a resolution choosing a company to be the new responsible entity.

and / or

A member (1 off) may

601FN ASIC or scheme member may apply to Court for appointment of temporary responsible entity
ASIC or a member of the registered scheme may apply to the Court for the appointment of a temporary responsible entity of the scheme under section 601FP if the scheme does not have a responsible entity that meets the requirements of section 601FA.

Thoughts please.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi SPLITPIN,

Not sure what thoughts you want? I think we currently have the power to call a vote on replacing the RE if we decide it necessary. The act says it must be an extraordinary resolution.

"extraordinary resolution" , in relation to a registered scheme, means a resolution:
(a) of which notice as set out in paragraph 252J(c) has been given; and
(b) that has been passed by at least 50% of the total votes that may be cast by members entitled to vote on the resolution (including members who are not present in person or by proxy).

This involves finding a new RE first.
See more info in the attachment Options.doc from post #549
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Mutchy said:
WC have been handed a significant asset for effectively no consideration. WC will earn substantial fees over time out of a questionable transaction.

Please feel free to clarify any point which is in error or answer any questions raised.

Mutchy
Click to expand...

Mutchy,

When I spoke with WC, I was told that WC will not be taking any fees until distributions are made to investors. This to me seems to be something positive, isn't it? Afterall, WC can only make the 'substantial' fees it might want if it can return significant value to PIF, which is also good for us investors, is it not?
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


No Mutchy WC are not doing the right thing. They are prevented from taking any fees while distributions are frozen by virtue of the PIF PDS.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

MARCOM, re your post 578, page 28 - I'd been searching for those earlier Crikey pieces for some time. Thanks for posting them. Stephen Mayne was right on the ball. The references to August suggest a possibility of some eventful twists and turns yet to evolve.

My instinct tells me that because of our AG, the future may not be as grim as it seems today. It's becoming a chess game as evidenced by Dora's problems with the register (somewhat petty and really poor PR). I fear that the forums' chairperson may rule some sharp questions as being out of order. He/she can claim confidentiality, possible defamation etc. to protect the speaker from having to answer the dicey ones. I've seen it happen before.

My $100 plus contribution to the AG is ready to send.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Changing the RE is not going to change the fact we have $150m in zero value loans and $250m in "very dubious" loans and assets. We have to wait and see what WC can deliver to us.

Another area where I think we have to really look at is the ASIC card, Jadel has got the ball rolling with a letter with 30 odd signatures. It is an extraordinary situattion that OCV has $170m sitting in their bank account and we are owed $150 thru mismanagement.

Asic has the power to freeze these funds held by OCV, and the only way they will act, and quickly, is by 10300 investors putting enough pressure via media etc, to force them to action!
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

My post 587 today should read "Remember when all this happened Craig White was both MFS CEO and Board Member of MFSIM."
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I HAVE TIME but little KNOWHOW. I am also in Melbourne, which is a bit out of the way.

However, if anyone wishes to instruct me clearly in what needs to be done, and I am able to do it from here, FEEL FREE to get in touch.

My email address is mlynch48@bigpond.com and my phone number
03 97754874.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

With the legal advice were getting has anything been said about taking out a class action against these BAST#####
We might have too, I don't see anyone else trying to take these people to court.
Even if we get the full amount back I still believe theses people acted illegally and should be held accountable.
You can bet JH and the the others will end up making money on our loses.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Jadel. I don't think that'll be enough. There is absolutely no way ASIC or equivalent Federal or State bodies will prosecute if there is any likelihood they'll end up prosecuting the former leader of the Liberal party. THE TOP MAN of Australia's conservatives. Nothing like that has ever occured in this country; that I know of.

Not without enormous pressure any way. I'm guessing: ASIC would rather be criticized for acting slow than risk potentially being blamed for causing extensive damage to the Liberal brand. Can anyone seriously believe Peacock the Chairman had no idea of his subsidiary MFS IM's breach of the PIF PDS when there was nearly ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION $ involved. If not then someone has to take the fall, rightly or wrongly. Who's that going to be: MFS Ltd CEO King, MFS IM CEO Guy Hutchings?

Thankfully we have an independent judiciary and our RE has initiating proceedings against OCV for the $147M.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Duped, there is a Labor Government in power - ASIC and other relevant state and federal bodies will be just waiting to get political mileage out of thrashing "the suntaned one " and the Liberal heartland in Victoria in the media. There was some press when MFS started to implode to the effect that Peacock's son in law Michael Krouger - Victorian Head of the Liberal Party - that he had cautioned Peacock not to take the MFS Chairmanship as he would regret it in the long term. Michael was right!

Its going to be interesting to see regular TV coverage of Peacock trying to avoid service of summons in Washington DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
461
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
971
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
qldfrog
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...