Hi Blueboy and all, the change from Carney's to Hwl Ebsworth Lawyers was made after careful consideration by all parties to be in the best interest of the class action and no other motive. Cheers, Seamisty
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
I havent seen mellifuous posting here lately re FMF ... you would all be aware of some similarities to PIF..
This article suggests that public examinations are going to take place to fill in the blanks....
http://www.smh.com.au/business/public-probe-to-soothe-hot-tempers-20101121-182l4.html
This article suggests that public examinations are going to take place to fill in the blanks....
http://www.smh.com.au/business/public-probe-to-soothe-hot-tempers-20101121-182l4.html
Following are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.
It is very obvious that ASIC are not taking our complaints seriously and had not investigated the more serious breaches reported to them. W.C. may have written the above response!!
So it appears we are on our own.
Where to from here?
[/
It is very obvious that ASIC are not taking our complaints seriously and had not investigated the more serious breaches reported to them. W.C. may have written the above response!!
So it appears we are on our own.
Where to from here?
Dexter I feel the same, ASIC have procrastinated with us for well over 2 years with no result, is it any wonder they are considered a waste of taxpayers money by so many? A further example of ASICs ineptitude, offering too little too late. SeamistyFollowing are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.
[/
It is very obvious that ASIC are not taking our complaints seriously and had not investigated the more serious breaches reported to them. W.C. may have written the above response!!
So it appears we are on our own.
Where to from here?
Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes)
Alternate WMA version | MP3 download
MARK COLVIN: Former clients of the collapsed firm Storm Financial and some major banks have met plans by the corporate watchdog to launch legal action against the directors with scepticism.
About 3,000 Storm clients were left financially devastated when the stock market fell in 2008. Many were elderly and had borrowed against their homes to invest after banks allegedly over-estimated their incomes.
Today the Australian Securities and Investments Commission announced plans to pursue Storm's directors, and three banks, over allegations ranging from "unconscionable conduct" to the unregistered operation of a managed investment scheme.
Annie Guest reports from Brisbane.
ANNIE GUEST: Two years on, the emotion is still raw for former Storm Financial clients.
Jane Zinn was a self-funded retiree who is now on a pension.
JANE ZINN: Everytime you have to do something, whether it's Centrelink or what it has to be, it just, it's all open again.
ANNIE GUEST: She's one of about 3,000 people left in severe distress after investing through Storm Financial. Many have lost their homes. Others are preparing to face that upheaval.
This man didn't want to reveal his name for fear of jeopardising a Commonwealth Bank payout.
FORMER STORM INVESTOR: We still have our home but we will have to sell it because we still have outstanding debts.
ANNIE GUEST: What do you think about ASIC's plans to pursue the Cassimatis and the banks over Storm's collapse?
FORMER STORM INVESTOR: ASIC, I think, will prosecute a case but whether or not their successful, we only look at their history and the previous cases they've prosecuted and they haven't been successful.
ANNIE GUEST: ASIC announced plans today to bring civil penalty proceedings against Storm's directors and founders, Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, for failing to take into account the personal circumstances of investors.
Some clients' pension incomes were grossly overestimated when they borrowed against their homes to invest. Many remain furious they didn't receive margin calls.
The corporate watchdog says it's also planning to pursue damages and compensation from the Bank of Queensland, and the franchisee of its Townsville North Ward branch, and Macquarie Bank over unconscionable conduct and liability as linked credit providers of Storm.
As well, the Bank of Queensland and Macquarie Bank, along with the Commonwealth Bank are threatened with action over the unregistered operation of a managed investment scheme.
But ASIC made it clear it prefers a commercial settlement and will give the banks three weeks for further discussions.
However, that's the less likely path, according to Melbourne University corporate law expert Professor Ian Ramsay.
IAN RAMSAY: I think at this stage one might have thought that if there was going to be a commercial settlement we might have seen it by now.
ANNIE GUEST: And so fiercely contested litigation would appear more probable, but....
IAN RAMSAY: Even if one or more of the financial institutions lose they would appeal, there would be multiple avenues of appeal available. This could very readily take a number of years.
ANNIE GUEST: In statements to the stock exchange all three banks say they're disappointed by ASIC's decision.
Macquarie Bank has vowed to strongly defend itself. The Commonwealth Bank says the move will only create further uncertainty for people.
And there's another player affected by ASIC's announcement: a class action lawyer who today invited former Storm Financial clients to a luxury Brisbane hotel where they may once have afforded to stay.
Stewart Levitt warned them that the CBA is getting off lightly and ASIC had been lax in regulating Storm, and couldn't be trusted.
STEWART LEVITT: And that is why it is so important that we continue to take action against the banks ourselves and so that you have a second line of defence, so that ASIC can't get out there and collude and sell you out in circumstances where there is still another case running either in tandem or maybe even ahead of the ASIC case.
ANNIE GUEST: The Sydney-based lawyer launched a class action in July on behalf of 300 people with similar assertions made by ASIC today about the operation of an unregistered managed investment scheme.
Meanwhile, the corporate watchdog's move has been welcomed by the Labor Party's Bernie Ripoll, who chaired the parliamentary inquiry that examined Storm's collapse.
He described it as a watershed moment for the long suffering victims.
MARK COLVIN: Annie Guest.
NZ update re OPI Pacific...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors
"McCloy and Noone said they had finished investigating the activities of OPI, its directors and third parties before the receivership, and "due to the outcome of our investigation we have reported our findings to the following government authorities: the Securities Commission, the Serious Fraud Office and the Ministry of Economic Development.
They said no further details could be given of their findings because "doing so may prejudice any proceedings that may be taken by the receivers and/or any government authority in New Zealand and/or Australia.'' continues
I highlighted Australia..where they mention any government authority.. in?Australia.. a country might have more influence than unit holders?
Did PIF lend to OPI or was it the other way round ? Seamisty or others can you remember if there was any interaction? My recolection of news article is starting to fade after so long.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors
"McCloy and Noone said they had finished investigating the activities of OPI, its directors and third parties before the receivership, and "due to the outcome of our investigation we have reported our findings to the following government authorities: the Securities Commission, the Serious Fraud Office and the Ministry of Economic Development.
They said no further details could be given of their findings because "doing so may prejudice any proceedings that may be taken by the receivers and/or any government authority in New Zealand and/or Australia.'' continues
I highlighted Australia..where they mention any government authority.. in?Australia.. a country might have more influence than unit holders?
Did PIF lend to OPI or was it the other way round ? Seamisty or others can you remember if there was any interaction? My recolection of news article is starting to fade after so long.
On a different topic.Seamisty you made Madoff comparisons way back and might be interested in this article...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/24/ubs-sued-bernie-madoff
Unfortunately I dont completely grasp the banks position "by serving as their sponsor, custodian and administrator."
I dont follow all the details but note the term "feeder funds" ?
which is how I saw storm and vestar...if investments were not random.
Sorry if its too unrelated and off the PIF topic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/24/ubs-sued-bernie-madoff
Unfortunately I dont completely grasp the banks position "by serving as their sponsor, custodian and administrator."
I dont follow all the details but note the term "feeder funds" ?
which is how I saw storm and vestar...if investments were not random.
Sorry if its too unrelated and off the PIF topic.
LTD thank you for your tireless efforts and assiduous research , it is greatly appreciated. I know a person who had a considerable amount of money invested in OPI Pacific . This gentleman approached ASIC and the serious crime squad in Australia and was rebuffed.
PIF supposedly lent money from the RBOS loan tho OPI PAcific . We know the this was a fraudulent transaction and the mnoney went instead to pay out the Fortress loan. AAIC was alerted to the misappopriation of these funds
two years ago.
From direct personal experience, ASIC would have the utmost difficulty monitoring the the droppings of a herd of wandering Brontosaurus with a microscope .
Hi LTD, The PIF is owed $17.5 million from OPI Pacific Finance. The money was transferred from the PIF in Dec 2007 by the former RE, MFS Investment Management Ltd and is included in the portfolio of PIF 'dud investments' (unsecured loans)which were allegedly accompanied by some 'creative back dated documents'.
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...nst+former+officers+of+MFS+Group?openDocument
Cheers Seamisty
LTD thank you for your tireless efforts and assiduous research , it is greatly appreciated. I know a person who had a considerable amount of money invested in OPI Pacific . This gentleman approached ASIC and the serious crime squad in Australia and was rebuffed.
PIF supposedly lent money from the RBOS loan to OPI PAcific . We know this was a fraudulent transaction and the funds went instead to pay out the Fortress loan. ASIC was alerted to the misappopriation of these funds two years ago.
From direct personal experience, ASIC would have the utmost difficulty monitoring the droppings of a herd of wandering Brontosaurus with a microscope .
I found this summary of the Aristocrat Leisure Class Action interesting, especially the time span from start to finish.
http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/.../aristocrat-leisure-limited-class-action.aspx
http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/.../aristocrat-leisure-limited-class-action.aspx
Michael Pascoe appears rather scathing of ASIC's belated efforts re Storm Financial.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/more-storm-financial-targets-asic-et-al-20101129-18cny.html
'And while it might be nice to see action commenced against Storm's founders, one might wonder what position ASIC has on the Cassimatis' many lieutenants – the advisors who sold the story, helped take the fat fees and who have now moved on to keep offering financial advice under other banners, all without personal cost. Wave 'em through without penalty'.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/more-storm-financial-targets-asic-et-al-20101129-18cny.html
'And while it might be nice to see action commenced against Storm's founders, one might wonder what position ASIC has on the Cassimatis' many lieutenants – the advisors who sold the story, helped take the fat fees and who have now moved on to keep offering financial advice under other banners, all without personal cost. Wave 'em through without penalty'.
- Joined
- 5 June 2008
- Posts
- 105
- Reactions
- 0
Hi all, I have emailed Carneys and the IMF contact we were given some (considerable) time ago for up-to-date info on the CA and received no reply. Is that because there is no progress? Is there a website where progress is posted? Has anyone received any updates in the last 9 months?
I would welcome any response here.
I would welcome any response here.
Hi Mary, IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case. Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.
The change from Carney's to Hwl Ebsworth Lawyers was made after careful consideration by all parties to be in the best interest of the class action and no other motive.
Seamisty
I received a copy of that letter yesterday also Dexter. The following article in todays smh titled 'Welcome to Australia, land of bloated rogues' sums up my sentimants exactly and is worthy of a read. The summnation of the article is::Following are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.
[/
It is very obvious that ASIC are not taking our complaints seriously and had not investigated the more serious breaches reported to them. W.C. may have written the above response!!
So it appears we are on our own.
Where to from here?
'Try typing into Google the words ''ASIC and toothless''. There are hundreds of listings. Except that it isn't true. ASIC doesn't have a dental problem. It is missing a spine.'
The link to the article is http://www.smh.com.au/business/welcome-to-australia-land-of-bloated-rogues-20101129-18dzf.html
Seamisty
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
The negative media comment about ASIC's ineptitude continues:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/welcome-to-australia-land-of-bloated-rogues-20101129-18dzf.html
Welcome to Australia, land of bloated rogues
November 30, 2010
SMH BusinessDay » Ian Verrender
Bernie Madoff, architect of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, made a fundamental error in his grand plan to fleece American investors of $65 billion: he should have moved to Australia.
While the potential returns may not have been as large, he at least could have operated with impunity even after the whole thing blew up.
Rather than serving 150 years in jail (he will be 222 by the time he is released), Madoff could have spent his dotage living off his ill-gotten gains, smiling blithely from the pages of celebrity gossip mags and dreaming up an even bigger scheme had he shifted Down Under.
Advertisement: Story continues below
That seems to be the way we do things here these days.
Two years after some of the biggest corporate collapses in history, the nation's largest superannuation fraud, and the implosion of a string of high risk investment schemes, our courts remain a hive of inactivity when it comes to corporate crime.
Aside from the Opes Prime debacle, not one criminal prosecution has been launched against anyone involved in the collapses of 2008. That's despite numerous calls for investigations from the liquidators of those failed corporations.
There are two possible explanations. Either Australians finally have cast off their convict shackles and embarked on a life of virtue, occasionally beset by bouts of misfortune beyond their control, or someone isn't doing their job.
On Friday, the corporate regulator finally shifted into gear. It launched a $1 billion damages action against the financiers behind the Storm Financial debacle; the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie and the Bank of Queensland.
Launch isn't exactly the correct word. It merely threatened to launch action if the banks didn't come to the party on a commercial settlement within three weeks. Given negotiations on a settlement have been under way for eight months, that seems unlikely.
Action should have been taken long ago. And the unfortunate message broadcast by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the corporate world on Friday was this: ''We know you did the wrong thing, that you broke the law. But we'll forget all about it if you hand back some of the cash. Please?''
It's an odd philosophy for an organisation that, under its parliamentary charter, lists as a primary function ''enforcing the law''.
But it's a philosophy that has become entrenched within ASIC and one that pre-dates the chairman Tony D'Aloisio. The highlight of the previous incumbent Geoff Lucy's reign was the deal struck with the former Telstra director and alleged comedian Steve Vizard who admitted using confidential information in exchange for being pursued only through the civil courts.
If there were any doubts ASIC had gone soft, the judge in that civil case, Justice Ray Finkelstein, took it upon himself to double the penalty recommended by the regulator.
D'Aloisio has made no secret of the fact he would rather retrieve money for investors than fight legal battles against well resourced corporations. That's all well and good. But one of the essential elements in the administration of law is that justice not only should be done, it should be seen to be done.
Instead, the investigation of corporate collapses appears to have been outsourced to liquidators. In the cases of Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning and Allco Finance, liquidators have made a point of drawing ASIC's attention to issues they believe warrant urgent investigation. What have we seen? Nothing.
B&B alone blew up more than $5 billion of creditors' and shareholders' funds. The well heeled principals of that firm all have moved on into new and ever more lucrative activities, some having hived off a chunk of the old empire.
Cast your mind back to the HIH collapse. That sparked a royal commission, the findings of which led to several high profile criminal prosecutions and a complete overhaul of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.
And while ASIC professes to seek compensation solutions, that too largely has been left to investors who have bypassed the regulator and resorted to class actions.
As an organisation, it seems obsessed with performance statistics. Last year it raised $545 million for the government and cost just $274 million. So it's a profit centre. Terrific. It had a 91 per cent success rate in court, which suggests it only takes on the easy cases.
Every decade or so, each time there is a market collapse and debt-riddled high flyers come crashing to earth, irate investors call for better protection, new laws and a stronger regulatory regime. But Australia has a solid regulatory framework and a robust legal system, every bit as capable of administering corporate law as well as in the US.
So why doesn't it happen?
A good place to start is at the top. Those who have been appointed to run ASIC all have been either corporate lawyers or senior accountants. None have had any experience in law enforcement.
During the course of their careers, high-profile lawyers often shift between advocating for the prosecution, the defence or sitting in judgment on the bench.
But it is rare for any to end up running an enforcement agency. That's what ASIC is, an enforcement agency. That's what s1(2) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 obliges it to be. That's what it needs to become.
Try typing into Google the words ''ASIC and toothless''. There are hundreds of listings. Except that it isn't true. ASIC doesn't have a dental problem. It is missing a spine.
Emphasis added.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/welcome-to-australia-land-of-bloated-rogues-20101129-18dzf.html
Welcome to Australia, land of bloated rogues
November 30, 2010
SMH BusinessDay » Ian Verrender
Bernie Madoff, architect of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, made a fundamental error in his grand plan to fleece American investors of $65 billion: he should have moved to Australia.
While the potential returns may not have been as large, he at least could have operated with impunity even after the whole thing blew up.
Rather than serving 150 years in jail (he will be 222 by the time he is released), Madoff could have spent his dotage living off his ill-gotten gains, smiling blithely from the pages of celebrity gossip mags and dreaming up an even bigger scheme had he shifted Down Under.
Advertisement: Story continues below
That seems to be the way we do things here these days.
Two years after some of the biggest corporate collapses in history, the nation's largest superannuation fraud, and the implosion of a string of high risk investment schemes, our courts remain a hive of inactivity when it comes to corporate crime.
Aside from the Opes Prime debacle, not one criminal prosecution has been launched against anyone involved in the collapses of 2008. That's despite numerous calls for investigations from the liquidators of those failed corporations.
There are two possible explanations. Either Australians finally have cast off their convict shackles and embarked on a life of virtue, occasionally beset by bouts of misfortune beyond their control, or someone isn't doing their job.
On Friday, the corporate regulator finally shifted into gear. It launched a $1 billion damages action against the financiers behind the Storm Financial debacle; the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie and the Bank of Queensland.
Launch isn't exactly the correct word. It merely threatened to launch action if the banks didn't come to the party on a commercial settlement within three weeks. Given negotiations on a settlement have been under way for eight months, that seems unlikely.
Action should have been taken long ago. And the unfortunate message broadcast by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the corporate world on Friday was this: ''We know you did the wrong thing, that you broke the law. But we'll forget all about it if you hand back some of the cash. Please?''
It's an odd philosophy for an organisation that, under its parliamentary charter, lists as a primary function ''enforcing the law''.
But it's a philosophy that has become entrenched within ASIC and one that pre-dates the chairman Tony D'Aloisio. The highlight of the previous incumbent Geoff Lucy's reign was the deal struck with the former Telstra director and alleged comedian Steve Vizard who admitted using confidential information in exchange for being pursued only through the civil courts.
If there were any doubts ASIC had gone soft, the judge in that civil case, Justice Ray Finkelstein, took it upon himself to double the penalty recommended by the regulator.
D'Aloisio has made no secret of the fact he would rather retrieve money for investors than fight legal battles against well resourced corporations. That's all well and good. But one of the essential elements in the administration of law is that justice not only should be done, it should be seen to be done.
Instead, the investigation of corporate collapses appears to have been outsourced to liquidators. In the cases of Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning and Allco Finance, liquidators have made a point of drawing ASIC's attention to issues they believe warrant urgent investigation. What have we seen? Nothing.
B&B alone blew up more than $5 billion of creditors' and shareholders' funds. The well heeled principals of that firm all have moved on into new and ever more lucrative activities, some having hived off a chunk of the old empire.
Cast your mind back to the HIH collapse. That sparked a royal commission, the findings of which led to several high profile criminal prosecutions and a complete overhaul of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.
And while ASIC professes to seek compensation solutions, that too largely has been left to investors who have bypassed the regulator and resorted to class actions.
As an organisation, it seems obsessed with performance statistics. Last year it raised $545 million for the government and cost just $274 million. So it's a profit centre. Terrific. It had a 91 per cent success rate in court, which suggests it only takes on the easy cases.
Every decade or so, each time there is a market collapse and debt-riddled high flyers come crashing to earth, irate investors call for better protection, new laws and a stronger regulatory regime. But Australia has a solid regulatory framework and a robust legal system, every bit as capable of administering corporate law as well as in the US.
So why doesn't it happen?
A good place to start is at the top. Those who have been appointed to run ASIC all have been either corporate lawyers or senior accountants. None have had any experience in law enforcement.
During the course of their careers, high-profile lawyers often shift between advocating for the prosecution, the defence or sitting in judgment on the bench.
But it is rare for any to end up running an enforcement agency. That's what ASIC is, an enforcement agency. That's what s1(2) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 obliges it to be. That's what it needs to become.
Try typing into Google the words ''ASIC and toothless''. There are hundreds of listings. Except that it isn't true. ASIC doesn't have a dental problem. It is missing a spine.
Emphasis added.
Whenever a large institution becomes inert, it must be the chairman and the board who shouldt take responsibility. The MFS experience tells us that a chairman nowadays plays a different role from the traditional model. Why doesn't MP Hockey turn his attention towards ASIC?
10-11CA ASIC says beware of unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds
Tuesday 30 November 2010
ASIC today warned consumers about unsolicited offers to buy units in frozen funds.
ASIC has received complaints from investors who have received unexpected offers to buy their units in frozen funds, at prices less than the total amount that investors could expect to receive from their funds under a redemption facility or withdrawal offer.
A frozen fund is a registered managed investment scheme that was marketed on the basis that investors had an ongoing or periodic right to redeem their investments on request, but has since then suspended that right.
Unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds will usually offer to buy the units for substantially less than the amount a member would expect to receive from the fund under a redemption facility. If you receive an unexpected offer, and you are thinking about accepting it, you should:
a) make sure you try to understand how much your investment is really worth, and how and when you will be able to access your funds – call the responsible entity of your fund to get information that will help with this
b) think carefully before you accept an unexpected offer: do you really need to sell?
c) talk to the responsible entity of your fund or get advice from a licensed financial planner, so you can make an informed choice.
A freeze on withdrawals does not necessarily mean that members will not receive their money back or that distributions will stop or not recommence. The length of time it will take for capital to be returned to members who want it back, and any losses on the fund assets, vary significantly from fund to fund. Many frozen funds are providing regular withdrawal offers, and many still pay distributions.
Some frozen funds expect to be able to provide members with access to their full entitlements, paid in instalments over time. In these cases it may not be in the best interests of investors to accept a heavily discounted offer.
ASIC has worked closely with responsible entities of frozen funds to encourage and help them improve investors' access to their money. ASIC has modified the law to allow responsible entities to make periodic withdrawal offers and to return capital to members in exceptional circumstances of hardship. Hardship includes where members cannot meet reasonable and immediate family living expenses, have medical costs, funeral expenses, imminent foreclosure or are unemployed for at least 3 months without other means.
Changes to the law that are expected to come into effect shortly will make it illegal for people to get copies of registers of unit holders if the purpose for obtaining the copy is improper. That means it will be more difficult for people to get contact details of unit holders and make these unexpected offers.
Until then, if you receive an unexpected offer for your investment in a frozen fund ASIC strongly urges you to speak to the responsible entity of your fund or to get independent advice from a licensed financial planner before accepting.
Tuesday 30 November 2010
ASIC today warned consumers about unsolicited offers to buy units in frozen funds.
ASIC has received complaints from investors who have received unexpected offers to buy their units in frozen funds, at prices less than the total amount that investors could expect to receive from their funds under a redemption facility or withdrawal offer.
A frozen fund is a registered managed investment scheme that was marketed on the basis that investors had an ongoing or periodic right to redeem their investments on request, but has since then suspended that right.
Unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds will usually offer to buy the units for substantially less than the amount a member would expect to receive from the fund under a redemption facility. If you receive an unexpected offer, and you are thinking about accepting it, you should:
a) make sure you try to understand how much your investment is really worth, and how and when you will be able to access your funds – call the responsible entity of your fund to get information that will help with this
b) think carefully before you accept an unexpected offer: do you really need to sell?
c) talk to the responsible entity of your fund or get advice from a licensed financial planner, so you can make an informed choice.
A freeze on withdrawals does not necessarily mean that members will not receive their money back or that distributions will stop or not recommence. The length of time it will take for capital to be returned to members who want it back, and any losses on the fund assets, vary significantly from fund to fund. Many frozen funds are providing regular withdrawal offers, and many still pay distributions.
Some frozen funds expect to be able to provide members with access to their full entitlements, paid in instalments over time. In these cases it may not be in the best interests of investors to accept a heavily discounted offer.
ASIC has worked closely with responsible entities of frozen funds to encourage and help them improve investors' access to their money. ASIC has modified the law to allow responsible entities to make periodic withdrawal offers and to return capital to members in exceptional circumstances of hardship. Hardship includes where members cannot meet reasonable and immediate family living expenses, have medical costs, funeral expenses, imminent foreclosure or are unemployed for at least 3 months without other means.
Changes to the law that are expected to come into effect shortly will make it illegal for people to get copies of registers of unit holders if the purpose for obtaining the copy is improper. That means it will be more difficult for people to get contact details of unit holders and make these unexpected offers.
Until then, if you receive an unexpected offer for your investment in a frozen fund ASIC strongly urges you to speak to the responsible entity of your fund or to get independent advice from a licensed financial planner before accepting.
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Greig and Harwood were sacked from administering OCV weren't they? If so, this'll put a chill down your spines.
According to BusinessSpectator: $210m was spent building Noosa Sanctuary and the RACV picked it up for $60m. Even the first mortgage holder, HBOS, took a 50% haircut. HBOS might have benefitted from following the PTQ's lead.
http://preview.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/70664.aspx
RACV SNAPS UP NOOSA SANCTUARY RESORT
"November 5, 2010
The Victorian auto club RACV has added key Queensland property, Noosa Sanctuary, to its expanding resorts division.
Deloitte partners John Greig, Chris Campbell and Nicholas Harwood have this week announced the successful sale of the five-star resort and residential complex.
The trio were appointed receivers and managers of Resort Corp Noosa Sanctuary No. 1 on March 22, and were aiming for a sale before November 30.
“When we were appointed back in March, the resort was newly completed and hadn’t commenced trading,” Greig explains.
“We opened and launched the resort just before Easter with the appointment of Mirvac Hotels as managers in order to enhance value and demonstrate the appeal of the resort to interested parties throughout the marketing process,” he says.
RACV purchased the Noosa complex after a successful sales and marketing campaign by Damian Winterburn and James Walsh of CapLand Real Estate Advisors and Rem Rafter and Rob Cross of CB Richard Ellis (CBRE).
“There were more than 100 inquiries from local, interstate and overseas groups for the resort. Considering the quality of the resort and the opportunity to create further value, this level of interest was not a surprise,” Winterburn says.
Noosa Sanctuary is located close to Noosa’s Main Beach and Hastings Street, comprises 149 apartments and villas and a central management and amenities building, including a restaurant, bar, business centre, day spa, tennis courts and pool.
RACV already owns five resorts, including RACV Royal Pines Resort on the Gold Coast."
According to BusinessSpectator: $210m was spent building Noosa Sanctuary and the RACV picked it up for $60m. Even the first mortgage holder, HBOS, took a 50% haircut. HBOS might have benefitted from following the PTQ's lead.
http://preview.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/70664.aspx
RACV SNAPS UP NOOSA SANCTUARY RESORT
"November 5, 2010
The Victorian auto club RACV has added key Queensland property, Noosa Sanctuary, to its expanding resorts division.
Deloitte partners John Greig, Chris Campbell and Nicholas Harwood have this week announced the successful sale of the five-star resort and residential complex.
The trio were appointed receivers and managers of Resort Corp Noosa Sanctuary No. 1 on March 22, and were aiming for a sale before November 30.
“When we were appointed back in March, the resort was newly completed and hadn’t commenced trading,” Greig explains.
“We opened and launched the resort just before Easter with the appointment of Mirvac Hotels as managers in order to enhance value and demonstrate the appeal of the resort to interested parties throughout the marketing process,” he says.
RACV purchased the Noosa complex after a successful sales and marketing campaign by Damian Winterburn and James Walsh of CapLand Real Estate Advisors and Rem Rafter and Rob Cross of CB Richard Ellis (CBRE).
“There were more than 100 inquiries from local, interstate and overseas groups for the resort. Considering the quality of the resort and the opportunity to create further value, this level of interest was not a surprise,” Winterburn says.
Noosa Sanctuary is located close to Noosa’s Main Beach and Hastings Street, comprises 149 apartments and villas and a central management and amenities building, including a restaurant, bar, business centre, day spa, tennis courts and pool.
RACV already owns five resorts, including RACV Royal Pines Resort on the Gold Coast."
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
EH!!!!!!!! This is an unbelievably reckless announcement by ASIC.
PIF is still a frozen fund. ASIC is effectively warning people off buying PIF units on the NSX. Even at a MASSIVELY discounted 7.2c.
Undoing any good work that WC has done to make PIF units attractive to buyers.
What have we done to ASIC to make them loath us like this?
I wonder if WC are going to sit by and let us cop this government interference in the free market.
