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
 
ALF Group Holdings AG:http://www.alfgroupag.com/media/documents/2011-01-25-IR_maxEM_E.pdf
- Investment in Investor Relations Activities
- Listing in a Higher Transparency Level Projected
Zurich – 25th January 2011 - ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) has appointed Munich based max Equity
Marketing GmbH to take over the company’s investor relations and media relations activities.
max. Equity Marketing will undertake a review of the company’s business interest and attempt to
reposition the company in the minds of investors by competently releasing important relevant information
and by assisting the company with relevant marketing material. The intention is to assist shareholders and
potential investors as well as financial analysts with a clear understanding of ALF’s business.
James Byrnes, CEO of ALF Group Holdings AG: “We now have solved most of the issues which limited
our growth strategy in the past. ALF has concentrated on restructuring the company, acquiring good
assets at great prices, raising cash. The business is not very well understood in the market. It is now the
right timing to set up a new equity story and to position the company as an infant in the large investment
company’s sector but seeks to establish interest in a number of areas in three different continents.
Therefore we engaged an experienced Germany based IR firm. Additionally we recently decided to
upgrade the ALF stock listing to a higher transparency level at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. To underline
this management decision we want to set a positive signal by investing in ALF's European IR activities
and by providing professional IR services to the financial market participants.”
About ALF Group Holdings AG
ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which includes one of
Australia’s largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company which also provides
funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer and developer of distressed assets.


There is a separate thread on AussieStock titled James Byrnes aka "Big Jim", Sydney - ALF Group Holdings AG, Switzerland

Link::https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21405&page=1


The ALF PIF takeover offer for the PIF expires on the 22 Feb 2011.

Seamisty
 
Listening to the BBC’s “Weekly Business” program (audio) I was amused by the second item. A University of California researcher explains the reasons why CEOs who win prestigious business awards usually under-perform afterwards, thus letting down investors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnf
 

"solved most of the issues which limited our growth strategy in the past."

"The business is not very well understood in the market."

LOL. Two crafted statements cleverly laced with innuendo and implication that: it's not the manager's fault, it's the fault of the market or the investor.

I see through it and read: we didn't get it right in the first place because our earlier business strategy failed. It failed because it was so 'innovative' that it have been lucky to succeed.

RE: "not very well understood in the market" I ask. And who's fault is that? Did you mislead the market to get your foot in the door and now need to back peddle over your promises?

And seamisty. I agree with you about the true performance of S8. The price MFS pays for a business isn't exactly the gold standard for measureing value. S8 got lucky. Was King merely Scott's Alan Bond? But then again, high finance is a different world. To them, if you win, then you got it right. They never ask you to 'justify the means'. They only care about the 'ends'. If you don't win then .... you're out.

All. The increase in the number of unit holders is probably due to the 'breakup' of the Wholesale PIF. Recall that the number of unit's held by WPIF dropped from about 80million to around 40M. I understand that WPIF unit holders can only escape Wellington Capital's management by converting their WPIF units to the PIF units that can be sold on the NSX.
 
I don't know how similar their fund structure is but the following from Stephen Mayne's 'Mayne Report' (www.maynereport.com) is interesting


"Say no to Challenger's Tweedesque credit proposal
An informed investor writes:

The listed Challenger Financial Group has an underperforming credit fund and they're offering to buy out the unit holders with 20% cash and 80% in a 3 year annuity issued by their life company at BBSW – 50 bps which seems like a pretty bad deal given the assets usually yield BBSW + ~ 200 bps. Credit is also looking like one of the better performing asset classes over the next few years so Challenger will pocket all the upside with essentially cheap funding from the unit holders. It's not only David Tweed who is making lowball offers to frozen or struggling credit funds."
 
No doubt about ex MFS/Octaviar officers consistent performance!

http://www.smh.com.au/business/four...fault-at-equititrust-fund-20110209-1an0h.html

Four out of five loans in default at Equititrust fund
Colin Kruger
February 10, 2011 SMH

FOUR out of every five loans advanced by the Equititrust Income Fund may be in default by the end of the year, Equititrust reported, but its chief executive said there were ''zero'' implications for unitholders in the $240 million investment.

David Kennedy told BusinessDay that default ''doesn't mean we have a concern about the money being repaid'' to the fund (EIF).

EIF is one of $20 billion worth of investment schemes forced to freeze redemptions in 2008 after the government guaranteed bank deposits during the financial crisis.

Equititrust has also had to pull plans to raise $50 million via the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund to refinance EIF's debt and fund distribution payments.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission took action last month after BusinessDay reported on Equititrust's potential conflict in trying to raise money from new investors to effectively bail out the EIF.

Mr Kennedy said it voluntarily withdrew the fund's product disclosure statement after meeting ASIC last week and being told it ''had concerns about the conflict''.

A spokesman for ASIC refused to comment.

Equititrust is exploring the option of raising the $50 million with an external party, or from other investors - including an unnamed investment bank. (DANGER, DANGER!!!) Most of the $50 million was earmarked for bank debt which the company has had to pay down.

It is one of several issues which led Equititrust's auditor to state in the company's 2010 financial accounts that there was uncertainty regarding the group's continuation as a going concern.

Mr Kennedy said Equititrust planned to pay back its EIF loans with NAB by June. Another loan with HBOS has been extended to June 30.

An investor update this week reported that at the end of last year, more than one-third of EIF's loans were in default - borrowers were more than 90 days in arrears with interest payments.

Equitrust said that given the current economic climate it was possible that the value of loans in default would increase to about 50 per cent of total loans by March 31, and to about 80 per cent between April 30 and December 31.

Mr Kennedy said the defaults mainly reflected the fact that Equititrust had stopped capitalising interest payments and was taking direct control of these properties in default.

When asked about the implications for EIF's 1,500 investors, Mr Kennedy replied: ''I would say zero.''

He said the collapse of Gold Coast property developer Raptis Group left Equititrust with a $50 million exposure which was repaid along with $2.5 million in interest.

Remember JH's words "I'm a big fan of Jim Raptis" - yes good bloke, pays Equity Trust before us!!!

And from the SMH CBD column today:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/putting-profits-into-perspective-20110209-1an0e.html

SLIGHT HICCUP

The Gold Coast financial concern Equititrust Capital has hit a last-minute hurdle in its plans to raise $50 million to establish a fund aimed at rescuing another of its funds, which has been frozen for two years.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has forced the finance firm to withdraw a product disclosure statement for the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund.

The hiccup comes just after Equititrust highlighted its financial robustness to budding investors. ''We consider our reputation for capital protection to be our single most important asset. We have come through the GFC.

''Your capital is intact,'' said a recent update from the managing director of Equititrust, Mark McIvor.

The money raised from the new fund was designed to repay a $26 million debt the Equititrust Income Fund has with National Australia Bank.

''The Priority Class Income Fund provides existing and new investors with a once-only, unique opportunity to take up the balance of the bank's first-ranking position in the Equititrust Income Fund,'' McIvor said in his update.

The $240 million EIF mortgage fund expects to have 80 per cent of its own loans in default by the end of this year. Equititrust drew $4.5 million in management fees last financial year.

Equititrust has also bolstered itself by using as its logo a Roman voussoir arch. ''The Roman voussoir arch was a breakthrough in structural stability,'' Equititrust notes on its website.

''Combined with pozzolan concrete, it was one of the sturdiest methods of construction the world had ever seen.''
 
I have heard that the Kooralbyn resort will be reopened this month (after the $25mill+ has been paid to the PIF http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/resort-to-be-base-for-mine-workers/story-fn6ck51p-1225951928407). Possibly renamed 'Augustas Fairways'. Another ex PIF asset which had huge potential to ' maximise' value long term to the fund.

Also of interest to some I see Print Mail Logistics was/is in technical breach of a loan covenant relevant to a finance facility as at Dec 2010.

'The Company will, in a timely manner issue a further market release to the National Stock Exchange
once the result of the lender’s review is received.'
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723678.PDF

What are the roles and responsibilities of Corporate Advisers?


Seamisty
 
HI i like to know where we are now, with the pif in plain english. how many years to wait, is there hope to salvage some of our investment.i know you been working hard at this and i thank you.
 
targav 8 said:
HI i like to know where we are now, with the pif in plain english. how many years to wait, is there hope to salvage some of our investment.i know you been working hard at this and i thank you.
Click to expand...
targav8, I dare say we are all confused!! Rest assured we are still working hard!!

Seamisty
 
Could someone with contacts perhaps make contact with IMF, and ask them for an update as to the progress of our case. Just to be kept in the loop.

Keep up the wonderful work you guys are doing.

Michael
 
atlas1950 said:
Could someone with contacts perhaps make contact with IMF, and ask them for an update as to the progress of our case. Just to be kept in the loop.

Keep up the wonderful work you guys are doing.

Michael
Click to expand...
I contacted John Walker from IMF this morning Michael and received the following prompt response::'We continue to wait for the reserved decision of the Federal Court, but have reason to believe it will be handed down in late February, early March.'

Cheers, Seamisty
 
It is now obvious that the Fortress executives did not want to face further examinations by the Liquidators.

Seamisty this is the case you saw in the Brisbane Supreme Court late last year.

No 12599 of 2010

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2010/486.html

Brief summary from the Lawyers Weekly: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo...02/08/octaviar-administration-pty-ltd-re.aspx

Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd, Re

Posted Feb 08 2011, 11:00 PM by Latest Cases

Three applicants who had been summonsed to produce documents in relation to the Octaviar collapse have failed in their bid to set aside the summonses. Fryberg J found that the summonses were not predominantly issued for a collateral purpose.

Some juicey snippets from the judgement -

...They (Fortress) point also to the evidence that it is intended to bring proceedings against Fortress in respect of money identified in a draft statement of claim, which has been prepared on behalf of the respondents (the Liquidators). The applicants submit that the evident predominant purpose of the examination is to garner evidence for those proceedings, to cross-examine in relation to them or to destroy credibility and that this is not a permitted purpose within the meaning of the legislation...

There are a number of transactions specifically referred to in the evidence, which satisfy the requirements of the definition and in any event I see no reason to suppose that it is proposed to limit cross-examination to topics which can be inferred from the list of documents attached to the summons. I would be surprised if in fact it were intended so to limit the cross-examination, for in effect that would mean that the whole of the subject matter of the cross-examination was telegraphed to the applicants. That seems an unlikely thing for the respondents (Liquidators) to have done.

Nor do I think that the fact that the respondents contemplate bringing proceedings against Fortress supplies a reason for concluding that the predominant purpose which they have in carrying out the oral examination, is an unauthorised one. There mere fact that there will be collateral proceedings does not invalid the examination and I see no reason to draw a conclusion to the contrary. One of the liquidators has sworn that the examinations are not for the predominant purpose of conducting a dress rehearsal of cross-examination of the examinees, nor for the purpose of destroying their credibility.

There has been no attack by way of cross-examination of the liquidator on that testimony. The liquidator has further deposed that a purpose for the examinations is to establish the date of insolvency of Octavia Administration. That is, of course, a perfectly proper purpose and, indeed, I would have thought, an important one.

The applicants sought comfort from the fact that on Monday this week similar summons were issued to the same people in relation to the affairs of Octavia Limited and made returnable at the same time and place as those presently under challenge.

It is, I think, to be assumed that those summons were issued by way of insurance in case the summonses before me today were to be set aside. It does not seem to me that I could infer from the existence of those summonses that there is any defect in those before me today...

In those circumstances I do not think I ought to make an order for the disclosure of the affidavit upon which the summonses were obtained. The Act clearly has the purpose of preserving the affidavit from scrutiny, presumably, particularly, scrutiny by those to be examined.

The presumed intention is that they should not be warned in advance of the subject matter of the examination...

The applicants have not established that the summonses should be set aside and, in my judgment, it follows that they should not have access to the affidavits...

I haven't seen any recent press on the continued examination of Fortress executives so we will have to await that event. It is clear though from the judgement that Bentleys have already drafted a Statement of Claim against Fortress. And if Bentleys have advanced that far how many of the other potential preferential transactors will receive a SoC - is this why JH drawing PIF in closer to WC?
 
A friend of mine aware of my PIF woes coined a new name for the fund: "the Pitiful Income Fund." I told him that it was worse than that.
 
Sorry to hear about Fortress' win in the High Court, re: Judge McMurdo's decision. I agree you're luckier to have let IMF take you to court rather than ASIC (re: Westpoint decision). The best thing the government could do is appoint special forensic auditors to look over these funds in investors' best interests and have all the funds wound up ASAP.
 
selciper said:
A friend of mine aware of my PIF woes coined a new name for the fund: "the Pitiful Income Fund." I told him that it was worse than that.
Click to expand...
More like the 'Plundered Income Fund' Selciper!!

Plunder= take illegally, steal goods, take as spoils, destroy and strip of its possession, despoiling, wrongfully emptied or stripped of anything of value, loot, rob etc, etc


I did like this article though which restored a little bit of faith in me with the Australian justice system::

Lawyer jailed for million-dollar con

A FORMER partner in one of Queensland's oldest law firms has been jailed for 10 years for misappropriating up to $8 million over five years

Full story:http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/lawyer-jailed-for-million-dollar-con/story-fn6ck45n-1226003926390

Seamisty
 

Funny thing is ASICK, anyone who comes down against us PIF investors is sullied by their involvment. They have to compromise their values. Even the High Court.

By ignoring estoppel. The High Court has demonstrated to me that it is not a court of equity.

The High Court made it's ruling on the words of the documents and ignored the actions of the parties. Fortress could have been estopped. Perhaps I can go so far as to say the High Court even seems to have ignored it's own law at paragraph 27:

"We agree with Muir JA that "terms of the charge" as used in s268(2), where the charge is created or evidenced by writing, could only be a reference to the terms contained in the written instrument AND any terms which may be implied in fact. Regardless of the means by which a registrable charge is created, it must have terms which can be identified, whether by oral agreement, implication or otherwise." Emphasis added.

So what is "implication or otherwise" or "implied in fact" supposed to mean to OUR High Court?

Fortress (and hence of course OCV) made it very clear to the market that the YVE guarantee was NOT covered by the secured loan. And then quietly changed this at the eleventh hour (22 January 2008). Even the subsequent OCV Ltd Interim Financial Report and Appendix 4D (Released 28 April 2008. Maybe not audited but still effectively an ASX market announcement IMLO. See in particular Note 8(d) on page 27 and and Note 13(l) on page 37) and Jenny Hutson (during her mid 2008 road show) were leading the market to believe the Fortress secured debt had been paid off. That advice was false.

I can find no evidence that Fortress corrected any market misconceptions.

Wikipedia has an entry on what the US Supreme Court thinks of the term 'implied in fact' in respect of an 'implied in fact contract':
"founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding." Emphasis added.
How can our High Court not see that the conduct of the parties (Fortress and OCV Ltd) represented an implied contract to the market that contradicted the High Court's interpretation in this decision.

Our two branches of powers, Parliament and Judiciary, seem to me to be mere toys for the smart money and Hired Gun Lawyers INC. But that's Australia for you. Too wealthy from the spoils of this abundant land to have to bother with refining the governing mechanisms. There's so much wealth from the land that its relatively small population don't need to bother righting wrongs to maintain lifestyle. And without the pressure to right wrongs our adversarial system of law can be more readily highjacked.

Australia is a copy of the UK system. And of course the thing about copy is: they're never as good as the original.

Add to that the lack of equity and a bill of rights. Australia really is a sub standard knock off of the Common Law systems of the better resourced and served UK and US. Maybe it's time for Australia to change to Civil Law. It seems we can't afford to run or are not taking due care with this 'Rolls Royce' of legal systems. Hence Civil Law would probably be more suitable. Either the Judiciary steps up to solve the failings of parliament's statutes - or we find ourselves a judicial system better suited to Australia. Perhaps one which doesn't provide so much incentive for the legal fraternity to corporatise.

It's too easy for the smart money to use parliament to continuously spew out imperfect law and then routinely announce review and reform in one giant exercise of front running. Pretty much well exactly what's happend in the Fortress/OCV case.

Makes a mockery of the continuous disclosure laws too.

That's my lay casual observer opinion anyway.

Fire a canon ball at a castle and you'll quickly find out how strong it's walls are. Fortress canon ball revealed to me that our legal system is not made of such sturdy material.

If you push anything hard enough it'll fall over. That's what our army of corporatised laywers is currently doing to our legal system.
 
seamisty said:
...

I did like this article though which restored a little bit of faith in me with the Australian justice system:: ...
Click to expand...

Doesn't restore my faith at all Seamisty. I see it as a bad sign. Like a canary in a mine. It represent abundant foul air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
458
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...