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
lawry1dog.
Forums are here precisely for that: talk. Actions have had there own channels for a long time. If talk opens those other channels up, then it's good.
" KMPG will then Appeal the decision" And if we show a lack of determination to go the whole way - they certainly will.
"You have criticised WC for 3 years and of course nothing has happened" Perhaps because not enough people are here on ASF criticising, let alone reading?
"laughing in our faces" And do you want KPMG to do so as well?
Unlike the NSX and WC's control, you're not being forced to participate in the CA. You have no control over the risk WC exposes you to. Did you know that for a unit trust like PIF we are all personally responsible for the legal actions Hutson's WC takes on our behalf? And Hutson still won't grace us with and EGM. PIF is NOT a limited liability company. So if you want to eliminate all your personal liability then you'll need to get out of the CA AND PIF.
 
Thanks seamisty. It's good to see the Pop Press doing some navel gazing about the financial industry that pays for the advertising. But it ain't going deep enough. I disagree with Collett.

"The apologists for the big end of town tend to apportion most of the blame to the victims - saying it's the investors' fault ... That's nonsense." Wrong. The big end of town is correct. In a free market economy , it is the investors' fault. And in the absence of offence of a law or tort, the court is compelled to apply the free market 'caveat emptor' (buyer beware) and rule against investors. But in a free market economy, investor's have 'caveat emptor'. And ASIC took that away from us with its ham fisted meddling.

"if they get caught out and should not expect regulators to come to the rescue. That's nonsense." Correct. This is ASIC's mess and ASIC should clean it up. By legal action. Likely to fail. Hence preferrably by compensation out of a fund paid for by ALL investors. Let the market competitors flush out the shonky operators.

ASIC's problem is that it writes cheques that it can't cash. FTD Failed to deliver. Time for ASIC to abandon their AFSL Australia Policy and say SORRY. Stop letting shonky operators operate under the Commonwealth Brand. Let the market decide. Poor regulation is worse than no regulation at all.
 
Update from Bentleys re the Octaviar Public Examinations:

There are still two people left to be examined towards the end of April.
One from Freehills and one from KPMG. Once the examinations are completed all the information recovered will then be regrouped to determine the most appropriate course of action and then commence litigation if necessary.

Seamisty
 
Thanks Marcom. Based on that line of argument of mine, it seems in this case that the legal fraternity has not served the court well. Some more rigor by the High Court to avoid this lamentable outcome could be argued to be warranted. This falls into the same chorus as Abbott's call for judges to perhaps be elected by the people (or their representatives), rather than being promoted from the ranks of the legal fraternity. I.e. judges need to distance themselves from an increasingly corporatised fraternity.

My reading is that Fryberg only relieved Fortress because of the 5 day thing. And the new summonses probably is simply a replacement without that error in it. And Fortress' latest application is against the replacement summonses. That's my guess anyway.
 

I have been accused of doom and gloom, well you seem the most gloom and doom
participant on this forum. I assume you are now out of the CA and PIF.
And if so, why are you on this forum?

I just want some true answers to my questions about funding of the CA, and whether
there is a glimmer of hope left.
When I know there is no avenue left, to get my money back, then I will sell on the NSX.
 
LIKE A TROJAN
Scott Rochfort
March 4, 2011
The listed investment fund Trojan Equity has finally managed to offload the bulk of its 20 per cent stake in the former MFS satellite GEO Property, completing one of the more unTrojan-like sales processes in recent history.

It is around two years since Trojan proposed a capital return to its shareholders from the planned sale of all its investments to solve its ''discount to NTA problem''.

Trojan's managing director, Troy Harry, said he had managed to sell half his fund's stake yesterday and still had a few interested buyers sniffing after the close of trade.

''My sole focus is making sure we get the right result for Trojan shareholders, of which I'm the largest,'' he said, after announcing plans to hold a ''Dutch auction'' of the stake last month.

Harry said the shares had been sold for a ''modest profit''. The main buyer of Trojan's stake was believed to be the Alex Beard-headed listed investment company CVC.

Trojan was rumoured to have had Mirvac conducting some due diligence on its stake until the Greek debt crisis came along last year. AV Jennings was also believed to have shown an interest, to no avail.

Harry, who remains a director of the property company, said: ''I personally remain very confident in the future of GEO.'' He backed this up by buying 3 million of the company's shares yesterday for $585,000.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/he-wasnt-so-hard-to-find-after-all-20110303-1bgi8.html
 
Please, can someone tell me the following information:-
1. The IMF will cease sponsoring the Class Action in April or May this year.
2. After that, the solicitors will then want to bill someone else (us).
3. Will it be possible that there will be an Appeal or some other reason, to prolong the Class Action after May.

4. Are all legal cases actioned by Wellington Capital, costs billed to our Fund.

Can someone verify that we will not be paying for the Class Action in the future?

Will the current ASIC case about MFS/Octaviar liquidation, benefit us by having money being paid back into the Fund?

I have been in contact with the Class Action solicitors and will let everybody know of
what they say.

Hoping Seamisty, Breaker or Duped can enlighten me on my questions, as they seem to be very productive on this forum.
 
lawry1dog said:
... I assume you are now out of the CA and PIF....
Click to expand...

I'm not because I'm prepared to take the risk. I publish my oinions in the hope that an informed market will force the managers of our risk exposure to lift their game. If we let the big law 'corporations' continue their practices without squeaking then we only have ourselves to blame. Complacency breeds contempt. If you see that as doom and gloom then I'm sorry.

Where did you get April/May from? The Nov 2009 IMF Annual Report gives an estimate for PIF v MFS & KPMG of June 2012. IMF's case list of 31/12/2011 list $300M of cases >$50M to complete in 2013. See http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do

We're not supposed to publish the contents of the FSGPDS and Agreement. Look at Clause 11, Clause 18 (a) and the definition of 'Proceedings' on page 4. I understand that KPMG makes no payment if it appeals. So why wouldn't IMF fund an appeal? I expect IMF will have factored in an appeal to their risk analysis. I doubt they would have expected KPMG to roll over on such a big payout.

As for your personal liability for costs, see e.g. clause 4.4 of the FSGPDS for the agreement we entered into. It's always been there. IMF have been upfront about it. We all agreed to it. Just like we all chose to be in PIF that has exposed us to similar personal liability risks. Risks that WC exposes us to but keeps quite about. At least we have people like seamisty here finding out what's really going on so we can make our own assessments of those risks. Whereas all Hutson has done is asked us to trust her. Remember the thrust of the 2008 roadshow? Hutson putting her personal credentials forward to get us to trust her? The outcome of that trust is a FTD (failed to deliver) on e.g. share buy back, a mere 1c capital return and a tanked unit price on the NSX. Meanwhile Hutson appears to be distracted with G8.

Thanks for raising the issue lawry1dog. It's prompted me to reassess my risk exposure.
 
The opinions expressed below are my interpretation of the questions that have been raised and are not intended as professional advice to anyone reading this post.
L1d
I just want some true answers to my questions about funding of the CA, and whether
there is a glimmer of hope left.
BH
I believe IMF have taken on our Class Action [CA]in the belief that they have a very good chance of success in recovering substancial monies on behalf of those that signed up to the CA. Such actions are very costly and before taking on our CA, IMF would have done serious research into what they expect to recover and whether or not their costs make it worth their while. Litigation funders work on a "no cure, no pay" basis - that is they fund the action and if they succeed they receive a pre-agreed percentage of the funds recovered. If they do not succeed then they carry that loss and not CA members. Proponents of such litigation fight tooth & nail on behalf of their respective interests hence the time it takes to run its course thru the system. IMO there is a glimmer of hope

L1d
When I know there is no avenue left, to get my money back, then I will sell on the NSX.
BH
If I am not wrong investors that signed up to the CA are free to sell, if they so wish on the NSX at any time. IMO this does not preclude their receiving their share {on the basis of units held at time of signing up to the CA} of the proceeds of any funds secured by the CA. Should an Investor sell, then I would expect that party would be out of any benefit/losses that might subsequently accrue to holding Investors. Those of us that are hanging in there would be doing so on the expectation that their return from the PIF in time will top that currently showing on the NSX. Perhaps there will be icing on the CA cake.
 
Duoed write, "Remember the thrust of the 2008 roadshow? Hutson putting her personal credentials forward to get us to trust her? The outcome of that trust is a FTD (failed to deliver) on e.g. share buy back, a mere 1c capital return and a tanked unit price on the NSX. Meanwhile Hutson appears to be distracted with G8."

I recommend that at least 30 minutes of the 08 road show DVD be viewed again by forum followers. See what you think of the words spoken from today's viewpoint.
 
The Bentley's site lists the dates for the remaining two examinations as:

# Philip Hoser - 21-22 March 2011 - Sydney (ex Freehills lawyers advisors to Octaviar now with international law firm Jones Day)
# Liz Ailwood - 23-25 March 2011 - Sydney (Senior Manager at KPMG. Brisbane Area)

Hopefully after that Bentley's will complete their report to J McMurdo (probably with a special sealed "adults-only" section for the boys and girls at ASIC to drool over) and then file numerous statements of claim aimed at financially shreding all those mongrels who stole or mismanaged our money (and OCV shareholders money). JH should be getting one for $8mil in preferential payments, and I pray another one that requires her to turn whats left of PIF over to Bentleys to liquidate the fund over a period that maximises whats left.
 
Thanks for that Marcom, I just checked my notes and I was writing so fast when speaking to Bentleys I wrote end of month next! Yes, it will be interesting times ahead. Seamisty
 
ASIC extends class order clause

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo...11/03/03/asic-extends-class-order-clause.aspx

Posted Mar 03 2011, 05:56 PM by Lawyers Weekly

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that it intends to extend the interim class order granted to lawyers and litigation funders involved in legal proceedings.

The extension has been granted until 30 June 2011, which means litigation funders can continue to operate without compliance to the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC says this will allow additional time for the Federal Government to implement the reforms to litigation funding schemes, and to avoid any disruption that could adversely affect plaintiffs or interfere with the timely and efficient running of litigation.

"My expectation, in discussions with Treasury officials, is that we will see the Federal Government pass these regulations before 30 June," said John Walker, the executive director of litigation funders IMF Australia.

Walker added his company already complies with the relevant areas of the Act.

ASIC's recent decision to extend the interim class order relief period is a direct result of the repercussions following a full-bench Federal Court decision in October 2009 in the case of Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd. The Full Federal Court found that private entities involved in litigation were participating in an unregistered managed investment scheme and were therefore in breach of the Corporations Act.

This ruling meant that litigation funders would be required to hold Australian Financial Services Licenses, threatening the conduct of current and future class actions.

Shortly afterwards, ASIC put in place transitional arrangements that guaranteed the litigation funding arrangements of class actions threatened by this Federal Court ruling. Chris Bowen, then the Minister for Corporate Law, bailed the litigation funders out by announcing that he would reverse the decision of the full bench of the Federal Court, carving out class actions and proof of debt arrangements from the definition of a managed investment scheme in the Corporations Act.
 
This interesting footnote to an article today in SMH Business Day:

"...Footnote two: On the subject of Trio Capital, the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, is still considering the Trio trustee's application for compensation for super investors dudded in Trio.

The compensation is available, at Shorten's discretion, under fraud provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, with a potential payout of 90 ¢ in the dollar.

Of course, Trio has turned out to be an impressively large fraud, with $120 million missing from a fund called Astarra Strategic and another $59 million or so missing from a fund called ARP Growth.

The application for super investors in Astarra Strategic was made to Shorten months ago.

When I inquired of his office in October an answer was expected in the delightfully imprecise "coming weeks".

On Friday the expectation of an answer, after Shorten's office had flicked it to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, was within four to six weeks.

How long does it take the government to call a spade a spade? Or, in this case, a fraud a fraud?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ombu...-list-a-bold-step-forward-20110306-1bjjx.html
 
seamisty said:
The PIF Half Yearly Report for period ended 31 December 2010 has finally been posted on the NSX. I have not read it as yet. Cheers, Seamisty

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723750.PDF
Click to expand...

Had a look at the Report and nothing has changed, if anything the figures are worse than
last quarter. She reckons it is the fault of borrowers obtaining refinance facilities and the inability to realise adequate asset values.

I think it is the inability of WC to manage our fund, by their lack of transparency. If it so bad why did WC pay us 1c distribution. Of course the figures would look a lot better without paying it.
Does she think we are stupid.
Please can she now resign forthwith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
455
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...