Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[ASICK]

Marcom. Para [46] worries me. Does this mean that Fortress can run up debts against NAB and then NAB can just swipe the $40m that McMurdo has frozen for us unsecured creditors like PIF? What's the likelihood of NAB cooperating with Fortress to enagage in such a scheme?

"... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order. ..."

The short answer seems to be 'no'.

 

[ASICK]

... But ASICK, what if NOW is the best time to sell PIF's assets. Hutson goes on about this 3-5 years horizon. Isn't that based on the HUGE assumption that we're in a normal cycle. But what if we aren't????? What if property prices won't recover for 10+ years. After all this is not a normal event. As Hutson keeps reminding us: this is the GFC. What if prices are actually being propped up by the resource boom? In which case property prices WON'T recover in Hutson's time frame. So when you add inflation, then the time to sell is now. ...

Hi Duped. I think Hutson's in as much of a quagmire as are investors. She's probably damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. I guess the real question is, in the circumstances, "When is the best time to bite the bullet and accept losses, get the money invested elsewhere and hopefully earn some interest or profit with it?" I'd reckon that now is as good a time as any - and of course, others would disagree .. who's right? only time will tell.

 

[Duped]

"... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order. ..."

The short answer seems to be 'no'.

Didn't McMurdo say "does not prevent ... right of set off"?

 

[ASICK]

Didn't McMurdo say "does not prevent ... right of set off"?

"... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order. ..." (emphasis added)

 

[seamisty]

Raptis Group plans comeback
March 15th, 2011


Company founder Jim Raptis has vowed to bring the Raptis development group back to life as soon as possible.
RAPTIS Group has come out firing in its bid for a business comeback with plans to launch a $500 million lawsuit against Capital Finance, the lender that tipped the Gold Coast developer into receivership in 2008.

The legal action - to be funded by listed venture capitalist CVC - would be part of a three-pronged attack to deliver on Raptis Group's promised payment to creditors who voted two years ago to save the company from liquidation.

Company founder Jim Raptis yesterday vowed to bring the development group back to life as soon as possible, taking heart from a significant victory it has just secured over the Australian Taxation Office.
He said the lessons of the past had been learned by ''everyone'' and he was ready to take advantage of emerging property opportunities on the Coast.

But he first must challenge Capital Finance to remove a crippling ''mortgage'' it has over the Raptis Group.

Lengthy negotiations to have the charge removed have since collapsed and Raptis Group has engaged lawyers to pursue the financier, a subsidiary of Britain's Lloyd's Banking Group.

The separate damages lawsuit, which is yet to be filed, would claim Raptis suffered between $450-$500 million in losses due to Capital Finance seizing control of Southport Central, its biggest project at the time.

''We are looking at it very seriously,'' Mr Raptis said.

Capital Finance, which has been struggling to sell apartments at Southport Central despite huge discounts, declined to comment on the matter last night.

Raptis Group's unsecured creditors have a lot riding on the Coast developer's recovery.

Two years ago they accepted an offer of up to 15c in the dollar for the $10 million they are owed.

Part of the payout included 40 million shares in Raptis Group, which remain suspended on the stock exchange.

The cash component of the payout has been held up by an ATO claim for $26.3 million against Raptis construction arm Rapcivic Contractors.

Raptis Group has managed to cut that claim to $11 million, and it said an appeal to the Federal Court is aiming to ''totally eliminate'' it.

But despite the hurdles, Mr Raptis yesterday was confident he could resuscitate the company and vowed it would be a ''different model'' to the old Raptis Group.

''We've been working very hard to get this happening,'' he said.

Mr Raptis conceded he had maintained a low profile over the past two years, but he said he had not been idle and had explored a range of opportunities for investors.

''Opportunities are always out there (and) we would look at all opportunities at the moment.''

Mr Raptis said this could include housing subdivisions, as well as small-scale, low-rise apartments and townhouses.

Raptis Group, which has traditionally focused on Gold Coast property, could even spread its wings into other markets.

''I think you've got to look elsewhere to expand the base, but initially we will be looking at the market we know best.''

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/03/15/299385_gold-coast-news.html

 

[seamisty]

A bit more on Raptis. I am not sure where PIF is in the pecking order as a creditor if at all. Perhaps our duly appointed IAC reps will ask what our current situation re Raptis at their next meeting with WC on behalf of unitholders???


Raptis in legal fight with Capital Finance Australia
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...inance-australia/story-e6frg8zx-1226021386231
WELL-KNOWN Gold Coast developer Jim Raptis is considering suing financier Capital Finance Australia for damages, in a bid to reactivate the suspended Raptis Group.

Raptis Group and its construction arm Rapcivic collapsed owing almost $1 billion and an administrator, BRI Ferrier, was appointed in September 2008.

Yesterday, Mr Raptis said he had been working with some success over the past 18 months to two years to reinstate the group.

He said he had tried to "eliminate the ATO as a creditor", having successfully appealed to reduce the amount of tax owed from $29 million to $11m.

"We have appealed against the $11m and are now awaiting a decision from the Federal Court," Mr Raptis said.

If he succeeded, he said creditors would receive more cash distributions and shares in the company under a deed of company arrangement agreed to with its creditors in April 2009.


Raptis Group had initiated legal action against Capital Finance Australia to force it to release a charge over the group.

"We want them to lift the charge to give us a clean company to return to operational status," he said.

"Our commitment to our shareholders and creditors is resolute and we are prepared to fight through the courts."

In a separate action, Mr Raptis also planned to sue Capital Finance Australia for damages, totalling between $450m and $500m, suffered by the group.

 

[selciper]

Seamisty - The IAC! Have they done one useful thing on behalf of PIF investors since their names were announced? If they have, let them tell us through this forum.

 

[seamisty]

Seamisty - The IAC! Have they done one useful thing on behalf of PIF investors since their names were announced? If they have, let them tell us through this forum.

selciper, personally from my own my experience, if the duly appointed Wellington Capital 3 stooges do actually exist and meet at PIF unit holder expense then what a total waste of money!! HELLO Chris Mangan, Alana Woodford and Bronwyn Andrejic!! Are you representing the majority of people in this fund who supposedly elected you? Or are you a trio of brown nosers nodding your heads like puppets on a string falling for the same old, same old Wellington Capital bull sh!te that all is good??? Wake up! Are you prepared to continue with this farce? Sorry, you have no credibility.

Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Finally!!! Some movement re the Class Action Judgement!!

Court Events and Orders
Date Time Reason Presiding Officer(s) Location Outcome Orders
18-Mar-2011 14:15 Judgment Justice Perram Court Room 18D

 

[selciper]

Now we know that tomorrow will be an important day for the CA.
(Seamisty's monitoring is proving to be again effective.)

 

[atlas1950]

Hi all,

I did attend the hearing from Justice Perram this afternoon. I feel so inadequate as I didn't understand his rulings. It was all over within 60 seconds and before I realized everyone had left the courtroom. I DO apologize, but I am sure we will get and understand his decision very shortly.

Good luck to us all.

Michael

 

[breaker1]

We are contacting our legals to see what Perram said

 

[breaker1]

A judgement was handed down by Perram

Our legals will advise us when they have properly examined the determination

 

[breaker1]

RE The Class Action and Perram

Basically the case proceeds

HWL Ebsworth our lawyers, via IMF our funders, would be sending out an Update to all CA participants briefly explaining Perrams latest findings

.....and you guessed it, more ammendments required

 

[seamisty]

RE The Class Action and Perram

Basically the case proceeds

HWL Ebsworth our lawyers, via IMF our funders, would be sending out an Update to all CA participants briefly explaining Perrams latest findings

.....and you guessed it, more ammendments required

Thanks Breaker, I don't think it is a well hidden secret that if our current Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital had of fully supported the Premium Income Fund unit holders who supported and elected them originally, by giving accesss to relevant documentation necessary to proceed with our claim/CA would now be held with the obvious disdain and contempt that appears to be a growing consensus. Shame on you Wellington Capital Limited, it appears you have demonstrated that your only agenda is self preservation by taking as much as possible and giving nothing in return for the privledge of having your large snout guzzling in the trough along with equally qualified associates. I am prepared to discuss this issue further along with other concerns if you ever decide to honour your earlier committment to me regarding periodic discussions relating to PIF related issues from Feb 2010 with the Companys Managing Director. That would be Jenny Hutson I presume? Well its just as well Wellington Capital monitor this thread, because with out it how would WC employees know what is the true situation with the PIF?? The WC hot line staff, if they are even on duty obviously have NFI as to the current status of the PIF as indicated by the responses received by PIF investors if and when they get a response to their enquiries. One thing PIF investors will be able to rely on is no constructive input from the IAC. Well, just 'another' rant from a disgruntled PIF investor who lives in hope of seeing some sort of alternative reconstruction of their fund that may see us rid of a fattening pork regime. Hmmnn

 

[ASICK]

Has anyone thought about a constitutional amendment compelling the manager to comply with all reasonable requests made by the CA lawyers (as worded by your lawyers)? I'm sure you wouldn't have any trouble getting the amendment passed. If it's possible, your lawyers have the documents within a month or so. (IMO)

 

[Janiss]

I am absolutely disgusted and furious with Wellington Capital's failure to provide the necessary documentation to the CA lawyers which would allow us unit holders to have a fair and transparent legal chance to get some of our money back. The RE is by law supposed to be acting in the "best interests" of the unitholders they represent. How can witholding vital information be considered to be in our best interests.????????
The Bentley hearings into the solvency or otherwise of MFS has revealed the illegal activities which have take place including the illegal related party transactions and loans which have contributed massively to the situation we are now in.
Why is Jenny Hutson trying to protect the former executives of PIF who have contributed to and been responsible for our loss????
Isn't there any legal way that the documents can be obtained? What about Freedom of Information? How do we go about changing the constitution, if that's another valid strategy?
I agree with everything Seamisty says - it appears the only reason Wellington Capital took on the task of running the PIF was for the benefit of themselves and NOT US!!
I was suspicious of JH from the very beginning and I DID NOT vote for WC to be the RE of the fund, but I can understand how other people were taken in by the crocodile tears, warnings and promises she gave at the meetings in 2008.
She needs to publically state NOW why she won't co-operate with the class action Lawyers. What has she got to lose?????? What has she got to hide??????

 

[ASICK]

Sorry to butt in again, but W.C. is obligated to act in the best interests of unitholders, not in the best interests of the persons holding the units in the fund going about other business (eg. CA). In your respective roles as members of a CA, you are not unitholders in the PIF. You shouldn't draw the two roles into one.

You can talk about it all you like, and you can go crazy with legal actions, but you have the power to compel the manager do as you require, and it's always been at your disposal - via the power of a meeting of members.

There must be ways to minimize the cost of a meeting, maybe even IMF might dig into its considerably deep pockets.

My guess is that W.C. wouldn't come out of it smelling like roses, in fact, far from it.

 

[selciper]

A famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don’t have brains enough to be honest.

 

[seamisty]

I am absolutely disgusted and furious with Wellington Capital's failure to provide the necessary documentation to the CA lawyers which would allow us unit holders to have a fair and transparent legal chance to get some of our money back. The RE is by law supposed to be acting in the "best interests" of the unitholders they represent. How can witholding vital information be considered to be in our best interests.????????
The Bentley hearings into the solvency or otherwise of MFS has revealed the illegal activities which have take place including the illegal related party transactions and loans which have contributed massively to the situation we are now in.
Why is Jenny Hutson trying to protect the former executives of PIF who have contributed to and been responsible for our loss????
Isn't there any legal way that the documents can be obtained? What about Freedom of Information? How do we go about changing the constitution, if that's another valid strategy?
I agree with everything Seamisty says - it appears the only reason Wellington Capital took on the task of running the PIF was for the benefit of themselves and NOT US!!
I was suspicious of JH from the very beginning and I DID NOT vote for WC to be the RE of the fund, but I can understand how other people were taken in by the crocodile tears, warnings and promises she gave at the meetings in 2008.
She needs to publically state NOW why she won't co-operate with the class action Lawyers. What has she got to lose?????? What has she got to hide??????

Perhaps Janiss the real reason goes ALL THE WAY BACK to when the deal to take on the PIF was negotiated? Wasn't there something mentioned about a $5million preferential payment made to WC? Remember how WC was quick to accept the DOCA and forgo any further legal action against money owed to PIF and was adamant they did not want Deloittes removed and replaced with Bentleys? Didn't Deloittes employ David Anderson and paid him just under a million$ for consultancy work re Octaviar/MFS? The same David Anderson who is allegedly a 'prime suspect' in the case of millions of dollars which were misappropiated from the PIF and covered by false documents? ( No wonder EQUITITRUST investors are feeling a little rattled, David Kennedy AND David Anderson in charge of their investment!!) ALL way too cosy Janiss!


How Jenny Hutson placed the blame squarely on Andrew Peacock and I quote Jenny Hutson re the collapse of Octaviar 'The board, led by Andrew Peacock, has to take responsibility for that. The market was shocked. We've got a board that's appointed an administrator as its corporate adviser that's selling assets at significantly less than what they cost.'

Not forgetting this qoute from Jenny Hutson during the same interview 'With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost.'

Well thats what the majority of PIF investors did when the elected Jenny Hutson, put their faith and trust in WC. How many would have voted for JH if they knew just how empty all the committments were AND that when it came time to 'holding those accountable' for the dire financial predicament PIF unit holders find themselves in, (not from any global financial crisis as WC would like us to believe) we find that Jenny Hutson as Responsible Entity chose not to support the very people who supported herself, but elected, or used as an excuse that Wellington Capital and I quote 'has a duty TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL UNITHOLDERS, and is aware that not all unitholders are represented in the class of persons represented in the class action' end quote!!


The point is that ALL PIF unitholders who elected WC as RE were not new buyers of units on the NSX for a paltry amount, knowing full well that they were buying in to a severely compromised fund, NO JENNY, ALL who voted for you paid $1.00 for our units but you chose to put those who had nothing to do with you being our RE before the investors who suffered through being ripped off!!


Another Jenny Hutson quote of which she could well have a long hard think about 'Unfortunately, Andrew Peacock is not willing, ready and able to step aside as chair of MFS and that's the point of difference. We think that it is in the best interests of shareholders for him to step aside and let those who want to drive the company forward take control.'

Well, sorry about the rant, but I would expect that if there is a skerrick of support left for Jenny Hutson and her team at Wellington Capital they would have to be having second thoughts, especially if they are signed up for the Class Action.


Seamisty