Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[selciper]

This sentence written by Asick caught my my eye: "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."

 

[Janiss]

This sentence written by Asick caught my my eye: "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."

Yes, me too. Can you please be more precise ASICK - exactly how many members need to meet and vote on the proposal?

 

[Cookie1]

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

Thanks, Seamisty for reminding us all of Jenny Hutson's quotes; she apparently just wanted to be seen to be saying the right things to further dupe us poor unsuspecting unitholders. How gullible we were!

Cookie1

 

[Wysiwyg]

Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.

 

[seamisty]

Thanks, Seamisty for reminding us all of Jenny Hutson's quotes; she apparently just wanted to be seen to be saying the right things to further dupe us poor unsuspecting unitholders. How gullible we were!

Cookie1

Yes we were gullible Cookie because at that point in time we were also desperate!! And in hindsight I now believe we were targeted by someone who 'cashed' in on that desperation. Someone who was smack bang in the centre of that 'battlefield' with first hand prior knowledge of the circumstances that resulted in our desperation. Someone that had access to all the PIF documentation and mingled with not only previous MFS/Octaviar employees, but also closely connected to Korda Mentha staff!!

Another Jenny hutson quote referring to the MFS fiasco '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'



Excuse me, but if I am not mistaken, and I not infallible, but did Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital not also appoint Korda Mentha to step into at least one of our supposedly distressed assets which is currently being contested in the supreme court?

While I am on the subject of Korda Mentha I draw your attention once again to Robert Hutson, partner of the Gold Coast Korda mentha office, http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has a brother, Robert hutson, approx age 36/37, draw your own conclusions!!
seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.

Not sure what you are saying Wysiwyg but every single investor who paid $1.00 per unit into the MFS Premium Income fund did so in the belief that it was a very secure investment and do not consider it 'FUN' to lose their hard earned. As for those investing in the PIF on the NSX at heavily discounted PIF unit value they knew the risk whereas the original purchasers did not expect to be blatantly robbed!!

I love quoting!::'The objective of the Fund is to provide investors with the opportunity to invest short to medium term in a range of income producing investments selected for their ability to provide both protection of capital and consistent returns.'

I would still like to know what happenned to the $50 million support facility which replaced the original PIF capital protection.


And another:http://investordaily.com.au/archive/3324.xml
Research house Lonsec has maintained its investment grade rating for the MFS Premium Income Fund (MFSIM) following a recent review.

MFSIM fund manager Marilyn Watts said the fund was unaffected by this year's financial market volatility and credit crunch.

The $796 million fund had been structured for income dependability for investors who wanted monthly distributions, Lonsec said.

MFSIM invests in commercial loans, property-backed managed investment schemes, assets, cash and fixed interest securities.

Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.

A necessary correction, Wysiwig; those buying into PIF consider themselves riding the "Money for Jam" yeepee train. They can be content with 5 to 8 cent upward swings (from 6.5 presently) to make their day.
Jim Byrnes; the conductor of that soiled sandshoe brigade.

Our lamentable regulators somehow failed to provide proportionate voting rights for those discounted units.
Resulting in $ 0.06.5 unit swiped from NSX, standing on par with $ 1.00 true grit original.
Please, we could do with super powers implied in your forum Avatar.
Regards

 

[atlas1950]

Hi all,

Am I correct in my reading that the judgment handed down by Justice Perram allows us to 1) continue with our action against the auditors via our Class Action, but 2) doesn't allow us to pursue the former directors of MFS for mismanagement.

If this is the case, atleast we can pursue the auditors who HAVE money and insurance, whereas the former directors are mostly broke.

Please correct me if I have missed something.

Michael

 

[simgrund]

Hi all,

Am I correct in my reading that the judgment handed down by Justice Perram allows us to 1) continue with our action against the auditors via our Class Action, but 2) doesn't allow us to pursue the former directors of MFS for mismanagement.

If this is the case, atleast we can pursue the auditors who HAVE money and insurance, whereas the former directors are mostly broke.

Please correct me if I have missed something.

Michael

Hello Michael,
Breaker's post #6793 gives answers to your Q's.
I posted the Judgement for discussion on the forum, however it appears the Moderator removed it. "Priveleged" clauses clipped those wings.
Be well,

 

[atlas1950]

Hi Simon,

Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages, there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.

As usual it was lovely to chat with you again,

Michael

 

[NOR]

Hi Simon,

Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages, there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.

As usual it was lovely to chat with you again,

Michael

H I IST TIMER SORRY... YES I WISH THERE IS A LOT MORE OF US IST TIMERS...COME ON U HAVE BEEN RIPED OFF HAVE YOUR SAY........MICHAEL..GOOD QUOTE W,C GET..OFF OUR MONEY

 

[Cookie1]

Sydney Morning Herald
Scott Rochfort
March 21, 2011

BACK IN COURT

The epic public examinations of MFS (aka Octaviar) will continue today, nearly one year since Bentleys Corporate Recovery kicked off its inquiry into the collapse of the Gold Coast financial house in the NSW Supreme Court.

The former legal adviser to MFS, Philip Hoser, will be examined today. The examinations started on April 12 last year.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/dday-for-dynasty-shareholders-20110320-1c25y.html

 

[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. ..." (emphasis added)

Thanks ASICK. But the ruling implied to me that a NAB facility was likely in place before the order. I take it you're telling me that this is incorrect. I couldn't find anything in the ruling that says there wasn't a facility in place that predates the order. In fact para [23] says "The respondent has only one substantial creditor, which is National Australia Bank (“NAB”)". What are the terms of Fortress facility agreement with NAB???? What if NAB had a facility in place which they can now draw to an amount of $40M. Y'now just like PIF had with RBS that MFS/OCV Ltd tapped. Y'now like the facility the OCV Ltd had with Fortress that became a lever for flicking funds Fortress' way.

To me, the 'right to set off' appears to be an exemption to the order not to encumber the $40M.

The see order 6. "No bank need inquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by the defendant if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this order."

How's NAB to know what the net financial position of Fortress is?

 

[Duped]

Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. ...

Too true Wysiwyg. Capital is safer in the place with immediate liquidity: the market. Where effectively investors delegate responsibility for the fund or company's constitution to management and can also vote on it everyday by buying and selling the shares.

 

[Dexter]

Is this good news or just wishful thinking?

[The federal government may release details of a national compensation scheme for failed investments as early as this week in a bid to protect people from losses suffered in the collapse of companies such as Westpoint and Storm Financial Group.

It found that in cases in which criminal, fraudulent or dishonest conduct had occurred, insurance was usually not paid out at all. These were often the cases in which investors were most deserving of compensation.

The Financial Ombudsman is pushing the case for the national compensation scheme.]

"SCHEME AIMS TO COVER ADVISER COLLAPSES"
(Full article Page 3 in todays Australian Financial Review)

Dexter

 

[seamisty]

Remember this article?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...-1111116351614

Octaviar sells its stake in MFS offshoot
Ben Butler From: Herald Sun May 16, 2008 12:00AM
A FUND formerly controlled by debt-laden financier MFS - now known as Octaviar - has sold its stake in an MFS offshoot for a bargain price.

Business associates of new Octaviar executive director Chris Scott feature on both sides of the deal.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.

At 25.5 a share, this represents a significant discount to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents.

Octaviar sold management rights to the troubled fund to Wellington Capital, a company headed by Jenny Hutson, last month.

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp.

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS.

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done "a pretty good deal" but denied getting mates' rates.


I draw your attention to ANDREW KEMP (ex KPMG)

Kemp was also director of S8, well now Mr Andrew Kemp has joined the G8 Education board!!! Cosy huh?

Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Not sure what this means?http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB
17/03/2011 Notice of Discontinuance (Whole Proceeding) Applicant Against 2nd & 3rd Res Applicant
17/03/2011 Notice of Discontinuance (Whole Proceeding) Applicant Against 2nd & 3rd Res Applicant

 

[simgrund]

Hi Simon,

Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages, there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.

As usual it was lovely to chat with you again,

Michael

Hi again Michael,
I think we all agree that there is an IMF action against Compliance Plan Auditors and Directors and separate to that is an ASIC action against Directors.
It has been settled by this latest judgement that CA can go ahead against Compliance Plan Auditors, giving IMF and HWL Ebsworth green light to proceed.
So it is a progress.
Now for the end of examinations. This, I understand, will provide a judgement whether Octaviar was solvent/insolvent at the time of their main criminal acts.
This too is vital to the CA action.
Please correct me if this simplification is out of focus.
Hope it helps
Regards,

 

[selciper]

In my opinion, the PIF board must derive immense comfort from the apparent fact that no EGM is pending. After all, this allows them to remain in the seclusion of their remote sanctuary and not face a sea of PIF investor faces.

 

[ASICK]

... To me, the 'right to set off' appears to be an exemption to the order not to encumber the $40M.

We're probably speaking to the same thing. As I see it, a right of set-off has to exist BEFORE the order. If there is such a right, then the order is not effective against it (to the extent of the amount of set-off).