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."
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
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!!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
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!!Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.
Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.
Hello Michael,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
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
"... 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)
Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. ...
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
... To me, the 'right to set off' appears to be an exemption to the order not to encumber the $40M.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?