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

Hi Flyinghigh

Financial advisors should be working in your best interests. But you have a right to say which way you would like your vote to go.
Perhaps its an idea that anyone who have financial advisors should tell them which way they would like them to vote. thats the democratic way. If they don't vote which way you would like whats their purpose other than getting better commissions and under the table bribes from Wellington.
 

I am concerned about the rights issue also. I hope the AG can stop it. This whole thing goes totally against every original investors interests.
Those who relied on the countless lies told by JH and who can afford it the least will be the ones who suffer the most....JH and wellington know this and don't give a tinkers cuss.

Wellington tells unitholders they intend to develop tracts of land that they have had on the books for the last three years. Not once has JH ever mentioned a capital raising and suddenly they dredge this up as we prepare to go to an egm to throw out their stealing hides.
In my view its never about the capital raising or giving back to investors - its purely about securing voting rights. If ASIC had any single shred of credibility and decency they would stop it. ..They don't and they haven't.

On another point, when has anything that wellington has ever done or promised ever eventuated. We may have developers organised but I'm sure JH has her own private upside negotiated with them and the untold costs will always blow out against the PIF with wellington in charge.

Those units you purchase will only ever be worthwhile if a new RE is appointed.
I'm no expert ....thats my personal viewpoint.
 

it's beyond me how JH can decide to sell off shares without unit holders voting on it in the first place but with that being said i don't understand how JH has got away with all that she has to date either.
 
Personal attacks now? Acts of cowards running scared. As if it's not low enough stealing money from hard working honest folks who invested in the fund, she/they now show their true colours by stooping low, low, lower. Not just crooks, CREEPS!!!

Shop lifters & car theives do time in jail for their petty criminal behaviour. What will become of these lowly perpetrators?? Forget government regulators & protectors, if they won't do their job. Can we just be served a helping of good old fashioned justice and see these crooks put where they belong?

I feel sick at these disgusting personal attacks, but I know it will strengthen everybody's resolve to eventually get them behind bars. They have underestimated the very people they have attacked here, in my opinion. Bad call scumbags!!! This will be more impetus and driving force to keep going, for as long as it takes, to make them answerable for their crimes. Plus it's more evidence, hopefully, for when that day comes. And knowing that will happen, and all the undefendable things she/they have done will come to light, makes me feel better.
 
I would just like to thank all of you who have called, emailed, or contacted me on the forum to offer your support, thanking me for the efforts of the PIF AG and submitting your expressions of absolute disgust and disbelief relating to the recent mailout which all PIF unitholders received. I hope I have answered you all and am totally astounded as to the response I have received! If I do not see you all at the EGM in Sydney on the 16th of June, make sure that if you are ever in the West, you look me up! You all rock!! Seamisty
 
I wonder if the cowardly characters who penned and posted the anonymous flyer thought at all about the success of modern-day tracing methods. As a reader of crime fiction, I'd suggest that they should wait for a knock on the door.
 
This is an excerpt from Takeovers Panel declaration from yesterday regarding ALFies "offer extension" beyond 28 Feb this year:

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF

24. It appears to the Panel that the circumstances are unacceptable:
(a) having regard to the effect that the Panel is satisfied the circumstances have had,
are having, will have or are likely to have on:
(i) the control, or potential control, of PIF
(ii) the acquisition, or proposed acquisition, by a person of a substantial interest
in PIF and
(b) having regard to the purposes of Chapter 6 set out in section 602 of the Act and
(c) because they gave or give rise to, or will or are likely to give rise to, a
contravention of a provision of Chapter 6 of the Act.
25. The Panel considers that it is not against the public interest to make a declaration of
unacceptable circumstances. It has had regard to the matters in section 657A(3).
DECLARATION
The Panel declares that the circumstances constitute unacceptable circumstances in relation
to the affairs of PIF.
Allan Bulman
Director
with authority of Peter Scott
President of the sitting Panel
Dated 3 June 2011

My personal Thank You to the Panel for work well done!
A'SICk, take note

Regards,
 
Hello PIF Reaction Group,
Thank you for your mail read today.
I should say it provided incomplete reading, as the printed words seem to have been cut off by borders.
This rendered your messages to appear somewhat circumcised in their meanings.
Would you please reissue me with a full text so I can be fully informed.
You seem like a genuinely concerned Party to this process.
I wish to contact you to share these like-minded concerns with your Group.
Please provide contact details via Private Message box and I will respond with diligence.
Regards,
 
reasonable said:
Has anyone gone for the rights issue?
Click to expand...

I Received my rights issue document yesterday(2nd June) in the mail in Canada. It generally takes about a week to 10 days to receive normal mail.

I was surprised to see it, as I thought all non-residents were inelligible. If I was to accept it probably wouldn't make it back by the cut off date.
 
A big turn around since June 2009 Marcom when I received this from Wellington Capital::

'Thank you for your email of 18 June 2009 in relation to the Federal Court Proceedings
As responsible entity of the Fund, Wellington will respond to all queries in relation to a unitholder's investment in the Fund.
Wellington will not however correspond with unitholders in relation to their individual queries in relation to a curent legal proceeding which names Wellington as a respondent. All correspondence in relation to any legal proceeding where there is legal representation will be conducted between the parties' legal representatives only.

As disclosed in the Fund's investor update released 29 May 2009, an update will be provided to Unitholders as to the impact of the class action on the Fund as soon as the Fund is in a position to do so.
Wellington is aware of its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Constitution of the Fund to act in the best interests of unitholders and will continue to do so.
If you have any fuither questions, I encourage you to contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885.
Kind regards
Jenny Hutson
Managing Director
Wellington Capital Limited
as Responsible Entity for Premium Income Fund

On the 4th March 2010 I received this from Wellington Capital:
'Wellington Capital ltd as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has a duty to act in the best iterests of all unitholders, and is aware that not all unitholders are represented in the class of persons represented in the class action.

Management Investments Ltd is no longer the responsible entity of the PIF, and is a named Respondent in the class action litigation.

Wellington Capital Ltd is not a party to the class action. Management Investments Ltd is defending itself in the class action. There is no conflict of interest.

The directors of Wellington Investment Management were Jenny Hutson, Robert Pitt and Craig Wallace

The directors of Wellington Capital Ltd are Jenny Hutson, Robert Pitt and Mary-Anne Greaves.

No conflict of interest and two years later after previously refusing to help PIF unitholders in any way relating to the Class Action, Wellington Capital has NOW put up thier hand and say YES YES YES we want to help you to distribute any monies recovered, not necessarily to just you the original applicants who paid $1.00 for their units and suffered the loss!! Seamisty
 
I have put this together to further demonstrate what I consider poor management decisions on our behalf by Wellington Capital Ltd. Due to the actions of the current Responsible Entity the handling of the Wollongong Hotel Property cost PIF unitholders millions of dollars in lost income by not completing the project themselves.


20/01/2009 I told Justine Buckley that I could have organised finance for far less than the 25% interest rate that was negotiated by WC to repay the last of the RBOS loan.

3/02/2009 I called WC hotline staff and mentioned the PIF loan and the excessive 25% interest rate and was told that it was the going rate for commercial loans. I again mentioned that I could organise finance for far less.

16/03/2009 Sent to C Snow associate director WC
'I was astonished to see that the interest on the loan has jumped to 25% from 20% sometime since Nov 2008 quoted in the annual report of which investors were unaware of. 20% was exceptionally high and I mentioned to Justine via the hotline on more than one occasion I could provide money for less than that if it was secured. I also made mention of it to some of the AG at the same time who indicated they would also have been prepared to provide an interim loan if it was secured. This is another financial burden to the PIF which could have been avoided. Why weren't existing investors given the opportunity to provide extra short term capital?'


The cost to complete the Wollongong project was approximately $16 million. Why did Wellington not approach existing PIF unit holders to gauge interest of a possible loan or rights issue early in 2009 having been contacted previously in relation to an offer of funding.

Instead Wollongong hotel was taken to auction on the 7th May 2009 and passed in on the day for $40.5 million by Wellington Capital.

The estimated completed Project Value by the original developer for Wollongong was $125 million.

In correspondence I received from Wellington Capital Ltd on the 26th November 2009 stating ;;
The sale price under the contract is $38 million (plus GST).
The market release of 18 November 2009 states that the property has been sold at carrying value.

So 6 months after Wellington Capital Ltd knocked back $40.5 million at auction they accept two million less of which to this day PIF has only received $15million.
The Wollongong Hotel owed the PIF $57,993,841

Anyone consider this a professional business strategy by WC or gross incompetence? Its not too late to change your vote!! Seamisty
 
At a time as important as the present, I am disgusted at the lack of response being given to us, the investors of the PIF, by Wellington Capital.

I have constantly left my phone contact on recorded announcements both at Wellington Capital as well as Armstrong Registry, which happens to be a very similar recording with minimal to no response.

In view of what is happening, why should I not vote Wellington Capital out and give some other manager the chance of fixing what WC obviously are not doing! I believe that the investors of the PIF has given WC so many opportunities to resolve this mess, but we have been let down in so many ways by the lack of leadership and management.

I was given a lot of promises back in 2008 to give Jenny Hudson the chance to get the PIF back on track when the NAB was at $0.45 per unit and with a promise of a 3 cent per unit return by 24 December that same year and a 5 year turn around into hopefully restoring my units to their original $1.00 level and to legally pursue MFS, Octaviar and others responsible in pilfering what was to be a good investment.

Three years down the track I find myself;
Unable to contact Wellington Capital,
My unit price decreased to 33.5 cents as at 31/12/2010, and falling, prior to the release of a further 75,500,000 units at a fire sale of $0.10 cents a unit to an 'Un-named professional investor'
A registry change to Armstrong Registry, which I am told is owned by directors of Wellington Capital and charging us a rate of 500% over and above what we should be getting charged by a registrar. (Is this how you account for not paying yourselves any fees before you lodge a 3 cent payment to all unit holders?)
I am being forced to purchase 80,000 units at $0.09 ea or my holding will be decreased by a further $24,000 after already suffering huge losses..
Since Wellington Capital, in Jenny Hudson, took over the PIF, I have received $4,800.00 of my own capital and am now being forced to borrow $7,200.00 in order to sustain my present holding in the fund.
You deliberately already watered down my holding by creating 75,500,000 additional units at $0.10 per unit without going to the unitholders first and explaining in full, this being done just days after you paid us $7,500,000.00 of our own money in order to raise the same amount!!! Why were we not informed of this before making such a payment to us?
The disgust and shame that you should be feeling at the present moment should enable you to hold your head in shame, especially when you knowingly have stripped our life savings to the state that we now find ourselves in.

As always I will not get a response to my email, just like the lack of response to my phone messages but I will endeavor to send this email to reach as many PIF unit holders as I possibly can.
 
I have a concern about the upcoming EGM vote that I hope someone could possibly give feedback?

We witnessed first hand the election of our investor "representatives" and how wellington Capital Flatly refused to disclose and inform investors on our voting results. I now have major doubts about Armstrong Registries impartiality Given the beneficial link between Wellington Capital and Armstrong registry.

What is to prevent Armstrong from destroying our votes, substituting votes or hiding votes which go against Wellington and are marked with the FOR votes ?

What process or procedures are in place to ensure that Armstrong will do the right thing given there is so much at stake for them and Wellington?

Is ASIC overviewing the process?

I strongly urge all unit holders to please post your votes/your choice/ your proxy to computershare by the 10th of June.
 
Welcome on board Unfortunate Inv, you are not on your own with unanswered emails to WC! I've got heaps but I also have quite a few that were answered. One in particular I receiced from WC on the 2/2/2009 offered me 'periodic discussions' with the managing director after each investor update. Of coure I accepted but never once was the committment from Wellington Capital honoured even though I reminded them after each update.
Well if I couldn't even get a phone call in response to offering WC a potential source of finance for a minimum of $10million dollars at a far lesser interest rate than Wellington Capital, 'a boutique merchant bank and fund manager experienced in providing dynamic advice and services' could negotiate (25%) what chance did I have of WC calling me to honour their offer of 'periodic discussions'? Wellington Capital knew I was a substantial PIF investor, wouldn't you think they would follow up any offer of finance when they were using the excuse of how difficult it was to get funding? Even though I had my doubts about WC less than 3 months after I voted for them, I knew that when they ignored an offer of funding to complete projects from PIF investors that we were well and truly stuffed!! I can substantiate my claims of contact to WC re finance on at least 4 occassions apart from discussing it with other PIF investors at that time. WC finally announce a capital raising just in time to garner a nice chunk of voting power, after ignoring other offers of funding previously with no votes attatched, how convenient!
Seamisty
 
i can not find any thing stating that investors in port douglas reef resort recieved any amount like stated?
i found this
News and events
Ferrier Hodgson confirm that a first and final dividend of .00055659c per share was made to the members on 5 September 2006 02/10/2007
the liquidator is currently in the process of finalising the dividend to creditors - the balance of funds will be distributed to shareholders in accordance with a Return of Capital - it is anticipated this will occur in September 05/09/2006
delisted following failure to pay its annual listing fee in respect of the year ended 30 June 2007 29/08/2006
shareholders resolve that the company be wound up voluntarily and that Brian Raymond Silvia Chartered Accountant be appointed liquidator 21/04/2006
company lodges its half year accounts and half yearly report 14/03/2006
the company advises that capital returns of 1.5 cent per share (to the value of $3,627,731.57) were paid on 11 October 2005 and 1.1 cent per share capital return (to the value of $2,660,336.48) paid on 15 December 2005 (quite why it has taken almost three months to announce it, is a little puzzling) 03/03/2006
company advises shareholders that the record date for the return of capital, which was announced as 7 December 2005, has now been re-scheduled - the new record date for the return of capital is 8 December 2005 01/12/2005
directors have resolved that the final return will be 1.1 cents per share - directors are still looking at "several possibilities for the remaining company structure, and the available cash post the final capital return, and are pursuing various options with the aim of maximising returns to shareholders" 30/11/2005
provides notice of Annual General Meeting to be held at SM Gibson & Associates, Level 2, 25 Saltwater, 30 Macrossan Street, Port Douglas, Queensland on Wednesday, 30th November 2005 at 10.00 am 28/10/2005
lodges annual report 30/09/2005
at an EGM today the company passed the following resolution "That, for the purpose of section 256C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and clause 30.3 of the Company's constitution, an equal reduction in the capital of the Company, by way of a cash payment to holders of fully paid ordinary shares as at 7pm on the record date disclosed in the Explanatory Memorandum of $0.015 (1.5 cents) per ordinary share, be approved" - this resolution was carried unanimously 19/09/2005
lodges Preliminary Final Report 31/08/2005
advises an Extraordinary General Meeting of the company will be held at, Marino Moller Lawyers, Macrossan House, 19 Macrossan Street, Port Douglas on 19 September 2005 at 10.00 am 19/08/2005
the sale of The Links Golf Course to Juniper Development Group is finalised today for the sum of $5.5 million 03/08/2005
company advises it has entered into an unconditional sale contract for the Links golf course to Juniper Development Group for the sum of $5.5 million - settlement is scheduled to take place in early August 2005 - the board has resolved that a further return of capital of 1.5 cents per share should be distributed to shareholders - this capital return will take place sometime after the company receives the settlement proceeds from the golf course sale - as advised to shareholders in the Explanatory Memorandum on 31 March 2005, the board is now exploring the option of selling the company structure, and the remaining cash - it has been agreed that a time limit of sixty (60) days is being applied to this process 28/07/2005
company advises that the return of capital has been finalised - on 14th June 2005 the company distributed the sum of $0.10 per share to all the holders of fully paid ordinary shares 14/06/2005
the sale of the following business assets to S8 Limited were finalised today; Radisson Treetops Resort - The Rainforest Habitat Wildlife Sanctuary, and - Cairns Rainforest Dome 31/05/2005
the timing for the return of capital is that it will be made on 14 June 2005 - the proceeds of 10 cents a share will be sent to shareholders on that date 10/05/2005
a new timetable for the return of capital to the company's shareholders will be issued shortly, however it is envisaged at this time that the return will be distributed around mid June 28/04/2005
shares suspended from quotation following the announcement that the company will proceed with the sale of the Radisson Treetops Resort, the Rainforest Habitat Wildlife Sanctuary and the Cairns Rainforest Dome - the settlement date is scheduled for the 30 May 2005 28/04/2005
also after listening to all the ums in the recording from the nsw meeting-doesnt sound professional
and the attitude well with the size of the fund 5 million is nothing to loose to change !!!!!!
 
HI there thebear,

I cant say I know much about it at all. Its all pretty confusing.

The interesting thing kept coming up that I noted was that S8 were somehow involved somewhere in the collapse of the Reef resort Port douglas. From what is googled noted that the director of S8 is chris Scott the man who transferred the PIF to our very own Jenny Hutson who is/was the chairman.

s8 were approached for funding and declined.

- S8 were very happy to invest and acquire the port douglas radisson treetops from port douglas reef resort...once it collapsed I presume.

Is it a coincidence that I always find is s8-mfs/octaviar-wellington always have a strong link and investors always lose money ?
 
A quote for the day:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (Thomas Jefferson)

Let ourF voices be heard loud and clear!
 
selciper said:
A quote for the day:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (Thomas Jefferson)

Let ourF voices be heard loud and clear!
Click to expand...

Thanks selcipher

yes...I still have to smile at the words we sometime hear.

JENNY HUTSON: 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

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm

Or

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.
Theodore Roosevelt

They are truly words to live by.
 
Zixo,
You’re right to remind us of those 2008 holier-than-thou statements. At no time was it suggested that the optimistic projections made could falter after the magic wand was waved.

When everything is eventually written up in the media, the effect on the financial services industry will be definitely adverse.

Are we about to face yet another week of skulduggery? (It’s time that the media started to take a hard look at our situation and its causes).
 
Zixo WC thought the PIF AG would be calling for an EGM in early April after the AG started contacting investors and told them to expect a document package relating to the calling of an EGM with the purpose of replacing Wellington Capital with an alternative RE.
Hypothetical scenario?
WC knew that unitholders had to be given 21 days notice of an EGM which I presume threw WC into a frenzy because after having had virtually no NSX announcements apart from the belated Dec 2010 investor update, another REJECT announcement and the required financial report BANG!! It was like a long sleeping bear coming out of hibernation. One announcement after another towards the end of Mar early April, WC is keen to help investors in the Class Action, WC has finally got a strategy option in place, review fees, make another 1 cent payment( due to be paid to coincide with the expected EGM date to be announced, BLAH BLAH BLAH, look how freaking pro active we are, then oh sh1te, there was no EGM announcement!!! Whew, we have time to announce a placement and rights issue to cover our bottoms because we are in deep trouble here and need to shore up some votes!!!
Oh no, in our haste we stuffed up, never mind, lets just change the constitution!! Meanwhile better get a few more announcements out there, weve got to look like we are indispensible, ah yes, tell the suckers that if WC do not remain RE, the contracts could fall over!! The problem is WC, its not you that own those assets, its the PIF unitholders!! If the proposed sale is a genuinely negotiated contract to a genuine buyer, what difference does it make who the RE is? It would be nice to think that we were on a level playing field here, achieving votes on merit as opposed to buying them, totally oblivious to the impact the action will have on existing unitholders. We are finally getting the transparency we were promised so long ago but the rose coloured glasses are no longer worn by the majority and most will see right through this pathetic charade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
446
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
963
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...