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
Duped this time WC won't be calling the shots at the EGM, this is not WC's show no matter how many Pro WC unitholders WC can muster up to attend, but it is all the more reason we urge PIF unitholders wanting a change of management to attend in person to raise their hands when called upon, ie electing a nominated chairperson on our behalf.

Seamisty
 
thebear said:
here is a link to that page i found
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT DOUGLAS REEF RESORTS LIMITED
thats is i could find
still undecided which way to vote
Click to expand...

Does anyone from the PIF Action Grp know more about this info, as Castlereagh advised at the Melb meeting that the truth was that they paid .55c then paid the final 1/2c on shares that originally cost unitholders .50c, its really hard to make sound decisions when we are always getting conflicting info. But one thing i do know is that we don't want WC to continue to lie and run our units into the ground.
 
Standard trick of the trade is to juxtapose to unrelated pieces of information to lead the naiive reader to incorrectly draw a causal link.

Observe. In the NSX release http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724067.PDF WC write a stand alone two sentence paragraph:

‘The legal representation and strategy for class action members changed in November 2010. Wellington Capital as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund has been in discussions with IMF and HWL Ebsworth to reach this agreed way forward.’

Hands up who believes Hutson is saying e.g. WC joined the class action because the "legal representation and strategy for class action members changed". Does the NSX release really say that? Or have you misread it? What do you think a judge would say to you for adding the causal link? WC does not commit itself to a justification in this release. IMLO WC's options are open to in future hunt out and present any justification that suits itself at the time.

Furthermore, whether or not "strategy" has in fact changed seems to me, in the absence of any knowledge on what has in fact changed, to be debateable. Just like words like "acting in the best interests of unitholders". Ahhh word bending. Fun isn't it. NOT. What a waste of time and money.
 

At the Melb meeting Castlereagh explained how important it is to have the numbers at the EGM because if WC are appointed chairperson they can change the order of the motions thus giving them a completely different outcome to if an impartial or unitholder chairperson run the meeting.
 

I meant the EGM WC says it "will" "hold within 30 days of receipt of proceeds in finalisation or settlement of the claim" from the class action. Sorry for the confusion.
 
thekids said:
Maybe you could also ask just how did the Reaction grp get our personal details, not happy Jen! and why doesn't she stand down as the RE when she is fully aware that the unitholders no longer have faith in her ability to run OUR funds.
Click to expand...

Didn't WC want to bill the Action Group something in the order of $14 thousand for the list. I wonder if the RE Action group were threatened with the same hurdle?
 
Duped said:
Didn't WC want to bill the Action Group something in the order of $14 thousand for the list. I wonder if the RE Action group were threatened with the same hurdle?
Click to expand...

You forgot about 'Mates Rates' they are on the same side as WC and seem to be using all WC info, looks like another related entity perhaps
 

The one certainty at this stage is that if WC remains as RE we will continue to see the value of our units decline and the recent frenzy of information will dry up.
 

Probably because you are a good and trusting person. You say what you do and do what you say. And you trust that our democracy delivers governance that will stop people preying on those virtues.

Meanwhile, government still needs to somehow keep the velocity of money up so it can keep keeping collecting taxes to keep government going. Fair enough I suppose, but it'd be nice to know what we're buying.
 
thebear said:
here is a link to that page i found
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT%20DOUGLAS%20REEF%20RESORTS%20LIMITED
thats is i could find
still undecided which way to vote
Click to expand...

Thanks thebear. Looks like a summary of the ASX announcements. We can still review the pre 29/8/2006 originals at http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do.

The delisted.com info talks about cents per share whereas I recall the 55c number is quoted as cents in the $. Perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy.
 
I used to regularly check into this thread and (gratefully) keep up with what you wonderful people have been reporting but due to a very challenging year or so I have lagged way behind.

I realise I am relinquishing my autonomy to some degree by asking this, but I have to trust someone and I just don't have the 'head space' for it at present!

Could someone confirm that the best immediate action is to tick the 'for' boxes on the yellow Computershare form that came with the AG?castlereagh docos and to discard the pink ones from Wellington.

There is no way I can go back and catch up with all I've missed and need to post the form by the morning, but will try to keep up going forward. I am very very grateful for those that have been willing and able to hang in with this. thanks, thanks, thanks.

I/we have two holding so will have two votes.
 
Evelyn if you would like to private message me your phone number in notifications I could call you and explain our current situation re Castlereagh Capital, Cheers, Seamisty
 
AusInCA said:
The one certainty at this stage is that if WC remains as RE we will continue to see the value of our units decline and the recent frenzy of information will dry up.
Click to expand...

Evelyn, I think that AusInCA's quote above is a realistic assessment of where we are. Many posters on the forum have returned the yellow proxy form to Computershare with ALL 7 "'for" boxes crossed. But at the end of the day it's your call.

By the way the number of votes you have is the number of units held. Good luck.
 
With the return of the home minister fm China, our FOR vote all the way is in the mail to Computershare.
We too are evidently on the reaction group mailing list hvg just rec'd their unsolicited flyer post marked HRMC MLOCR 501 31/5/11. {It would be interesting to know who authorised the release of the list and to whom and who paid for the mailout. Long suffering PIF members - ???}
That and some pink coloured bumf rec'd earlier hv been consigned to the WPB
 

See page 4 of the PDR chairman's address http://asx.com.au/asxpdf/20041125/pdf/3nv8d9w45p08f.pdf

I.e. NTA per share was reported as being 13.48 at 30 June 2004 and 16.4 cents per share at 30 June 2003. Based on these two dates, returning 55c for every $ invested would mean paying to shareholders about 7.414c per share and 9.02c per share respectively.

Note there were about 240million shares.
 
Perhaps the answer to my question is that the matter raised is presently confidential. I'll ask it anyway.

Q. Is there any news about the progress of the intended proceedings to seek an injunction regarding the placement and capital raising?

It's perfectly understandable if the subject is not for general discussion.
 
I will endeavor to get something that I can post publically tomorrow pm selciper. Seamisty
 

Hello Duped,
If the Placement and Rights Issue proceed then there is no chance of that clause going into the PIF's constitution. WC make it look like they are looking out for unitholders by saying they will call the meeting to ammend the constitution, BUT it will be a waste of our money to call the meeting because...

WC are proposing to call the meeting once the Class Action finalises. By the time that happens those that would vote for this change will represent less than 75% of the fund (75% approval is required to add this clause to the constitution).

It disgusts me that WC have excluded those that have had to sell their PIF units from being beneficiaries of the Class Action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
444
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...