Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 December 2009
- Posts
- 64
- Reactions
- 0
Well done everyone who played a part in this first victory!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you. And a very tasty entree it is. Looking forward to the main meal!
YEEHAAA, lets hope todays ruling by Justice Gordon is just the beginning of more victories to be won re WC this week, then we can really see just how badly the PIF has have been managed by WC under the guise of 'working in the best interests of unitholders'!!!!! Onwards and upwards! I am very 'encouraged and delighted' with todays outcome. Cheers to everyones efforts and support, Seamisty
New NSX Announcement:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724116.PDF
It seems that if the PIF AG had filed for an injunction a bit earlier, we may have won on both counts, ie the "Placement of Units" and the "Rights Offer".... Our units are being diluted by 9% instead of a much larger amount...and we're supposed to be grateful???
What the hell does a few days earlier or later make in filing an injuction? If it was against the Corporations Act or NOT in our best interests earlier on, why isn't it still the case?? I don't understand our court system....
Those 75 million votes could make all the difference to our success or failure. Please everybody, get your proxies in today (even if a bit late) and get to the EGM on Thursday at the Grace Hotel, 77 York Street, Sydney. It's in OUR best interests to replace WC, who have NOT had our best interests at heart, ever I would suspect. We need to install our preferred chairman to run the meeting, else our efforts may all be for nothing.
United we stand!
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724116.PDF
It seems that if the PIF AG had filed for an injunction a bit earlier, we may have won on both counts, ie the "Placement of Units" and the "Rights Offer".... Our units are being diluted by 9% instead of a much larger amount...and we're supposed to be grateful???
What the hell does a few days earlier or later make in filing an injuction? If it was against the Corporations Act or NOT in our best interests earlier on, why isn't it still the case?? I don't understand our court system....
Those 75 million votes could make all the difference to our success or failure. Please everybody, get your proxies in today (even if a bit late) and get to the EGM on Thursday at the Grace Hotel, 77 York Street, Sydney. It's in OUR best interests to replace WC, who have NOT had our best interests at heart, ever I would suspect. We need to install our preferred chairman to run the meeting, else our efforts may all be for nothing.
United we stand!
how sweet it is thank dora n boots thanks all pif investers specical thanks to ..ag..... see ya jen comeing to get you
Ignorance is Bliss! I have seen my S/Fund investment go down the tube. No message from Wellington re EGM being postponed to 23rd. The only way of knowing the new date was by stumbling on this forum. Great news - will be there for support.Thanks for the reply. Will look at the web site with interest.
Cookie I just checked the date of my original complaint to ASIC and the NSX re the placement and rights issue, part of that complaint sent to ASIC on the 11th May 20011was:: "we are extremely concerned with the latest 'Capital Raising' exercise by Wellington Capital not being in the best interests of unitholders and believe that the resulting dilution of unit holder value will be more detrimental than beneficial. To change our constitution to enable this to happen is not only unprofessional in my opinion, but totally unacceptable behaviour from a Responsible Entity entrusted to work in the best interests of unitholders. We see this purely as a vote grabbing exercise. What protection do we have from an RE who changes the constitution without unit holder approval to the detriment of investors? Can ASIC reverse this decision if they deem it to be NOT in the best interests of unitholders?"
Part of the response I received from ASIC on the 1st of June 2011 is as follows:::'My apologies for not responding to your email sooner. ASIC is maintaining an active monitoring brief in respect of the issues relating to the rights issue and upcoming members meeting. ASIC has carefully considered the issues raised by the members of the Premium Income Fund (Fund) in respect of the placement and rights issue and responded to members who have complained to ASIC about these.'
I take it that ASIC should now be reviewing their decision not to intervene on behalf of PIF unitholders earlie which could have prevented this situation before the PIFAG had to seek legal representation. I am sure there will be more to come re the placement issue which has diluted our fund and given equal rights to the newas yet un named professional investors. Seamisty
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Breaker and Charles36
What Justice Gordon is saying is that we were too late to apply for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the first placement, but using her arguement that the placements made by deed poll are contrary to s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act an URGENT APPLICATION to ASIC to strike out the first placement should be made immediately.
Isn't it now simply a matter that the PIF action group seek a declaration that the first placement be reversed now that the constitutional amendments have been voided? I guess time is against the group unless they wish to postphone the meeting yet again?
Seems to me that the group won the day for the orders sought, but those orders didn't capture all the objectives.
Perhaps ASIC might just come in as a 'white knight' with a little nudge from your legal team (which I'm sure will be happening).
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Once more with feeling from Willie's Troilus and Cressida:
"There's language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,/
Nay, her foot speaks."
Never a blink in the eye! And the Placement will not count either as reversal post meeting will normalize the final count.
I can now turn the page to Richard of the "Kingdom for a horse" fame.
Regards,
"There's language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,/
Nay, her foot speaks."
Never a blink in the eye! And the Placement will not count either as reversal post meeting will normalize the final count.
I can now turn the page to Richard of the "Kingdom for a horse" fame.
Regards,
Re the NSX Wellington litigation update, Justice Gordon noted about Units issued the subject of placement: If, as here, the plaintiff sought relief other than damages, they should have moved earlier.’
Does this mean PIFAG can claim damages from the RE, to compensate dilution of unit value?
Does this mean PIFAG can claim damages from the RE, to compensate dilution of unit value?
Maybe we have to be a little patient. There still isn't a update on the Castlereagh website. Couldn't that mean that they are hard working to find a reply to J.H.
statement that she was the winner in Melbourne? We should be optimistic that she
can't use those 75 million votes by herself to her advantage.
- Joined
- 28 January 2005
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
Well Done Seamisty, Breaker and all the other front line soldiers of the PIF AG!
So much is owed to you by so many.
In regard to the meeting on the 23 June, all I have to say is .... I would be very worried if I owned a red leather Jacket
Cheers
- Joined
- 30 May 2008
- Posts
- 328
- Reactions
- 0
(WC quote) Justice Gordon saying:
There were only 6 business days between the announcement of the Placement and the issue of these units. Hardly time to act before the units were issued. It was not until after the 17 May 2011 (when the units were issued) that ASIC notified their decision not to intervene.
"That conclusion is fortified by the fact that the Plaintiffs were aware of Wellington's intention to make the placement as early as 6 May 2011 but did not institute proceedings in this court until 6 June 2011."
There were only 6 business days between the announcement of the Placement and the issue of these units. Hardly time to act before the units were issued. It was not until after the 17 May 2011 (when the units were issued) that ASIC notified their decision not to intervene.
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
ASICK, yes if ASIC will issue a declaration of breach of s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act PIF AG can go back to court to have the units annuled or can ASIC as regulator of the ASX and NSX simply direct WC and the NSX to cancel the shares?
Hi Marcom, My guess is as good as yours - I find it difficult to believe that such an outcome is possible, that (1) ASIC is able to able to seemingly ignore s. 601FC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act while assessing s. 601GC(1)(b) of the act, and (2) that a judge is able to determine that constitutional amendments are invalid, yet a placement pursuant to such an amendment is not invalid. To me, it's a world of contradictions.
I haven't read the judge's reasons for judgment - where is it?
I think that one option is that your side could go back to court and seek further orders, but in order to do that, the meeting would have to be postphoned (again). There may be consequences if the meetings proceeds without contesting the placement - would that amount to an acceptance of the placement in the circumstances?
Secondly, I would have thought ASIC has the authority to wind back the placement as the constitutional amendment on which the placement relies is invalid.
I should add that I'm surprised that ASIC reasoned that since WC said that the placement and rights issue were in investors' best interests, then that was the case. No real test of the facts, but rather an acceptance of the manager's view over that of investors.
JUST IN
SHIFTING STUMPS
News flash for directors in the funds management game: you can't arbitrarily change the issue price of your units just because it might suit you.
The Federal Court yesterday ruled on a stoush between, on one side, the Premium Income Fund Action Group, backing Castlereagh Capital's Ian Ferrier, and on the other, Wellington Capital, led by Jenny Hutson. Justice Michelle Gordon blew the whistle on Wellington Capital's attempts on May 9 and May 16 to change the pricing of a rights issue through tweaking the fund's constitution.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/flying-roo-better-than-tiger-moth-20110620-1gbxt.html
SHIFTING STUMPS
News flash for directors in the funds management game: you can't arbitrarily change the issue price of your units just because it might suit you.
The Federal Court yesterday ruled on a stoush between, on one side, the Premium Income Fund Action Group, backing Castlereagh Capital's Ian Ferrier, and on the other, Wellington Capital, led by Jenny Hutson. Justice Michelle Gordon blew the whistle on Wellington Capital's attempts on May 9 and May 16 to change the pricing of a rights issue through tweaking the fund's constitution.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/flying-roo-better-than-tiger-moth-20110620-1gbxt.html
....and from the Brisbane Courier Mail
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investors-backed-over-fund-changes/story-fn6ck2gb-1226078752902
The last line of the report has to be the understatement of the year!!! John H.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investors-backed-over-fund-changes/story-fn6ck2gb-1226078752902
The last line of the report has to be the understatement of the year!!! John H.
It appears the rights issue was poorly subscribed to anyway with approx only a third of unitholders taking up the offer.
'A third project, a planned 16-storey unit project at Main Beach, has now been thrown in to doubt since it requires up to $25 million in capital, she said.'
Well if a total of $25.9million had been raised as was hoped for by WC to complete 3 projects when one project alone needed that amount to complete what was WC going to do? Get half way through the Main Beach development then WC offer a joint venture to one of their cronies to share in the profits as in the Wollongong deal? Who needs transparency when it is so obvious that the whole placement and rights issue was a farce akin to blackmail right from the start. We copped the 'vote for WC or your fund will be liquidated' campaign where we were conned, but we are a lot wiser and united these days and very much aware of these type of scare mongering tactics.
Whats your next move to RECRUIT support WC? All the smear campaign did was align WC with gutless supposedly anonymous cowards willing to stop at nothing to help WC retain control of the PIF. What is in those records that so desperately needs to be kept from a forensic accountant?
Seamisty
