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

Just sent the following email to Alan Jones at Radio 2GB:

I would like to bring to your attention an ongoing debacle of shareholders of Premium Income Fund trying to remove Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity, as they feel it is not acting in their best interests. Wellington Capital CEO Jenny Hutson had taken various actions, some bordering on fraudulent to prevent that happening. Please have a look at various postings on the following Aussie Stock forums link, particularly posting number 7807. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&page=391&highlight=PIF Meanwhile, ASIC just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing, despite having been made aware of the problem a long time ago. Why???
 
K. Smith, your story takes the breath away! Are we living in Australia, or the Philippines, or Columbia?
Where were all the super-sleuth reporters while the reptilian Hutson was throwing our money at hired extras?
More importantly, where were ASIC representatives?
Counting their paper-clips and drinking coffee, no doubt. They are complicit with Hutson in their lack of action.
We have to rid ouselves of this "hungry ghost"; K.Smith, on behalf of us all, please share your story with the media, (without compromising your friend of course), "SMH" or "The Australian" would be a good place to start. Thanks and all the best.
 
reasonable said:
Hear hear!
Click to expand...

I would just like to add my sincere appreciation to very one who attended the meeting yesterday and for providing such quick and accurate info to those of us who were not able to attend. I am disappointed that we were not able to progress further buth have confidence in Peter, Charles, Seamisty and all the other wonderful people working so hard. Thank you, thank you!
 
That chance encounter on the train with the "stand-in" may well prove to be a very serious blow to Hutson's mean aspirations. The house of WC could come crashing down. Yes, the whole shebang.

Will ASIC staff please turn up for work for at least one day next week.
 

As all the minions at Wellington Capital obviously keep track of the PIFAG through this forum, now is the time for one of you to blow the whistle on JH and her dirty tactics before you go down the WC (pun) with her.
 
The first part of the charade occurred when some of our investors turned up very early to find that Armstrong Registry personnel had assumed the tables outside the doors where Computershare would normally be seated to process the proxy votes. One of the first and very astute investors to attempt to register deduced that these were not the proper people and quizzed them discovering their identity and alerting all the other investors present who in turn had the situation rectified when Computershare turned up and assumed control of the registration process.
The renta-crowd details have been provided to our lawyers by one of the "crowd". See ksmiths earlier post.
JH was not locked out of the meeting. She was locked in. Because there was only one way in or out and that was through the security cordon she could not get out the alternative exit when she wanted to. Her proxy holders were not able to get in any of the doors; firstly because there was a security cordon vetting the Computershare proxy forms and secondly, the other entry was locked.
Steve
 

I hope you don't mind but I have also copied your post to A Current Affair. Will let everyone know if I get a reply
 
Good morning all

I am a bit confused regarding the numbers for and against and if these were all of the "for" proxies.

One thing is for sure if you remove the units issued to sophisticated investors under the placement (which I am guessing some of which have been gifted away to the rent a crowd !) WC doesnt have much of a support base.

Not sure how many units left in the wholesale fund that WC get to vote with but it really is showing that without the placement WC was definitely on the way out the door.

Couple of questions
- if the units were placed with a related party and given someone was prepared to hand some of these away yesterday is there not a conflict of interest and something that needs to be declared ?

Can any of the units issued under the placement if the holder stands to gain a benefit from having WC retained be voted or should they be precluded from voting ?

Its time some good journalist found out who got issued these units and who was prepared to give some away yesterday.

I have been complaining lately about WC conduct to two people directly in ASIC by email. Not sure if it helps but will be doing it again this morning about this latest dirty trick.

Power to the people !!!!
 
Grateful thanks again to our workers who have had to endure this. I'm sure it will make our resolve stronger. Quite Unbelievable!! Did she think not one person would question their actions?? We can see now how she won 'Business woman of the Year". Did the rent-a-bystander still get paid? How were they paid? All those people have nothing to lose by coming forward. They didn't willingly commit fraud. In fact, upstanding people NOT WANTING to rip off honest investors would be crying blue murder.

I think she is now not just trying to keep feeding from the trough, we can see she has had enough. I think she is now much more desperate because she knows once the forensic accountants swoop in, she'll be on the new prison diet.

Hoping ACA will do a 'real' story about 'real' people. Beats getting speeding fines because a car was on the back of a trailer, and one wayward phone or power bill. Huge public interest in such scandalous tactics from supposedly well respected business people.
 
I was personally disappointed that the meeting was adjourned, the PIFAG have always acted morally, there is no other proper way, sometimes to our detriment when dealing with hostile people. It was impossible for the meeting to proceed, the correct decision was made by the Chairman and I am sure the attendees realised the complexity of the situation. I was really, really, disappointed I was not invited to the upstairs meeting, I may well have cast my vote if asked. I suppose I cannot help bad luck. I am sorry the RE was allegedly "locked up." Maybe something for the future.
 
I wonder how long it will take for any recipient of a 1000 PIF Unit holding to learn it is an unmarketable (or barely marketable) parcel. They'd have to either sell them off market (probably back to the gifter at a discount). Buy more or wait for a next opportunity to be given another parcel to realise more of their value. Doh! Duped. Welcome to the club.
 

My husband and I were also at the meeting and take my hat off to all the hard working people who tried to bring some justice to this mess. We need more media coverage!! I took a photo of JH inside the meeting room (unfortunately I only got the back of her, and the unmistable red jacket!!!!!).

I am disgusted at the tactics of "Rent A Crowd", something needs to be done!! Surely this can't be allowed!!

I am fighting not only for what I have lost but for everyone of you who have lost what should be a beautiful time in your lives.

Thank you to Peter Grenadier, Charles Hodge, Mark Hodge, Seamisty and the list goes on.

It wasn't the outcome we wanted, but we will keep fighting this!!
 
There's an article in the AFR about yesterday's meating. Anyone have a copy yet?
 
Castlereagh's website seems to be operational again.
There is a second media release.
For those having difficulty ...click on the 'NEWS' tab on the top right of page and selsct PIF media releases.
My head is still spinning re JH and WC behaviour.
I am so angry about her disgusting behaviour I feel like picketing her office to get some media attention.
 
It is alleged that there were 200 in the "rent a crowd".
On the basis that there were 3 banks of seats 13 seats wide and about 7 rows deep there were at least 3 x 13 x 7 = 273 votes present with many more crowded into the standing room. We had them outnumbered anyway for a vote to elect a chairman.
Steve
 



 Zixo. WC seems to be doing the old juxtaposition trick again in para 4 of yesterday's NSX announcement.

"The registry services arranged by Wellington Capital were excluded from occupancy of the premises by the meeting convenors. The registry was relocated to an adjacent floor at the meeting venue. The floor in between was locked on instructions from the meeting convenors, thereby physically excluding those who sought to register or attend the meeting through the registry services provided by Wellington Capital."

 Based on information by ASF posters, newspapers and Castlereagh, this 4th paragraph seems to be structured in a way such that the reader may readily conclude that it was the instructions to lock "[t]he floor" that lead to the decision to relocate.

But the second sentence does not say e.g. 'The registry was THEN relocated' or 'The registry was HENCE relocated'.

WC could easily argue to a Judge that this paragraph was meant to be construed as e.g. : WC decided on its own initiative to relocate to another floor without clearly telling the convenors where they would be; and when the convenors locked "the floor" (like they lock the door in parliament just before a vote is to be taken) WC's Registry was consequently excluded. And hence, this NSX announcement is arguably not misleading if in fact it was WC's decision to relocate to another floor.

I assume it is logical and sensible to 'lock' non-Unit/Shareholders out of a venue when a show-of-hands vote is to be taken so that the final result is unimpeachable. (It is also logical and sensible for the convenors to require attendees to stand still as the vote is taken.) [FONT=&quot] If so then it was the decision to 'relocate to another floor' that led to WC's registry service from being excluded. This NSX announcement by WC does not appear to give a reason as to who made the decision to relocate or why it was made. That's just my lay opinion.
[/FONT]
 
Can anyone please explain or reassure me about the figures Wellington posted on the NSX website in relation to the votes?

It looks like we lost.

Can I assume correctly that the figures are only from Armstrong Registry and not Computershare?

Also would anyone have a rough idea of how many proxies there are that have voting power. If the figures mentioned on the NSX are short of what really exists then there is still hope.

Example Wellington states Proxies for removal of Wellington = 208,638,814, and Against = 310,739,020, and Abstain = 1,844,132.

Question out of all the numners above does anyone have the total number of votes that could possibly exist in the fund that will give us a real idea of the result???

I would imagine all proxies returned to Computershare would be pro Castleraegh.
 

I don't know. But shouldn't the rows go close to adding up to the same total. According to my transcribing into Excel they are:
Resolution 1 493,747,927
Resolution 2 493,920,563
Resolution 3 493,425,650
Resolution 4 495,567,028
Resolution 5 531,546,372
Resolution 6 531,970,337
Resolution 7 493,388,031

Difference between the highest and lowest is 38,582,306. Does this simply mean that about 38 million worth of votes couldn't be bothered to tick the boxes for resolutions 1 to 4 and 7. Shouldn't an empty box equate to an 'abstain'? Anyone?

If we assume WC doesn't get the chair then the Open Proxies go to PIFAG, whereby the lowest 'for' vote was 41.1% for Resolution 6. But this only represented 47.5% of the 1,119,710,357 units on issue.

Castlereagh was reported by the Courier Mail as saying "Mr Armstrong said the motion to remove Wellington had the support of 82 per cent of the 325 million units voted so far, or about 40 per cent of the total. The other six resolutions had the backing of more than 90 per cent."

Hence based on this available data, assuming no votes were sent to both registries, then the lowest 'for' vote was 56.68% for resolution 5. I.e. 10,324,406 + 208,359,693 + 82% of 325M = 485,463,220 'for' votes out of 856,546,372 votes cast). Even if WC did get the Chair and presumably then the 10M Open Proxies, the lowest 'for' vote % would be 54.27%.
 
elizaman said:
I hope you don't mind but I have also copied your post to A Current Affair. Will let everyone know if I get a reply
Click to expand...

this rent-a-crowd action is shocking (unable to express this adequately).

did you send ACA an outline of the rent-a-crowd aspect of the story? a link can be easily disregarded but a brief of the actual contents should get their attention.

thanks to all that attended and are continuing to keep up the momentum.
 
'Giving' out free shares seems very fishy to me. (Apart from the fact that whose are they to 'give' them out anyway? Or buy back?)

In this totally astounding dishonest & foolish act why wouldn't they just hope (against all sensible reasoning) that the the rent-a-hand-raise would just do their paid job & disappear into thin air, never thinking too much about their 'photo shoot'.

WHY would they then give more information about the fund, when they didn't need to, plus beginning a link to the fund, and it's troubles, by their inviting them to become a Unit holder? Makes no sense. Obviously a portion of them would then follow the fund & it's goings-on & it's price.

It must be more skull duggery, in that they made them Unit holders so they could vote minutes later? Did they need those papers to even get into the meeting? Either VERY FOOLISH or very fishy.

But now it hasn't worked & is public knowledge, surely it's a case of giving enough rope to hang herself. If ASIC moves its blinkers to right over it's eyes, surely the courts will act on such despicably underhanded dishonesty. They look at all such damning evidence & protect honest people don't they?

We thought we had her measure but this is a brand new benchmark, way lower than low!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
431
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
961
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...