Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Mutchy · 24 June 2011

Duped said:
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%.

You are correct. The sum of all proxy votes should all add to the same figure. You can't have any discrepancy because only whole proxy forms are acceptable and the total figure will be the total number of proxy forms received. As I understand the practice, unticked boxes are an "abstain" unless the person counting the proxies ticks one of the the unticked boxes "for" or "against". That's why an unbiased and unrelated independent company should tally the votes.

Compared with the figures I have seen from Computershare the figures for the "abstain" vote are about one sixth of those received by Computershare. Also the figures for the "For" vote are lower than those from Computershare.

The magnitude of the figures suggest Armstrong Registry Services have combined the figures from Computershare with their own. Otherwise the total numbers of proxies lodged would be about 900,000,000. This exceeds the total number of units on issue being 830,000,000. Armstrong have been supplied with Computershare figures on an almost daily basis while Armstrong have refused to do the same.

Based on the proportions of votes received being about 90% "for" and 5% "against" as Mr Phil Armstrong of Castlereagh Capital has said, the total number of investors who would vote against the motions would be about 5% of 755,000,000 ie 37,750,000. This assumes all of the proxies voting against the motions had been received by Armstrong Registry Services and 100% of our investors had voted.

The total issued units is about 755,000,000 being original issue and 75,000,000 being the Placement ie 830,000,000.

If we assume the total placement voted "against" and add that number to the maximum proportion calculated above we get 75,000,000 + 37,750,000 = 112,000,000.

To see figures approaching 300,000,000 "against" is unbelievable. When coupled with other discrepancies, especially the totals not being the same, the table in the NSX release appears to be a fabrication. One could therefore seriously doubt the ability and integrity of Armstrong Registry Services.

Steve

Sutho81 · 24 June 2011

If Hutson is connected with the Armstrong Registry taking proxy's then isnt that a conflict of interest that should exclude Armstrong Registry?

Its also a conflict of interest her trying to take the chair at the meeting considering that the motions are about dismissing her company.

Ideally someone independent and impartial should take control.

Are there any legal ways of preventing Armstrong from taking a vote count and banning Hutson from nominating to chair the meeting?

reasonable · 24 June 2011

Castleraigh may be very good at their job but useless at presenting their website. The latest has date errors and missing links.

selciper · 24 June 2011

reasonable said:
Castleraigh may be very good at their job but useless at presenting their website. The latest has date errors and missing links.

I heartily agree. The Castlereagh website(s) is/are quite confusing and requires a layout rethink.

66Joy · 24 June 2011

Re Mutchy and Steve's laudable attempts to calculate the CORRECT voting results yesterday I would like to bring to everyone's attention that we had a very similar scenario 2 years ago when we held a Meeting to vote out City Pacific and replace them with Balmain Trilogy.

Although the vote to oust City Pacific went very much our way, City Pacific, immediately after the Meeting proceeded to post INCORRECT FIGURES on the net.
Legal measures had to be taken, ALL VOTES HAD TO BE OFFICIALLY RECOUNTED and the end result was indeed very different. Since this time Balmain Trilogy have been doing an excellent job.

Hopefully this information can be of some help to us all.

aroach · 24 June 2011

66Joy said:
Re Mutchy and Steve's laudable attempts to calculate the CORRECT voting results yesterday I would like to bring to everyone's attention that we had a very similar scenario 2 years ago when we held a Meeting to vote out City Pacific and replace them with Balmain Trilogy.

Although the vote to oust City Pacific went very much our way, City Pacific, immediately after the Meeting proceeded to post INCORRECT FIGURES on the net.
Legal measures had to be taken, ALL VOTES HAD TO BE OFFICIALLY RECOUNTED and the end result was indeed very different. Since this time Balmain Trilogy have been doing an excellent job.

Hopefully this information can be of some help to us all.

Hi 66joy. Refer also to post #7775 by marcom on page 389. It sounds like JH's partners law firm McCoulough Robertson who represented City Pacific, are giving her the same old tired advice which didn't work for them then ...strange how she thinks it may work this time...

Ashley

zixo · 24 June 2011

What is happening to OUR fund is WRONG.
Wellington Capital is showing Investors that they are ABOVE the law.
The corporate regulator has had solid proof and has NEVER listened.

WE need to make a difference Not only for ourselves but for future investors who have been forgotten and who will no doubt be caught in similar circumstances with no Law no regulation and no HELP.

Now is the time to personally make a difference. I encourage all investors to please contact the media and make our situation know to the broader public.

Address:
Radio 2GB
Level 1, Building C, 33-35 Saunders St
Pyrmont NSW 2009, Australia
GPO Box 4290
Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
Phone: (02) 8570 0000

Fax: (02) 8570 0219
Open Line and Talkback:
131 873 (Local Call)
Outside Australia: +61 2 8514 9500

NOR · 24 June 2011

marcom said:
A little history of what happened prior and following the Balmain Trilogy expulsion of City Pacific from the First Mortgage Fund in July 2009 - this demonstrates the lenghts that pigs will go to keep their head in the trough!

http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/news_300609.aspx

30 June 2009

WEB UPDATE
City Pacific seeks to frustrate unit holders

We can confirm that a notice has been lodged with ASIC under the Corporations Act requiring the regulator to register Trilogy as the new responsible entity of the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

We can also confirm that:

Before the unitholders meeting last Thursday (June 25), City Pacific applied to the Federal Court for an injunction to prevent the meeting from occurring. This failed.

At the meeting, and following the appointment of a unitholder as Chairman, the unitholders overwhelmingly carried a resolution to remove City Pacific as responsible entity and appoint Trilogy in its place. Computershare calculated that more than 87% of units voted at the meeting were voted in favour of the resolution.

We believe that City Pacific has no interest in listening to the members that it allegedly represents indeed, the day after the meeting, City Pacific again instituted Court proceedings for summary judgment to invalidate the meeting. This again failed.

City Pacific also sought an injunction to prevent Trilogy from lodging a notice of change of responsible entity with ASIC in order to delay its removal. This also failed.

City Pacific further sought that the hearing of the matter occurs in late August. From this action we can only assume that City Pacific wishes to remain as responsible entity for the interim period, which in effect would enable it to continue charging fees well beyond that which Trilogy has agreed to charge and use Fund assets to pay for the litigation.

The Court has not been prepared to let this matter wait and required lodgment of City Pacific's amended statement of claim by July 3 before a directions hearing on July 6.

BalmainTrilogy is concerned that the overwhelming, clearly stated and valid demands of the members, as evidenced by their vote, to replace City Pacific is being frustrated by City Pacific desperately trying to delay its inevitable removal.

It is clearly a matter of great discomfort to the majority of unitholders that City Pacific is prepared to disregard the unitholders best interests and bring court action after court action, at the expense of members to overturn the clear wishes of the members.

Note that the law firm acting for City Pacific to frustrate investors replacing them was none other than McCoulough Robertson JH's partners law firm. Yes and they are at it again!!!

AS I HAVE POSTED BEFORE THIS NEEDS TO BE PUT UP TIME &TIME AGAIN..THANKYOU .......MARCOM

pifed · 24 June 2011

Congratulations to Peter and his PIFAG Team on their good work to date. It is starting to show good signs of Justice on the horison

DoraNBoots · 24 June 2011

Just a reminder that yesterday’s rent-a-crowd is not the first time a group has been paid to show support for WC. On 15 Sept 2008, WC advised some investors there would be a rally held by investors on the front steps of the WC building. The rally was to show support for WC and disapproval of ASIC taking WC to court (the judge ruled WC had mislead with regard to the "quarterly thereafter statements" in the Explanatory Memorandum)

Here's a picture of the rally of 'investors' that took place on the front steps of 307 Queen Street Brisbane 15 Sept 2008:
View attachment 43377

The members of the rally were of course not investors but uni students who were paid $75 cash each. WC were supplying bottled water. The students could not answer questions about the PIF when asked by a bystander. Their spokes person and organiser was not an investor in the PIF either.

The students were chanting and handing out a red flyer which among other things said "PIF off ASIC!!" The flyer had the same feel to it as the two anonymous letters all unit holders received in the mail recently.

Sutho81 · 25 June 2011

Does it strike anyone as odd how quick Hutson got the news release off to the NSX? It was posted on the NSX Website at 2:59pm. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00am.

So in a matter of hours Hutson had time to type up this letter and get it posted to the NSX ASAP. Perhaps she knew in advance that she had plans to get lost!

Anywonder no one could find her when they wanted her to address the meeting. She was too busy writing the NSX news release.

It seems to quick for me, Hutson has never been quick about anything in relation to our fund. News releases are few and far between, the website is rarely updated, the fund has gone backwards.

I just cant wait for her and her pack of cronies to be fired!

zixo · 25 June 2011

Newspapers have begun taking notice.

One's company, two's a crowd
Michael West
June 25, 2011
The Premium Income Fund is a misnomer. So distressing has this investment been that, if truth in advertising were a concern, it should really have been dubbed the Discount Income Fund, or perhaps the Income Obliteration Fund.

One would have thought that the archetypal PIF investor would have been a greying and beleaguered Queensland pensioner-type as the average age of the PIF investor is thought to be in the vicinity of 71.

Not on your nelly! Onlookers were dismayed to find that the swathe of PIF investors swanning about the unit holders' meeting on Thursday this week toting their how-to-vote cards looked more like the cast of Beverley Hills 90210 than Dad's Army.
Advertisement: Story continues below

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/ones-company-twos-a-crowd-20110624-1gjcn.html

zixo · 25 June 2011

If the last story isnt to convince people that wellington are not working in investors interests - please read another newspaper

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/e...ium-fund-meeting/story-e6frg8zx-1226081607396

SOMEONE hired 200 extras to stack a unitholders meeting of the beleaguered Premium Income Fund in Sydney -- a real estate investment vehicle that has so far lost about $600 million for 10,000 investors.

"We thought we were there for a film," said one attendee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Each person was given $100 and an envelope that contained a certificate for 100 units in the fund, worth around 8.5c each. One attendee involved said: "I became very suspicious. Isn't it illegal to issue a share certificate with my name on it without my permission?"

The extraordinary allegation is the latest twist in the saga of PIF, which was founded in Brisbane out of the ill-fated MFS group and which is now subject to an attempt by a group of unitholders to sack Wellington Capital, the company that had been appointed as trustee after PIF's near collapse.

But the extras ended up not being allowed into the real meeting to vote. The person who appears to have briefed them, Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital, said: "I didn't have a meeting. I just had a chat."

selciper · 25 June 2011

Hutson, in all probability, faces a massive challenge.

The SMH's Michael West is a senior journalist who, if his past form is any guide, doesn't ever let go of a good story. (He wrote a great deal about the PIF in 08.) The Australian piece adds extra pressure on WC. Do ASIC staff read the newspapers?

ASICK · 25 June 2011

selciper said:
Hutson, in all probability, faces a massive challenge.

The SMH's Michael West is a senior journalist who, if his past form is any guide, doesn't ever let go of a good story. (He wrote a great deal about the PIF in 08.) The Australian piece adds extra pressure on WC. Do ASIC staff read the newspapers?

In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?

JohnH · 25 June 2011

ASICK said:
In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?

Hutson's bullygirl tactics (from someone who in reality is our employee) are beyond belief.
It is so outrageous that they probably think the scenario is just a figment of 10,000 unit holders imagination.

selciper · 25 June 2011

ASICK said:
In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?

Perhaps ASIC staff don't make it past the celebrity gossip in newspapers. I believe that these "sleuths" operate in a cocoon. Here's a chance for the new chairman to demonstrate his acumen before his sleepy troops..

By the way, according to the SMH, a "former MFS director" was acting as a security guard at the Thursday EGM. Intriguing, eh?

marcom · 25 June 2011

selciper said:
Perhaps ASIC staff don't make it past the celebrity gossip in newspapers. I believe that these "sleuths" operate in a cocoon. Here's a chance for the new chairman to demonstrate his acumen before his sleepy troops..

By the way, according to the SMH, a "former MFS director" was acting as a security guard at the Thursday EGM. Intriguing, eh?

My best guess is it was David Burke. Here is some info on him and the other belevers in ENEMA-GRAM:

Company linked to controversial philosophy

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...mium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828971

AUSSIE Stock Forums, an internet chat site for investors, has been abuzz recently over the fact a number of close associates of Wellington Capital chief executive Jenny Hutson are devotees of a controversial philosophy focused on personality types.

Hutson business associate David Burke is the founder and director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies, which has close links to the Catholic Church.

The enneagram is a nine-pointed diametric figure which believers say can reveal nine distinct personalities. They claim it is a "psycho-spiritual framework that provides a wealth of information about human behaviour and condenses a great deal of wisdom into a compact system".

Critics, however, debunk it as new-age pseudoscience.

Burke served with Hutson on the board of the S8 Property Trust before it was acquired by now-defunct Gold Coast tourism and finance group MFS. He also joined the MFS board with Ms Hutson's business associate Chris Scott just months before it collapsed in late 2008.

Wellington compliance committee member Phillip Wibaux and five other Wellington employees are all Enneagram followers. A lawyer doing work for the firm is also a believer.

Burke and Wibaux are the sole directors and shareholders of an entity called Kooralbyn Asset Management. Wellington's Premium Income Fund remains the first mortgagee in possession of the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort on the Gold Coast, which shut down in mid-2008 owing $60 million.

The property failed to sell at auction in May last year and remains shuttered. Mr Wibaux is understood to serve as an overseer of the property.

Hutson said she was aware of the philosophy but was not a practitioner.

DepressedDad · 25 June 2011

How many fund managers turn up to meeting with a body guard? Honest hard working ones don't need to. Ask yourself WHY she needed to turn up with SIX body guards. If she has been acting in the investor's best interests why would she need to be flanked by so many???? We all know the answer to that. Let's hope the media also start putting these pieces together & start seeing that blatant actions such as that, BY HER, are evidence that she has wronged a lot of people and can expect them to be very angry!!!

marcom · 25 June 2011

Mutchy, two Chinese friends and I went over the Wellington proxy figures with an abacus and several bottles of Tsingtao Beer last night. Surprisingly, they could not achieve a correct balance even after alowing for the usual Chinese fuding fraction. Aparently this is common in Chinese business dealings - they called it "a little more for me, a little less for you!" After telling them what had happened at the meeting they said that in China she would be shipped out to a forced labour camp and subjected to daily business maths lessons! And as for the attempt to stack the meeting, they said "Bushi, Bushi Ta hen chajin (no, no that's awful) ".

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency