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
Furthermore, if Hutson is truly so averse to 'extreme disappointment' for unit holders, she could have so easily simply forewarned the convenors that she intended to enforce clauses 10.7 to 10.10 of the consititution. Clause 10.1: "The Chairman of the Board is entitled to take the chair at every general meeting." It seems that instead of liaising with the convenors prior to the meeting to ensure it proceeded smoothly to avoid an "extremely disappointing" outcome for "unit holders who have chosen to participate", the Hutson lead WC was busy applying to the court to stop the meeting.

Again, I can't find the consistency between this Hutson lead WC conduct and Hutson's words quoted in the June 22 NSX announcement "it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011."

Why did Hutson insist on taking the Chair? The constitution says that Hutson was "entitled to take the chair". The constitution does not say Hutson MUST take the chair. Does it? Couldn't the RE and Board just as easily discharged their duties by offering their opinions to the Chair rather than actually Chairing the meeting themselves? They were offered to address the meeting. Wouldn't this have been sufficient to discharge their duties to the investors?

Any WC supporters out there have a reason? Are there any of you left? If so, you're being very quiet?

Any more comments from the AFR?

On a lighter note the band Extreme had a hit with 'More Than Words'.
 
Once a business name is associated with the word "farce" (AFR headline) it will head in only one direction - down.

I well recall the comment made by an analyst at King's fateful 08 video conference: "Michael, the game's up." How long will it be before a similar phrase is addressed towards Wellinngton?
 
Hello PIF friends in Nerang QLD,
I am coming over to your lovely paradise for a 2 day (weekend 2-3 July) sports participation at Sports Centre 1 Herbertson Drive, Molendinar.
Would be nice to meet over coffee and enjoy an exchange of expletives, invectives and disparagements we all have penned up without an outlet till 14th.
If you are like minded and willing to share your repertoire with me, please communicate through "Notifications" before noon Thursday tomorrow.
I expect to be in Nerang Friday 9-10 am for look-around before playing on Saturday.
Be well, keep the Faith,
simgrund
 
Two questions to the more knowledgeable.

1. When WC issued/sold the shares to the sophisticated investors, should there not have been a "notification of change of substantial share holding" published"

2. Does ASX rule 7.1 or similar apply to NSX issues? (the 15% rule)?

................ John H
 
I can meet up with you at that time, what place? Kind regards
 
JohnH said:
...

1. When WC issued/sold the shares to the sophisticated investors, should there not have been a "notification of change of substantial share holding" published"
................ John H
Click to expand...

Hi JohnH,
Since there has been no disclosure I assume that each Placement buyer bought units worth less than 5% of the fund.
The NSX Periodic Disclosure document found here states:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/practice_notes/PN09-PeriodicDisclosure.pdf
"It is a requirement under the corporations Act to lodge substantial shareholder notices for any person that holds 5% or more of a listed entity to the NSX."​
 

Thanks DnB......... so Alfie's disclosures were purely PR!?
 
Perhaps I'm being naïve, but isn't it illegal to try and stack a meeting of investors with people who have been appointed as shareholders only hours before the meeting solely for stacking purposes, and without their consent? And isn't it illegal to issue shares to persons who have not knowingly applied for them?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is “Yes”, can't a complaint be made to the police so that the perpetrators can be charged?
 
JohnH said:
Thanks DnB......... so Alfie's disclosures were purely PR!?
Click to expand...

I think it was necessary for ALF because they were involved in a takeover bid for all units in the PIF.

The NSX Periodic Disclosure document states:
"Substantial Shareholder Notices...Timetable for Reporting:...By 9.30 am of the next business day of the relevant financial market after they become aware of the information in the case where a take over bid is operation."
 
Hi DoraNBoots,
I am trying to send you a reply via Email with all the toppings.
It takes ages and is still in progress.
I broke it into 2 parts and it's still chortling.
This is a shortie to let you know I am in responding gear.
See you in Sydney.
simgrund
 

Shafted - I bet that quite a few investors would like an answer to your questions about stacking meetings. I came across this brief offering about political branch stacking which is possibly some guide. Perhaps someone can find more comprehensive comments on the subject of stacking EGMs and the law. (Wikipedia has an entry on the matter which I haven't yet perused.)

http://cartledged.blogspot.com/2005/09/branch-stacking.html
 
FROM the Sydney Morning herald Today
If this doesn't convince Investors that something fishy is going on, I dont know what will?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/well...rigged-voting-court-claim-20110630-1gt4o.html

Wellington Capital boss faces rigged voting court claim
Colin Kruger, Michael West
July 1, 2011


AN AFFIDAVIT being lodged with the Federal Court today implicates the Wellington Capital boss Jenny Hutson in a bizarre scheme, involving hired actors, to ensure her company did not get removed as manager of the embattled Premium Income Fund (PIF).

The document alleges Ms Hutson was involved in an orchestrated attempt to subvert the outcome of a meeting of PIF investors, by signing up a rent-a-crowd of as many as 200 people to temporarily become PIF investors and vote in her favour.

PIF units were transferred into their names for the duration of the June 22 investors meeting so they could support Ms Hutson's bid to chair the meeting.
 
It seems to me that WC hired the 200 crowd knowing that it would outnumber the 150 genuine investors. The conclusion being that there may be a spy in the camp?
 
No doubt in my mind that the must-read SMH article in today's edition is very, very important. I think that there's an office in Brisbane where the staff have a sinking feeling.
 
I read Michael West's article in the Herald with great interest, particularly the statement " ...the forms gave the addresses of the freshly minted PIF investors as 11/6-10 O'Connell Street, Sydney."

So I Googled that address and guess what I found - the hubby's law firm!

MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON LAWYERS - Level 11/ 6-10 O'Connell St Sydney
[Site popularity rank: #2,500,471] www.infoguideaustralia.com/sydney/.../mccullough-robertson-lawy... - Cached
Address Level 11/ 6-10 O'Connell St. Neighbourhood Sydney. City Sydney. Province NSW. PC 2000. Telephone number Telephone number :: MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
426
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...