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
seamisty said:
Another proposed WC Capital Raising:http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724205.PDF
Click to expand...

This basically means that WC have taken steps to absolutely ensure that if PIFAG do not win at this EGM we will never ever get another chance.

I went into court today , complex deliberations on precisely which provisions of the Corporations Act apply, including those points recently mentioned by Duped.

A decision will probably be reached tomorrow morning .
 
W.C. promised not to encumber the fund - however, in my opinion, a capital raising in the circumstances has precisely the same effect as debt would on investors. Any new investment will be secured by the fund's assets ahead of existing investors. It'll be interesting to see the terms of any offer.
 
WC today, in one day, made four separate announcements for transactions on 4 of PIF's assets.

Can someone please describe what a fire sale of assets would look like? Or what a liquidatioin of assets looks like?
 
Just received my call from the call centre re my vote ...

amazingly that WC are still calling investors at this late hour while they are suggesting victory re the NSX announcement...WHY ? ? ?

I voiced my opinion in no uncertain terms, and pointed in particular to the rights issue... and NO, I would not be voting for Wellington Capital...

 
Maybe they are getting the Armstrong registry in order k.smith? WC would find it hard to justify having names on pink slips voting for WC who previously said they would not vote for either turning up on both registers??? I made notes of anyone who previously said they would not vote myself and recently followed up on those, some who have since changed their minds and decided to vote for CasCap after the rent a crowd disgrace.

I also spoke to my old high school headmaster who had previously voted for WC but changed his vote when he received the 'dirt mail' ( He must have forgiven me for being such a turd of a student!!!)

Seamisty
 
Duped said:
WC today, in one day, made four separate announcements for transactions on 4 of PIF's assets.

Can someone please describe what a fire sale of assets would look like? Or what a liquidatioin of assets looks like?
Click to expand...
And some PIF unitholders were a tad wary because Bri Ferrier (not Castlereagh Capital) is involved with administration, restructuring and administration? The biggest liquidator to date with our assets has been Wellington Capital except that the majority of the returns are being absorbed by Wellington Capitals operating and legal expenses. One of todays announcements state:

'13 Contracts – Residential Development, Forest Resort, Creswick, Victoria
(Mortgagee in possession)
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that
13 contracts have been exchanged in relation to the residential land component of the Forest Resort located
at Creswick, Victoria.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is selling the 13 lots within
the residential development at Forest Resort as mortgagee in possession.
The residential development comprises 11 stages and forms part of the underlying security property located
at Forest Resort, Creswick.
Three contracts will settle within days and the balance within 12 months from today.'


Er HELLO!! Why would WC need a stuffing 12 month deferred contract? WC have taken over two years to sell two lots of land at discounted prices then out of the blue 13 lots are supposedly sold on the never never? Er, or is that so that WC can plead 'this contract may fall over if WC is removed as RE'??? Heard that before YEH?
The titles are freely available and have been for two years!!!! Another Claytons Contract trotted out at the eleventh hour perhaps??? Or some more cronies calling in favours in case the :fan?

Seamisty
 
Seamisty,
The thing that blows my mind is that Unitholders are quite supportive of the AG organised Class action which was not only paid for and started by Action group members. And support the AG as we continue to pursue it vigilantly whilst constantly being blockaded by unspeakable tactics.

WHY has WC continually thrown out NSX statements willy nilly as if they are doing something, yet they wont even consider addressing their very own investors at a genuine Investor meeting whilst they were in attendance?

I predict that if WC is retained the fund will hit an artery and bleed like never before, then and only then will unitholders HOPE the action group will do something to stem the flow.

What ALL Unit holders need to realise is that they have only this one chance, to have a say about how WC and their predecessors Octaviar have treated us.
 
ZIXO I hear you!! I sincerely hope that if the EGM goes ahead as scheduled this Thurs, that every single PIF unitholder, especially those PIF Action Group members that signed up for the Class Action support the very investors that put their necks on the line originally!! Many contributed financially to secure legal representation when it was MADE VERY CLEAR that WELLINGTON CAPITAL was in NO WAY going to assist the investors of the PIF to pursue compensation from the former auditors etc. Quite the contrary. It was only recently when Wellington Capital realised that this could be used detrimentaly against them in the quest to remove them as RE that jennearous WC saw fit to announce cooperation!! Please PIF unitholders living in the Sydney CBD (and elsewhere)attend the EGM and show your appreciation and support to your fellow investors who have worked so hard and honestly on your behalf and cannot make it to the meeting.
We have witnessed the dirty tactics and dishonest lengths that some are prepared to go to ensure that the PIF stays where it is as a cash cow until it is milked totally dry.

Seamisty
 

hi all we to received a call from wc sat 9th july driving our motorhome in tweed head we ask to call back in 10min to pull over .......must of realised ho they were ringing havenot heard from them sorry jenny love to tell u what i think of u
 
I am now very optimistic that JH hasn't the numbers she claims to have.
She wouldn't have made public those dubious contracts at this stage without need.
Anyway, I am very much afraid that those contracts are not favourable to us investors.
Everything that JH was doing seems in my opinion to be to the disadvantage of
the unitholders.

So there is really the urgent need to attend the meeting on Thursday.

I will be there!!!!
 
Well I'm a tad pissed off, I did not receive a ph call from Radar or any from WC re my voting preference who also proffess to be concerned about PIF unitholders who were unaware of the EGM etc not being fully informed of the current situation.
Well I can assure all PIF unitholders there are original developers of PIF related properties who are justifiably more pissed off at being given the run around by Wellington Capital because after having taken legal action over 2 years ago they are still waiting for WC to produce 'discovery' through the courts as to how they justified sending in Korda Mentha to take control of a PIF asset which they claim was not in default of their original MFS/OCV loan.
If this action was indeed justified why can't Wellington Capital after 2+years produce the documents to support their action?? Do these documents exist or is WC stalling the legal action because they cannot afford any more adverse media attention? Who knows?? One thing we can all be assured of is that the PIF will be responsible for legal costs. (for the time being at least but rest assured it is well documented for further reference)
Seamisty
 
Litigation Update
The Federal Court Proceedings 140/2011 which were heard before Justice Dowsett on 6 and 7 July 2011
continued before his Honour yesterday Monday 11 July 2011.
The hearing continues before Justice Dowsett from 9.30am today, 12 July 2011.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724208.PDF
 

Yes it is a worry K Smith

One would not think that nobody in their right mind ,would be prepared to make such an announcement , after the previous capital raising had been ruled to be detrimental to investors,by a court of law .Unless of course they are of the opinion that the outcome has already been decided in their favour

The announcement has also been carefully crafted . It states that “ Issues relating to the meeting are resolved “ rather than a decision made by investors at the meeting. This begs the question of exactly how quickly WC can proceed with this Capital Raising. ???
 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/bank-refuses-rebels-compromise/story-fn6ck2gb-1226092628837

"BRISBANE merchant bank Wellington Capital rejected a compromise plan offered last night by rebel investors hoping to remove it as manager of a beleaguered $264 million mortgage fund. ...

"However, Wellington counsel Philip Morrison, QC, said he could not agree since there were still unresolved problems with proxies, the registry, a quorum, selection of a meeting chairman and a snapshot date stemming from PIFAG's aborted June 23 meeting.
Justice John Dowsett reiterated his view that the process had already been hopelessly compromised and "it would be better if we just start afresh".
He said it was preferable to have a "clean break" and hold a new meeting under fresh auspices because the technical "damage done" earlier could not be repaired."

Ummmm how is starting afresh going to resolve those "unresolved problems". If there's difference of legal opinion then there's differences of legal opinion. They're not going to magically go away by "starting afresh". Isn't the definitition of sanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

"Justice Dowsett again criticised PIFAG for failing to send a notice of meeting to some of almost 11,000 investors.He said the group could have asked Wellington to call the meeting rather than rely on a dated register from February 9. Because the notice did not go out until May 16, the register had 119 new investors and 263 who had different addresses." [emphasis added]


S252G merely requires written notice be given individually to each member. Sending to an address is merely a procedural convenience. PIFAG could have served the notices in person if it chose to do so. All S252G requires is that written notice be given individually.


"119 new investors" Do we really know if they are indeed new investors? (Actually the Corporations Act calls them "members") Or are they in fact actually only just new share holdings/investments of existing members? Has the Federal Court actually checked every one of the names of these "new investors" against the other 10 thousand+ names?



Isn't the whole 'address' thing for identifying "members" a procedural convenience? Where in S252G is it prescribed that notice be given to addresses on a register?


Furthermore, if some of those "new investors" are companies. Then hasn't that company been notified individually if each of the directors of that company has been notified in writing through another PIF holding?


From my lay perspective it seems speculative to assume that a member hasn't been notified individually if PIFAG didn't send a letter to every address on the register. And S252G merely states that



"Notice to members, directors and auditors individually
(1) Written notice of a meeting of a registered scheme's members must be given to:"


In fact sub section S252G(3) merely says "How notice is given": "may give notice" in person, by post, fax or electronic address. [emphasis added]


S252G (3) (b) even states that an RE doesn't even need to post to an address listed on the register.


"by sending it by post to the address for the member in the register of members or an alternative address (if any) nominated by the member; " [emphasis added]

"He said the group could have asked Wellington to call the meeting rather than rely on a dated register from February 9."

ASKED WELLINGTON TO CALL A MEETING to have itself removed? What? Did I read that right?

"rely on a dated register" How dated is it given the thin turn over? More dated than a week old register that has 20 times the turnover?

Of course PIFAG could have done better. We all can always do better. That's waht drives technical innovations and new legislation. That's not the question. The question is: did PIFAG do as much as others have been allowed to get away with.
 
Regarding investors missing out due to change of address: How many people move address and don't have their mail forwarded for a minimum of 3 months, and usually longer...at least 6 months? I can't see how those people who moved to another location would have missed out on their notification.

Have the returned mail notifications been checked against the list of investors who changed address? I would think there would be very few to none, given the Australia Post forwarding service.
 
"S252G(3) How notice is given
Unless the scheme's constitution provides otherwise, the responsible entity may give notice of the meeting to a member: ...
(b) by sending it by post to the address for the member in the register of members or an alternative address (if any) nominated by the member; or"


How about this for an interestiong exercise? I nominate this ASF thread to be the address to which individual notice is given.
 
Another NSX announcement: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724210.PDF

NSX Release: 12 July 2011

Litigation Update

The hearing of the Federal Court Proceedings 140 of 2011 continued today before Justice Dowsett. His Honour has asked for final submissions in writing by 4.00pm today.

His Honour has indicated that judgement in relation to the proceedings and the notice of meeting will be delivered tomorrow, 13 July 2011.

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses. Premium Income Fund
 

Good point about the return notifications. What duty is there on the RE to chase members so that S252G can be satisfied? Absolutely none? What, not even a reminder in all those Updates, Announcements, Reports and Webpages? Does anyone recall seeing any reminder whatsoever from WC saying that members should make sure they can be contacted so that e.g. S252G can be complied with?
 
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...