Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG. I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways. However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting. I know we are good but not that good. These people, according to WC, were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms. They were also told how to vote and why. (The PIFAG were not being fair) By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders? I don't think so, you might say "I know so." The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders. How is that fair and what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders. There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment. I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF. Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?

I am still staggered by the "ring ins" at the 23 June EGM

The main argument Wellington used to halt the 14 July EGM at the court hearings was the missing of 119 PIF investors with Memorandum notification of same EGM.

Your observation Charles36 on the "ring ins" shows up, in my opinion, a certain amount of duplicity in that main argument

charles36 said:

I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG. I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways. However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting. I know we are good but not that good. These people, according to WC, were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms. They were also told how to vote and why. (The PIFAG were not being fair) By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders? I don't think so, you might say "I know so." The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders. How is that fair and what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders. There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment. I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF. Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?

Click to expand...

I am no lawyer but I am rational enough to realise that Wellington ensured all unit holders got a proxy form and hence were well informed. I believe the PIFAG is indirectly responsible as they forced Wellingtons hand to send out proxies themself.

Is there a way we can challenge the court ruling and make an appeal based on the illegal activities of Wellington. We could easily argue that Wellington sought to maliciously and deliberatly sabotage the meeting by their actions.

Charles36 Perhaps the delay in Justice Dowsett completeing his judgement is because he is carefully researching all the documented evidence which was produced on behalf of the PIFAG and he is realising just how manipulative and deceiving the current PIF Responsible Entity is? Hopefully even judges keep up with the media, especially articles relating to current legal cases. I am still receiving calls from PIF unitholders and others who cannot believe the behaviour exercised by or on behalf of Wellington Capital related associates and the lack of intervention to date by our judiciary system and other regulatory bodies.
On another note, I sent the following to Wellington CapitasMs Hutson and Ms Snowl on Monday, but it appears to have been misplaced or perhaps WC staff have all been deployed to Forest Resort to mow the grass in preparation for the big PGA golf tournament::::

Dear Ms Hutson and Ms Snow,
Just to refresh your memories:
The following is a copy of the duties and responsibilities of the PIF's Compliance Committee which consists of the current mmbers::

Mary-Anne Greaves (internal member)



Phillip Wibaux (external member)



Troy Outerbridge (external member)



The functions of the Compliance Committee are governed by the Fund’s Compliance Plan and include:

monitoring compliance with the Compliance Plan and reporting its findings to the directors of the responsible entity at such times it considers necessary or desirable or the directors of the responsible entity require;


as soon as practicable, reporting to the board of any breach of the Corporations Act involving the Fund or a provision of the Constitution of which it becomes aware or that it suspects;

as soon as practicable, reporting to ASIC if the Compliance Committee is of the view that the responsible entity has not taken or does not propose to take appropriate action to deal with any issue so reported;

assessing annually (unless otherwise determined by the Compliance Committee) whether the Compliance Plans are adequate;


reporting on the adequacy of, and making recommendations to the board of the responsible entity about amendments to the Compliance Plans at such times as it considers necessary or desirable; and doing such other things as the Corporations Act requires.

In carrying out its functions, the Compliance Committee may commission independent legal ,accounting or other professional advice or assistance, at the reasonable expense of the Fund.

The duties of the members of the Compliance Committee are, to the extent that the Corporations Actand ASIC policy require, to:


act honestly;


exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if theywere in the member’s position;


not make use of information acquired through being a Compliance Committee member to


either gain an improper advantage for the member or another person or cause detriment t othe Fund;


not make improper us eof their position as a Compliance Committee member to gain (directly or indirectly) an advantage for themselves or for any other person or cause


detriment to the Fund; anddo such other things as the Corporations Act requires them to do, and not do such things as it prohibits them from doing.


In view of the fact that both yourself, Jenny Hutson, and Mary-Anne Greaves as PIF directors both signed off on the document below to amend the constitution which was later ruled as a breach of the existing constitution by Justice Gordon as it did not comply with section 601 of the Corporations Act and was revoked, should this not have been brought to ASICs attention by our compliance committee? Isn't it a conflict of interest and a serious breach of duties to have a compliance committee member, Mary-Anne Greaves who is also a director of the PIF sign off on an ammended deed poll which was ruled invalid ?

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pi...ease - change to constitution_10 may 2011.pdf



Seamisty

200 hired Actors at the sydney egm - fake protestors outside WC building in 2008.
The 30 golfers who attended the meeting in Sydney and then somehow the resort seems to snaffle the Victorian PGA?
coward Reation group letters sent to all investors with up the date client list?
The fact that WC havent assisted or persued in a class action which just happened to be one of the reasons they were voted in?
the fund evaporating money?
Registry impartiality?
phonecalls from a radar investor relations misinforming investors?
75 million shares secretly allocated to Sophisticated investors?
court action against your very own investors?
Ghost investor advisory vote?
raptis? geo? woolongong?

....We can go on and on and on.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who ever reads this thread and is even the slightest bit informed, or cares, can honestly believe that WC are working in the best interests of Investors.....but some do....WHY?

Thats the question I'd like answered.

breaker1 said:

I am still staggered by the "ring ins" at the 23 June EGM

The main argument Wellington used to halt the 14 July EGM at the court hearings was the missing of 119 PIF investors with Memorandum notification of same EGM.

Your observation Charles36 on the "ring ins" shows up, in my opinion, a certain amount of duplicity in that main argument

Click to expand...

I have been looking at some paperwork regarding transfers....

In 2007, new "Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Legislation " came into effect.

Reading the paperwork that I have, it seems that "we" (being the fund management) must verify the identity of all new investors into the fund, a process " similar to the 100 point check system already in use by other financial institutions''

Could new investors be on the registry without passing the points check ?

k.smith said:

I have been looking at some paperwork regarding transfers....

In 2007, new "Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Legislation " came into effect.

Reading the paperwork that I have, it seems that "we" (being the fund management) must verify the identity of all new investors into the fund, a process " similar to the 100 point check system already in use by other financial institutions''

Could new investors be on the registry without passing the points check ?

Click to expand...

for clarity, when I say "we" I am quoting the wording on a document that I received from a manager in another fund...

charles36 said:

I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG. I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways. However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting. I know we are good but not that good. These people, according to WC, were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms. They were also told how to vote and why. (The PIFAG were not being fair) By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders? I don't think so, you might say "I know so." The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders. How is that fair and what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders. There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment. I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF. Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?

Click to expand...

Thank you charles36 for this precis of JH BASTARDRY. It was soooo obvious to any level thinking "reasonable man" that the "induction" of "new investors" would be for the SOLE PURPOSE of crutching up Jenny's support at the crucial moment of a vote to oust her.
I castigated Judge Dowsett in a couple of earlier posts; by deliberately mis-spelling his name, for not including 2 questions:
"Who are these New Investors?" & "Was an updated Armstrong Register made available to PIFAG in line with ASIC guidelines?".
The FRAUD would have well been exposed right there and then.
I restore JD's correct spelling by hoping that his continuing investigation will produce
the ONLY conclusion possible in the light of existing damning evidence.
And he must access Weekend Australian July 16-17 article to nail the stake into WC for good.
Don't worry Judge, the red coat is not armour-plated. Tthe stake will go right through!
Again, huge thank you to THE TEAM. The horizon is appearing.
Warmest,

This is one definition of the verb 'dissolve': To cause to disappear or vanish; dispel.

Perhaps the 'stacking of meeting' is in line to be caused to disappear too, just like the meeting has vanished. Can you stack a meeting that is later shown not to exist?

Here is an interesting article re Firepower on just how useless ASIC are. Investors in the PIF know only too well the frustrations reflected in this article. Three and a half years on and we are still waiting on ASIC to act!!!!

How fraudsters can easily bring the watchdog to heel
July 24, 2011


Four years after a huge fraud was exposed, ASIC is celebrating a relatively technical victory about the way the Firepower gang sold shares. ASIC did hesitate to act - not moving until the game was pretty much over, just as it failed to move on Storm Financial until it was kaput.

But the surreal aspect is that ASIC and the legal system treats Firepower as if it was something like a real enterprise instead of a fraud.

Banning Tim Johnston from managing companies for 20 years would have been like banning Ronald Biggs in absentia from catching trains.

ASIC has nothing to be proud of in the Firepower matter. It is belatedly tidying up a mess it allowed to blossom


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-...ring-the-watchdog-to-heel-20110723-1hu5a.html

Seamisty

The Watchmites mandate is to act in only what they perceive to be in the public interest

It is such a broad interpretation of enforcing the so called, Corporations Act ,that in borders on absurdity .

I have stated before that the Corporations Act is no more than a Mission Statement, Brownies Honour Code or Wish List . It is open to all sorts of interpretation and exploitation by high profile lawyers.

This point was made personally to Bernie Ripoll who chairs the Financial Services Committee ,and I can inform you that he did not disagree.

zixo said:

200 hired Actors at the sydney egm - fake protestors outside WC building in 2008.
The 30 golfers who attended the meeting in Sydney and then somehow the resort seems to snaffle the Victorian PGA?
coward Reation group letters sent to all investors with up the date client list?
The fact that WC havent assisted or persued in a class action which just happened to be one of the reasons they were voted in?
the fund evaporating money?
Registry impartiality?
phonecalls from a radar investor relations misinforming investors?
75 million shares secretly allocated to Sophisticated investors?
court action against your very own investors?
Ghost investor advisory vote?
raptis? geo? woolongong?

....We can go on and on and on.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who ever reads this thread and is even the slightest bit informed, or cares, can honestly believe that WC are working in the best interests of Investors.....but some do....WHY?

Thats the question I'd like answered.

Click to expand...

Zixo

As you have previously stated the fact of the matter is that only a very small percentage of investors actually read ASF and therefore are not fully informed on exactly what is taking place with our Fund .

The recent article in the Australian was excellent, however once again I suspect that only a fraction of investors will ever get to read that account.

I do not know how many people attended the CasCap information sessions . I can verify that approximately 20 investors attended in Brisbane , and that the majority of these investors were already committed to voting for CASCAP .

Compare this to the stage managed presentations by WC , attended by thousands of investors where Jenny H presented herself as the saviour of our Fund.

I think it is fair to comment that Flying two CasCap executives to Brisbane, was not a well-organized exercise in getting the message across to investors , to say the least .

Quote Jade l"I thnk it is fair to comment that Flying two CasCap executives to Brisbane, was not a well-organized exercise in getting the message across to investors , to say the least"

Jadel, In the absence of any other better alternative RE to date who has been willing to put their hand in their pocket on our behalf, I think it fair to say that under the circumstances we are lucky that CasCap has supported us as much as they have.

Wellington Capital Ltd was paid $3.75million directly from the coffers of Octaviar, the same company who it appears had already robbed the PIF blind, (a fact that would have been known to WC), to cover PIF operating expenses and the cost of conducting the forums. This money was paid to WC even though WC had professed to having purchased (HAHA show us the proof!)the PIF shares held by Octaviar.

My point is, Wellington capital was PAID to take on the PIF. If it was such a basket case as investors were led to believe, why was WC (and still are) so hell bent on hanging on to the fund by any dishonest way imaginable? Because the PIF is the cash cow propping up Wellington Capitals other ailing subsiduaries and paying the wages and maintaining the lifestyles of all those associated hanger oners who don't give a rats about anyone but themselves.

I sincerely hope CasCap are prepared to help us take this further, they have invested substantially on our behalf already with nothing to show for it but an insight as to what a bunch of lowlifes we have to deal with.
Seamisty

I merely make the point that we may have a problem when it comes to the most effective method of disseminating certain facts concerning our fund .

Zixo is astounded as to why so many investors continue to support WC , and rightly so

As we are all aware ,from prior personal experience, some individuals do not easily change their minds once they have formed an opinion

Jadel said:

I merely make the point that we may have a problem when it comes to the most effective method of disseminating certain facts concerning our fund .

Zixo is astounded as to why so many investors continue to support WC , and rightly so

As we are all aware ,from prior personal experience, some individuals do not easily change their minds once they have formed an opinion

Click to expand...

Attention has been drawn to CasCap and I would just like to say, who let CasCap down, was it the unit holders, the PIFAG or people who could have helped organise the meeting but sat on their hands and did nothing. Now is not the time to hold post mortems. I look forward to all the people (unit holders and volunteers) to join together at the appropriate time to gather the support necessary to topple WC which so many unit holders have no confidence. Who said the last attempt was not a success on the part of PIFAG and others to garner the necessary support to oust WC. We were up front and provided our proxies to an independent registry and even on the alleged numbers "cobbled" together by WC, I believe we would have one if both side's proxies were scrutinised by Computershare, a totally independent company.

In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund.
Its easier for the authorities and people to stand by and let others do the hard yards rather than becoming involved or actually giving a damn.

How many people have pestered their federal members of parliament or lodged a complaint with ASIC?

Had justice allowed the meeting to take place on the 14th of July. Theres little doubt cascap would be explaining very clearly and concisely what has happened to the fund since wellington were handed the controls by Octaviar.

The reason that Wellington took the actions they did when confronted with an EGM and investor revolt was because Perhaps the books they are in trust of would indeed show that preserving the interests of the former directors was paramount. Thats we had to repay loans which suddenly appeared in the fund and the books may just well show the fact that the lack of accounting for how these things happened has to be explained.

How can anyone think that up to this point that The law in this country is an ass.
We're to blame for allowing corrupt behavior to go un-answered and doing nothing at all levels.

Lets see how justice Dowsett sees things. Perhaps he isnt wearing the Mr Magoo glasses like everyone else.

In my opinion, Wellington Capital Ltd owes the PIF approx $18million for wrongly ammending the constituition by deed poll, which permitted the issue of 75.5 million new units at a heavily discounted price which could not be cancelled, causing a dilution to existing unitholders.
Does anyone think it worth asking our one unknown IAC member to table a proposal on behalf of unitholders that WC compensate the Fund for their behaviour which was ruled not in the best interests of existing unitholders by Justice Gordon?
Does anyone think that our Compliance Committee would have lodged a complaint with ASIC in relation o the same issue?
Does anyone who voted for WC still think that WC are working in the best interests of unit holders?
Oh and by the way, I am still waiting for a response from Wellington capital from a week ago for the following:


Dear Ms Hutson and Ms Snow,

PIF AG members would like some more detail relating to the NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724211.PDF regarding the PGA contract with Forest Resort as it lacks important details.



At what cost to the PIF is the annual contract fee?

It appears the golf course is not currently up to PGA championship standard, how much does WC envisage it will cost the PIF to upgrade the facility to host such an event?

What nett annual financial benefit to the PIF does WC envisage this contract will bring after all expenses are deducted?

The Forest Resort is currently part of an active marketing campaign, it is well known in the golfing paternity that other venues which have hosted similar events have done so at a substantial financial loss. Knowing the Forest Resort is locked into a 5 year contract to host a two tier golf event which are renowned for not drawing large crowds, wouldn't this be seen as a potential financial burden for any prospective purchaser?



The Forest Resort is involved in current litigation with the original developer and WC relating to premature foreclosure. Should it be proved that WC were negligent in their duties by invalidly appointing Korda Mentha where does the PIF stand with an outstanding 5 year contract?

Simple but relevant questions yes? Why is it SO DIFFICULT then for Wellington Capital, with all their so called transparency of late to answer such simple questions if they are indeed focussed on working in the best interests of PIF unitholders as they would like to delude some into believing?
Surely these questions would have been original concerns addressed by a diligent responsible entity before such a contract would have been signed off on?
So many unanswered questions are of real concern, are the answers so bad WC are reluctant to provide them or is the WC team embarrassed because they have no answers?
Seamisty

Refer Seamisty's post #8337 above.

Thanks, Seamisty, for keeping track of the many issues and history of what's happened to the PIF.

I'm assuming many of your questions above are rhetorical in nature since it seems that the "supposed" IAC...are faceless people, if they ever did exist. And look at who is on the Compliance Committee; we certainly can't expect them to act in our best interests, can we? We should be able to but obviously not in our case.

The judge could have stipulated that WC had to reimburse the fund for the damage done to it by the placement of 75.5 million units since she determined it was done in contravention of the Corporations Act; she just couldn't figure out how to undo the damage done. WC owes the PIF the amount by which she willingly, knowingly and wrongfully diluted the investment of the original unitholders.

Lots of valid questions about the golf tournament and cost to the PIF need to be answered by WC. It seems absurd to take on sponsoring such an event when it's obvious WC is winding up the PIF as fast as possible.

What more does WC have to do to PIF investors before ASIC will do its job?

I applaud and thank Castlereagh Capital for all they've done for us and the financial backing they've given the PIF Action Group Inc and hope and pray they will continue with us in this challenge to replace WC. There's no way we could have come this far without them. As Charles36 says, we need all the help we can get when we're ready to take the next step in our quest to rid ourselves of the plague that beset us 3 years ago.

Cookie1

zixo said:

In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How can anyone think that up to this point that The law in this country is an ass. We're to blame for allowing corrupt behavior to go un-answered and doing nothing at all levels.
Lets see how justice Dowsett sees things. Perhaps he isnt wearing the Mr Magoo glasses like everyone else.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a 20/20 vision of our venerated Judiciary was not academically achieved by the current panel of adjudicators on the conduct of our incalcitrant wrongdoers.

From abovementioned article by Andrew MAIN, Weekend Australian 16-17 July:

[Justice Dowsett commented that the scheme involving the extras was "rent a no vote... or rent an entitlemnt to vote" but has not expressed a formal view of the extras scheme.]

The Wrongdoers of this world have Just said a huge "thank you" for this gem of judicial prevarication. It is your job, Judge, and duty to adjudicate at those crucial moments of impaired visions.

To continue:
[But he ruled on Wednesday July 13 that the meeting had not been validly called. That was because the group which it, the PIF Action Group had not used an up-to-date-share register in (sic) circulating members.]
[Justice Dowsett refused to allow the last-minute, backdated registration to be called a fraud, but conceded that it was a "possible irregularity on the register".

"Possible" you muse, "Possible"???
Where did the collective accumulation of FRAUD DEFINITIONS, encrusted by countless Precedents for you to access, gone to ???

Thousands, 10,000 plus, continue to suffer. On the brink of personal fatalities up to and including losses of lives, while you Judge, practice a personal role in this Theatre of the Absurd that is this blighted Australian Judiciary.*
A role of "Protector" of less than 200 in no financial abyss to speak of.

With protection like this for the Wrongdoers; who needs Mafia.

As another week stretches our endurance further towards its end point, I urge you Justice D not to make me go back to mis-spelling your name.
Make this week of Deliberations count towards your redemption in our eyes.

Patience Jenny; I will get back to you as soon as I get this important message to Judge Doubtsett.

Zixo, anyone,
Can I get advice on how to access Judge's net-site to send this post along.
Seems to be the "in-thing".

*(Singo getting off speeding charge; now there's an enduring and oft followed Precedent)

-

zixo said:

In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund.
Its easier for the authorities and people to stand by and let others do the hard yards rather than becoming involved or actually giving a damn. ...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you think that the legal system let you down. I take the view that it didn't make any sense to take a 'head in the sand' approach to W.C.'s claims.

There is no point blaming the justice system (which will decide on strict points of law) when the issues should have been resolved before the meeting proceeded with in any case.

I think the best that can be hoped for is that both parties leave the court with wins and wounds, but there's no harm in wishing for a miracle.