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.
So ASICK, in your view the Magistrate who let the driver off on a drink-drive charge (4x the legal limit, a recent case) is not to be blamed because he views the driver as a "good person" ???
The bleeding "do-gooders" tweeked another girdle in the human engineering structure of an "up-yours" Aussie.
Would you agree that such impunity leaves community in further danger.
Tear shed,
My thoughts exactly asick, to many of these people,on to many occassions have blamed everybody else, as i have said in a previous thread our barristers should have been aware of these issues before we went ahead.First I would say that it makes NO SENSE to criticize the judiciary BEFORE a decision is to be handed down - what sense would it make to offend the judge? In fact, I couldn't think of anything more counter-productive.
Second, you cannot compare a decision from a Magistrates Court with one from the Federal Court. Magistrates have broads discretionary powers in many matters which come before them.
Third, you have to accept the claim was in the system and your side knew it was there. To my mind, it was like sailing a ship over a mine hoping that it was dud.
I remain with the view that it was a mistake in judgement to continue on with the meeting while the court case was pending, a mistake which members should accept and move on - otherwise it would be to wrongly externalize blame, like the guy who kicks a rock and says "bl**dy rock".
Your ship sailed, and the mine wasn't a dud.
First I would say that it makes NO SENSE to criticize the judiciary BEFORE a decision is to be handed down - what sense would it make to offend the judge? In fact, I couldn't think of anything more counter-productive.
Second, you cannot compare a decision from a Magistrates Court with one from the Federal Court. Magistrates have broads discretionary powers in many matters which come before them.
Third, you have to accept the claim was in the system and your side knew it was there. To my mind, it was like sailing a ship over a mine hoping that it was dud.
I remain with the view that it was a mistake in judgement to continue on with the meeting while the court case was pending, a mistake which members should accept and move on - otherwise it would be to wrongly externalize blame, like the guy who kicks a rock and says "bl**dy rock".
Your ship sailed, and the mine wasn't a dud.
My thoughts exactly asick, to many of these people,on to many occassions have blamed everybody else, as i have said in a previous thread our barristers should have been aware of these issues before we went ahead.
Flatback
Agh!
The harpers are outing themselves.
The Doubtsett brigade convenening for the purpose of "balance" straight from
political correctness manual !?!?!?!?!?!?!
Whether a Magistrate or a Judge; understandings of Ethics must pass the SAME STANDARD.
To which us, mere plebeians that we are, the Fate does not bind.
Lucky you.
Cheers,
Agh!
The harpers are outing themselves.
The Doubtsett brigade convenening for the purpose of "balance" straight from
political correctness manual !?!?!?!?!?!?!
Whether a Magistrate or a Judge; understandings of Ethics must pass the SAME STANDARD.
To which us, mere plebeians that we are, the Fate does not bind.
Lucky you.
Cheers,
What's your point? Who's failed your 'ethics test'?
Why do You ask? It is so obvious!!
How can Yoy blame again CasCap for proceeding with the meeting.
They had to hold it. It had been called and JH would have hold the meeting
at the Grace with those rent ins and would have claimed victory.
Could it be the case that You are symphatetic to JH and disappointed that she
didn't have success?
I'm sorry to see that you seem to have developed an irrational belief that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow aligned with the manager of your fund.
"How can you blame ... CasCap for proceeding with the meeting."? Well, easy - very easy - they continued on with the meeting while a trial on the Notice was pending.
There was a claim by Wellington Capital that the Notice of Meeting was defective - what is the point of having the meeting and then risk having a judge rule the meeting invalid because the Notice was defective?
It wasn't just CasCap's costs that were at risk, but also the travel and other expenses of members of your fund - members deserve certainty. Many of your members are now out of pocket, money some might have found difficult to expend but did so because of the call by members to other members to attend the meeting. Even the stop/start of the change of date may have cost members extra.
The only way certainty could be ensured was to resolve the legal issues which your side had notice of. Actually (as I've previously posted), I was surprised that the judge didn't press the parties to conclude the legal proceeding before members would meet.
Cascap's costs are tax deductible but I'll bet for those investors on a low income stream there's no such benefit for them.
Maybe the cost of attending the meeting was nothing to you, but to others, even tax deductible, was still expensive.
You ask why I ask the obvious? Well, beause I don't get the gist of your argument - is it that the court lacks ethics? if so, which court/s? and what are the ethics so lacking?
You seem to be avoiding the issues and shooting the messenger.
What's your point? Who's failed your 'ethics test'?
Asick, I am loathe to buy into this issue but as you have obviously read the judgment could you please enlighten us all with your version of what His Honour has determined. I do not and never will shoot the messenger. I was at the meeting and heard what was said. Did you attend the meeting in question? Also you continue to give us the benefit of your thoughts which is appreciated. Do you have any particular message for legitimate unit holders in relation to the so called "renta crowd." Is this course of conduct permissible and was it a benefit to all unit holders or just for the benefit of WC?
ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:
http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF
"Meeting scheduled for 23 June 2011
Wellington Capital has agreed not to proceed with its interlocutory proceedings in the Federal Court. The Court ordered that the interlocutory proceeding be dismissed.
The consequence is that tomorrow’s meeting of Unitholders, will proceed as planned as follows:
23 June 2011 at 11.00am
Pinaroo Room,
77 York Street, Sydney
Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund said:
‘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.’ "
Would you agree that dropping the interlocutory proceedings and then making such a statement could lead the market to believe that WC's claims against the meeting would be completely dropped? If so, then isn't it illegal to mislead the market?
Why drop the interlocutory proceedings to stop the meeting going ahead if you have no intention of dropping claims the meeting was invalidly called? That's the question the market would have asked?
Aagh again!
An outsider spoiling for a fight.
Other threads through which you prowl don't excite nor fulfill your primordial
needs to obstruct for the sake of obstructing, egh?
Well Ken, or Shmen, or Wren or any other whistle you respond to:
I don't, as a principle, indulge in impenetrable imbecility.
You will have to earn your right to snare anyone into word-i-cuffs with you.
Here's your right of passage.
Firstly, analyse and explain the following passages to the puzzled folk of this thread:
[I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense. It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway. Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.]
you need to show why the writer thinks that a Manager targeted for replacement should be the Chair
[In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.]
you need to show why the writer thinks it is necessary to state such bleatingly obvious truth to an intelligent audience
[If it is the case that members feel uncomfortable with the fund's registry (even any level of distrust is a sad state of affairs), then the action group could simply ask members to direct their proxy to the fund's registry and cc to Castlereagh Capital?]
you need to show writer's star gazing qualifications
[From an outsider's perspective, I think there's been too much effort on chairing the meeting in circumstances where the meeting itself probably wouldn't have shifted sentiment one iota (IMO).]
you need to explain why the writer, as an Outsider, meddles in affairs he has not one iota of expertise in.
And a closing general question: Why writer predicates many of his/her pronouncements with "if".
After all: "IF" man's nipples could lactate, how different the world would be.
Please feel free to take all the time you need to provide requested analysis
With hearty cheers,
ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:
http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF
"Meeting scheduled for 23 June 2011
Wellington Capital has agreed not to proceed with its interlocutory proceedings in the Federal Court. The Court ordered that the interlocutory proceeding be dismissed.
The consequence is that tomorrow’s meeting of Unitholders, will proceed as planned as follows:
23 June 2011 at 11.00am
Pinaroo Room,
77 York Street, Sydney
Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund said:
‘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.’ "
Would you agree that dropping the interlocutory proceedings and then making such a statement could lead the market to believe that WC's claims against the meeting would be completely dropped? If so, then isn't it illegal to mislead the market?
Why drop the interlocutory proceedings to stop the meeting going ahead if you have no intention of dropping claims the meeting was invalidly called? That's the question the market would have asked?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?