To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting. Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).
Inane it may be; but can you provide an intelligent answer?
And to previous confront about your associations with WC, PIF Reaction mob???
Still hiding??? You have been warned before that the Outing is near!
In waiting mode,
To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting. Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).
And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC. As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF.
The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting? Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out. But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:
"[18] ...[FONT="]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.
[[/FONT][FONT="]19] [/FONT][FONT="]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh. Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks. Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute. It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings. It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence. Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]
Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair. The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair. But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair. This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right? Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly. But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting? After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned.
Just some musings from a lay casual observer.
To Simgrund (in waiting mode), you set out your questions in a clear and concise manner in a new posting, and I'll be happy to attend to each and every one of them.
Further, you make allegations that I'm associated with WC and PIF Reaction.
If you don't tender proof of your allegations by the presentation of clear evidence on this forum, then you should apologize and ask the moderator to remove posting # 8401, otherwise I will make a complaint to the moderator that you, Simgrund, are making defamatory statements on this forum.
Simgrund, you seem to lack the technical skills to deal with the issues confronting members of your fund, rather you prefer to engage in nonsensical verbiage, which in the end, takes everybody nowhere.
A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:
A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:
Far from vendetta. It is important that the disinformation is stopped cold dead in its tracks. As Duped does in a post immediately preceding ably supported by charles36.
If I can contribute with the others to flush these disseminators out, then I will continue to do it. It is working splendidly so far.
Views of many are expressed against ASICK's undermining campaign.
And with Moderator's much appreciated tolerance.
These issues are beyond personal. they are binding all of us.
Cheers,
Are you saying that you believe that from the second the motion to sack WC is carried that all of WC's duties and responsibilities end. Even to act on the motion that was carried before they were sacked? Don't need to "compell" WC when it's a a huge cash entitlement that should mean WC will be only to happy to act on. Remember that WC raised ~$7M in the recent placement. Which I'm guessing is probably about the right amount to pay WC its ~$5M termination fee, whatever the WC appointed agents McCollough Robertson will be owed by PIF and whatever Armstrong Registry Services bills PIF.I think that once the manager is ousted, then the manager is ousted,...
OK then. So WC should have disclosed to members that WC had not been invited to be the Chair, that WC intended to enforce it's entitlement to the chair and that if WC wasn't given the chair then it WC might withhold proxiesto prevent a breach of a clause of the constitution.However, if it was the case that the order of motions was a critical issue, then that should have been disclosed to members.
That's right. A lot of this could be swept under the carpet because 372 (~3%) investors MAY have not been individually notified.... moot given that the judge found the Notice was defective in any event.
ASICK. No need to force sales of assets and/or go to court to enforce rights. The cash bags are packed and ready from the last placement aren't they? If one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush then what about two birds in the hand.
If you think about it, if WC is ousted, then I don't think they could write the $5m cheque, in which case, if a new manager believed that WC was not entitled to the payment, then any dispute would necessarily end up in court for resolution.
If the court orders the payment, then the source of the money is a moot point.
If WC is not ousted then there's no need to write the cheque and the cash bags wouldn't be used for that purpose. However, there is the issue (as I understand it), that if a certain value is returned to investors, then WC would be entitled to management fees.
Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what? back to the game?
I think what we're all seeing is the danger in allowing even the slightest amendment to a fund's constitution go down without very very close scrutiny by investors, hence the reason members should come to understand the technical aspects of their respective funds.
I wonder just how many people understood WC's proposal for listing the fund in the first place?
Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what? back to the game?
Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)"
In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)
Note: "gross value". I.e. not Net Value. So what's stopping WC loading up the fund with $50M debt to justifying dropping another $million into that cash bag.
So all our discussion about order of the motions? Is that moot now?
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?