Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

A refresher for all PIF unitholders wishing to make complaints to ASIC re the PIF:: Page 64, Explanatory Memorandum issued by Wellington Capital http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
Fee on removal
"If Resolution 3 is passed Wellington Capital Limited will become the responsible entity of the Fund. Subsequently if the responsible entity is removed as the responsible entity of the Fund, then in consideration for work done the responsible entity will be entitled to a fee equal to 2% (plus GST) of the value of the assets in the Fund (except where the responsible entity has breached its statutory duties). For example, if the Fund assets are $300 million a removal fee of $6.6 million would be payable out of the Fund assets. If this payment is made it would adversely affect the Fund’s net
assets. The fee would be paid from available cash or through the liquidation of assets of the Fund"

Well I am sure with Justice Gordons findings relating to the deed poll ammendment made by Wellington Capital relating to the PIF placement and rights issue in May 2011 which was deemed contrary and did not comply the Corporations Act and was subsequently revoked because it was ruled that 'it was not in the best interests of unitholders' ASIC would surely have to intervene?
Also lets hope ASIC are closely scrutinising the inhouse Armstrong register and doing some cross referencing of names. Illegal entries would provide at least two breaches of duties I would imagine.
Not to mention what reason was given to Wellington Capital by those responsible for the 'smear campaign' to be provided with a very updated copy of the PIF registry and has ASIC followed up on that complaint?

Three strikes and you are definitely out!! Seamisty

That raises an interesting point k.smith.

S252G notice given individually

"(3) Unless the scheme's constitution provides otherwise, the responsible entity may give notice of the meeting to a member: (a) personally; or
(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
(c) by sending it to the fax number or electronic address (if any) nominated by the member" [emphasis added]


OK so that's how an RE may give notice. But what about a meeting called by members (under S252D)? Do some members need to face the risk and expense of going to court so we can clarify that this law? I.e. that members may also give notice by email to reduce the cost of calling a meeting. Or is this an advantage granted to only an RE? That's quite a barrier to entry. A tilted playing field.

OK. Let's assume S252G is interpreted or amended so that Notice of a members meeting called by members can be given by email. How do the convenors (members) get hold of the email addresses?

J Dowsett's decision didn't disagree that WC performed it's duty pursuant to the Corporations Act. I.e. para 37 "It [WC] said that the information provided on 10 February 2011 complied with the requirements of the Corporations Act, and that there was no requirement that the register contain telephone numbers, facsimile numbers or email addresses." [emphasis added]

How do convenors under S252D (i.e. members) get hold of the email addresses?

There is no definition of 'address' in clause 9 of the Act.

We've heard a lot about Abbott's comment about calling climate change "crap". Now Gillard is saying journalists should stop writing "crap". Well here's a plea from a voting retail investor to you politicians and public servants living off the public purse: stopping passing and then squatting on (which on the facts of this case appear to be in my lay casual observer view) "crap" legislation.

ASIC bleats about 'investing between the flags'. I wonder if ASIC really has much of an idea about the rocks, sand bars and rips between those flags.

From ASIC's web page 'Our Role' http://asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC.NSF/byHeadline/Our%20role

"What we do

We contribute to Australia’s economic reputation and wellbeing by ensuring that Australia’s financial markets are fair and transparent, supported by confident and informed investors and consumers." [emphasis added]

"Our priorities
ASIC's priorities are:

1. Assist and protect retail investors and consumers in the financial economy"

So ASIC, how would you rate your performance in the light of this Dowsett decision? All I can see in this case is ASIC squatting on legislation that tilts the playing field away from members towards the RE.

Prior to the PIF Action Group trying to remove Wellington Capital as manager/RE of the PIF and reinstate them with Castlereagh Capital I was constantly chasing overdue 4 monthly PIF investor updates. One response from Ms Snow dated 3-10-2010:"Investor Updates are produced for the periods ended April, August and December, and released the followng month."
The 12 glossy pages that would have cost a small fortune and contained little of substance arrives in the mail in July when it is not due to even be relased until September!!!! Wellington Capital are not running a super efficient operation (even though Armstrong registered investors two days in advance of actors being gifted PIF units), they are running scared!
Seamisty

Hi Seamisty

That was an interesting comment about the planner who did not think $200k was worth contacting the cleint about. Takes a long for most people to save $200k to invest !

The promise to pay planners a fee only on success of the resolutions opens another whole area of legal questions. Despite what the govt is trying to legislate about a duty of care a financial planner has always at law been required to put clients interests first.

If an investor relied on the advice of a planner to vote for the original resolutions, was the planner inflluenced by the fact that doing one thing held a promise to pay a fee while the other did not.

I do have a question though. IN the wholesale fund could the investors not call a meeting to force the manager to vote a certain way.

Would need to call the meetings together but have wholesale meeting one hour ahead of other PIF EGM.

Fin Advisers are the likes of some Insurance Salesmen who were no good at that, and are only interested in their own pockets and who were paid commision from MFS.and were the only ones to get anything out of it while we all lost. Best described as WARTS

Duoed, thanks for all the hard work in which you have made our situation more understandable re EGMs. It looks like any unhappy investor faces an uphill battle to achieve his/hers rights. I'm reminded of an innocent man who manages to yell at the firing squad before they fire, "Justice? Justice is...terrible!"

When I once offered Wellington my email address, they showed absolutely no interest in writing it down.

gardie said:

Hi Seamisty

That was an interesting comment about the planner who did not think $200k was worth contacting the cleint about. Takes a long for most people to save $200k to invest !

The promise to pay planners a fee only on success of the resolutions opens another whole area of legal questions. Despite what the govt is trying to legislate about a duty of care a financial planner has always at law been required to put clients interests first.

If an investor relied on the advice of a planner to vote for the original resolutions, was the planner inflluenced by the fact that doing one thing held a promise to pay a fee while the other did not.

I do have a question though. IN the wholesale fund could the investors not call a meeting to force the manager to vote a certain way.

Would need to call the meetings together but have wholesale meeting one hour ahead of other PIF EGM.

Click to expand...

Gardie I was really disgusted at the attitude of the FA that made that comment. Fortunately the majority of FA/Fund managers were really interesed in what I had to say and were quite supportive. I take your comments on board re the WPIF. Thanks, Seamisty

Duped said:

The financial advisor, who took me out onto this thin ice and then drove off, said they'd forward the payment to me. My vague recollection is I didn't get paid. That financial advisor might have been marginally less financially illiterate than me, but I'm sure they're not dishonest enough to welch on an express email agreement. But then again, my judgement is shot. 'Cos I believed Hutson for a long time.

Click to expand...

Duped, do you wish to share the name of this financial advisor with me via the private mail box?

Call for assistance:

I am trying to contact breaker1 seamisty or other memberr of PIF AG for an urgent advice before this coming Tuesday, 2 August.
Tried Private Messages; E-mails; couple of mobiles with "incoming call restriction" curse imbedded.
Please try on my behalf to have one of these members contact me via Private Message.
No blood spilled, just an opportunity to spill our tale of woe into federal member's ear.

Cheers,

simgrund said:

Call for assistance:

I am trying to contact breaker1 seamisty or other memberr of PIF AG for an urgent advice before this coming Tuesday, 2 August.
Tried Private Messages; E-mails; couple of mobiles with "incoming call restriction" curse imbedded.
Please try on my behalf to have one of these members contact me via Private Message.
No blood spilled, just an opportunity to spill our tale of woe into federal member's ear.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Go to the private mail box. You should have my phone number. Charles36

Seamisty, I doubt if there were any Financial advisors who were not willing to see the best outcome for their clients once the facts about wellingtons Capitals shenanigans was explained to them.
Also, It may be worth noting and keeping a record if there were any financial advisors who objected to the AG and our attempt to get some control of our fund.

I have tried countless times in the past in trying to work out a simple question.
Who is our elected investor advisor(s)?
I'm pretty annoyed and its been noted that wellington has not been far from helpful about who our elected investor advisor is in all the enquiries I've made - does anyone here know, as its about the only place I can get an straight forward real answer?

.......Sigmund - can you please check your private messages

Re: Call for assistance

Connections made.
Thanks to all who helped.

Regards

A question?
What's the point of an emergency-purpose mobile if it has
[incoming call restriction] feature on????

Wouldn't it make better sense to program permission for some important numbers to get through and the [rabble] left seething outside????

Aagh, the tangled web we weave,

zixo said:

Seamisty, I doubt if there were any Financial advisors who were not willing to see the best outcome for their clients once the facts about wellingtons Capitals shenanigans was explained to them.
Also, It may be worth noting and keeping a record if there were any financial advisors who objected to the AG and our attempt to get some control of our fund.

I have tried countless times in the past in trying to work out a simple question.
Who is our elected investor advisor(s)?
I'm pretty annoyed and its been noted that wellington has not been far from helpful about who our elected investor advisor is in all the enquiries I've made - does anyone here know, as its about the only place I can get an straight forward real answer?

.......Sigmund - can you please check your private messages

Click to expand...

ZIXO don't do your head in over the IAC farce. The 2 members who suddenly 'resigned' probablly never existed any way! Just a voice on the end of a ph link up from WC office maybe?? WC tidying their books before they are taken away for forensic examination??? Eventually all will be revealed I am sure. The clock is ticking and it has twelve numbers as opposed o nine. Seamisty

DoraNBoots,
Goodd Morning.
Please empty your mail inbox.
With thanks,

Good morning

I know it is a side issue but the name
PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity

If my understanding of the law is correct then it is illegal to hold yourself out as some form of association if you are not.

I have done some searches of the public registers and cannot find any record of the existence of this group.

Now this "group" must have paid WC for a copy of the register as there is no way WC would break the rules and just hand out a copy of the register to anyone would they !!

So they must have provided an address to WC and there will be a record of receipt of payment for the register.

So it would not be hard for someone like ASIC to find out where this group's address is and then find out who funded the costs of the flyers. A few questions by ASIC would reveal all and then unit holders could have a chance to meet with this group and hold a discussion on the difference of views.

I feel another complaint to ASIC coming on tomorrow.

They went to a lot of trouble to hide who PUF Reaction Group is but it seems its time to track this group down

gardie said:

Good morning

I know it is a side issue but the name
PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity

If my understanding of the law is correct then it is illegal to hold yourself out as some form of association if you are not.

I have done some searches of the public registers and cannot find any record of the existence of this group.

Now this "group" must have paid WC for a copy of the register as there is no way WC would break the rules and just hand out a copy of the register to anyone would they !!

So they must have provided an address to WC and there will be a record of receipt of payment for the register.

So it would not be hard for someone like ASIC to find out where this group's address is and then find out who funded the costs of the flyers. A few questions by ASIC would reveal all and then unit holders could have a chance to meet with this group and hold a discussion on the difference of views.

I feel another complaint to ASIC coming on tomorrow.

They went to a lot of trouble to hide who PUF Reaction Group is but it seems its time to track this group down

Click to expand...

What makes it even easie rfor ASIC to narrow the field Gardie is it was a very up to date register as one unit holder who received a copy of the last flier had just recently moved and upgraded their address on the register. ASIC was notified I am fairly certain, but if it has taken them three and a half years to do nothing relating to the PIF so far what chance have we got of seeing any results from ASIC relating to the mailout in the next year or two? Thats why I too keep making complaints to ASIC, eventually we must get someones attention? Seamisty

gardie said:

Good morning

I know it is a side issue but the name
PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity

If my understanding of the law is correct then it is illegal to hold yourself out as some form of association if you are not.

I have done some searches of the public registers and cannot find any record of the existence of this group.

Now this "group" must have paid WC for a copy of the register as there is no way WC would break the rules and just hand out a copy of the register to anyone would they !!

So they must have provided an address to WC and there will be a record of receipt of payment for the register.

So it would not be hard for someone like ASIC to find out where this group's address is and then find out who funded the costs of the flyers. A few questions by ASIC would reveal all and then unit holders could have a chance to meet with this group and hold a discussion on the difference of views.

I feel another complaint to ASIC coming on tomorrow.

They went to a lot of trouble to hide who PUF Reaction Group is but it seems its time to track this group down

Click to expand...

I do not believe such a group exists.

When you think about it logically it is a play on words based on PIF Action Group. What the author has done is try to create confusion by making people think it is the PIF Action Group sending them.

No group exists and there is unlikely to be any record of a group paying money to Wellington for the register.

I strongly beleive that Hutson herself and the managers at Wellington are directly responsible for this mail out. I beleive they created the name PIF Reaction Group in order to deceive less inteligent investors that it is the PIF Action Group sending them.

That is what I stronly beleive.

I still have my envelope with postal location. All one has to do is identify the company that printed them based on their postal locations all around Australia and then get orders for the company to release information on who paid them for the mail out.

My letter came from Northgate Mail Centre in QLD 4013. There is one link in the chain for a company close to that address that could send them out.

I agree. Ofcouse there's NO GROUP. There can be no 'group' of supporters because what real 'group' would be backing JH/WC unless they LOVE losing their money. No one in their sane mind knowing all details would think she has done a good job, let alone feel strongly enough about it to group together & use their own money to lobby around. Think of the cost of the mail outs. ($12,000? ) What 'regular' investor(s) would ever be interested in dong this? And remember the investors that turned up at the meeting. Did any of them there strike you as being vermently suportive of JH/WC that they would spend thousands of their own money to pay for the register & then print & mail out crap. Twice. Group??? So lots of these investors at the meeting. Hardly!!!!

It's all a scam. That's why there's no names on the fliers. So no selling needed. They just went about their normal fraudilent activities for those days going to any lengths to greedily hold on to the fund. C'mon ASIC!!!!! Use your common sense & stop the daylight theft continuing.

DepressedDad said:

I agree. Ofcouse there's NO GROUP. There can be no 'group' of supporters because what real 'group' would be backing JH/WC unless they LOVE losing their money. No one in their sane mind knowing all details would think she has done a good job, let alone feel strongly enough about it to group together & use their own money to lobby around. Think of the cost of the mail outs. ($12,000? ) What 'regular' investor(s) would ever be interested in dong this? And remember the investors that turned up at the meeting. Did any of them there strike you as being vermently suportive of JH/WC that they would spend thousands of their own money to pay for the register & then print & mail out crap. Twice. Group??? So lots of these investors at the meeting. Hardly!!!!
It's all a scam. That's why there's no names on the fliers. So no selling needed. They just went about their normal fraudilent activities for those days going to any lengths to greedily hold on to the fund. C'mon ASIC!!!!! Use your common sense & stop the daylight theft continuing.

Click to expand...

Yep; never a sliver of doubt.
From post #7901's verses for Jenny's Salvation:

"...............The benefits will be immediate.
You will be protected, cosseted, sanctuarised and insulated from outside rubble.
Entire Government Departments will be at your disposal to attend to any murmur of a complaint from you in the defense of your “protected status”.
Once in the safety of such rectum rectification facility, you no longer will have the need for your “imaginary friends” such as IAC or PIF Reaction Group...."

From the fields, weaving garlands.

P.S. RE-al tragedy will be to find out WHO? paid the costs of this farce.

Hi Sutho and Depresseddad

If what you say is correct and that no such group exists then this is misrepresentation.

WC have to be able to prove this group exists and that this group paid for the register otherwise its another hole dug that they one day will be accountable for.

How can a group undertake two mail outs without having bought the registry. A simple enquiry by ASIC to WC will allow them to trace who is this reaction group and then ASIC could ask them who paid the costs for the mail out.

As I said it feels like another complaint to ASIC coming on.