Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

seamisty · 31 July 2011

'An investigation by ASIC should easily show who dropped $2xx into Armstrong's account and signed the documents mentioned above in the week between 23 May 2011 and 31 May 2011 (probably a few days before to allow for printing). Unless of course it was a related party mailout.' Exactly DoraNboots, what does it take to make the regulator regulate?? A negative media campaign I imagine. ASIC are pathetic and crooked directors and negligent RE's know they have plenty of time to absorb the fat and gnaw the crackling from the pig, giving them plenty of time to dispose of the bones before the pork barrel police knock on their doors. History repeats it self time after time and the token gesture of punishment, if ever implemented remain a joke.
The best we can do is continue to alert others of these parasites and phonies who continue to masquerade as legitimate business entities and expose them for the frauds, liars and cheats they really are. Seamisty

tinhat · 31 July 2011

I don't have any interest in the PIF or in any other entity that is or has been involved in these affairs. I'm just chiming in to say that if your complaints and enquiries to ASIC have not been met with satisfactory responses then you should document all your correspondence with and replies received from ASIC and contact the minister responsible for ASIC which is David Bradbury.

http://www.davidbradbury.com.au/

David Bradbury is the member for Lindsay (quite a marginal seat formerly occupied by Jackie Kelly).

Any of you that have had unsatisfactory dealings with ASIC over this affair should be contacting the minister and your local member.

Good luck.

JohnH · 1 August 2011

seamisty said:
Also lets not forget:::
Print Mail Logistics (PML) who are responsible for the majority of printing material for the PIF are also shareholders in Armstrong Registry Services, who is coincidently also the registry provider for PML.

Armstrong Registry Services Limited is a substantial shareholder in Print Mail Logistics.

Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital ltd is corporate adviser to Print Mail Logistics Limited.

Seamisty

Yep........ they own 30% according to last financial statement!!!

simgrund · 1 August 2011

tinhat said:
I don't have any interest in the PIF or in any other entity that is or has been involved in these affairs. I'm just chiming in to say that if your complaints and enquiries to ASIC have not been met with satisfactory responses then you should document all your correspondence with and replies received from ASIC and contact the minister responsible for ASIC which is David Bradbury.

http://www.davidbradbury.com.au/

David Bradbury is the member for Lindsay (quite a marginal seat formerly occupied by Jackie Kelly).

Any of you that have had unsatisfactory dealings with ASIC over this affair should be contacting the minister and your local member.

Good luck.

Good advice on follow-up actions, tinhat.
Keep up appearances, thanks.
Cheers

To DoraNBoots:::::::::::::::LEASE CLEAR UP YOUR MESSAGE INBOX. Thanks

simgrund · 1 August 2011

selciper said:
It may be because I'm suffering from a condition called asic-anger at present, so possibly I'm wrong in in thinking that CasCap is unlikely to continue this frustrating journey.

God forbid selciper.
We must continue to show Cas-Cap our support to the fullest; our appreciation for their courage in forging this pioneering assault on Corpo-Rot within Australian Financial Industry; align with them in pioneering new templates for these services so our grandchildren, if not children, do not waste another moment of anguish a la PIF immortals.

Chin up mate,

Jadel · 1 August 2011

Checking on content

AusInCA · 1 August 2011

seamisty said:
What makes it even easier for 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.

(Above emphasis added by me)

Not sure if anyone has picked up on this, but this would indicate that there would have had to be 2 copies of the register sent to whom ever did the mail out. One prior to each mail out.

To me however , I think it would indicate more, that it is less likely that the mail out was by the mysterious unidentified PIFRG, but originating internal to WC.

Sutho81 · 1 August 2011

gardie said:
Hi

In relation to tracking back and finding out who is the PIF Reaction Group the flyers have come from bulk mails from various places.

Now Australia Post would have a record of payment unless they paid cash. Unless it is part of a legal action Aust Post could not provide those details to the public but ASIC would have the powers to find this answer so supplying where and what date they were posted will ease ASIC job in their investigations.

Someone doing some leg work may find where they were printed if it was not done on anyones own copier machine. Someone has put 20,000 pieces of paper into addressed envelopes so a big chance one of the data groups did the job.

It will be the one that says sorry we cannot give out details due to privacy that did the job because all the rest will be happy to say no we did not do that job ! If we can help ASIC by pointing to who managed the mail out even better.

When people say the PIF Reaction Group doesn't exist this is not quite true.

Something exists and it is either

1) A person who is misrepresenting to investors that they are some form of body of people which is not legal to do
2) They are some form of group and have again acted illegally by not disclosing address, form of structure etc

Either way someone spent a good chunk of money on this and it is worthy more pursuit as it has broken the law

If what you are saying is from a legal point of view then I think your point in "1)" applies. I am suspecting you are either in the legal profession or have more knowledge than us ordinary investors.

I am sure that Wellington was behind it and that there is no group of investors that would join such a supportive group of investors.

On another point There seems to be allot of statements saying that whoever sent it would have paid for a copy of the register. Lets just assume that it definately was Wellington that did the mail out and they used their existing copies of the register to do the mail out - where does that leave us if there is no evidence of any other party purchasing the register?

seamisty · 1 August 2011

'Lets just assume that it definately was Wellington that did the mail out and they used their existing copies of the register to do the mail out - where does that leave us if there is no evidence of any other party purchasing the register?'

Sutho81, it leaves us with a PRIME SUSPECT
One thing for sure, anyone who DID in fact purchase a copy of the PIF register prior to 23rd June 2011 could not be accused of misusing an 'out of date register' can they? ASIC have all this information, lets see how long it takes them to act on it. Seamisty

seamisty · 1 August 2011

Bentleys have finally updated their Public Examinations page:::
http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_serv...y_and_insolvency/octaviar_public_examinations

charles36 · 1 August 2011

I would like to run this scenario past interested unit holders. Wellington Capital is very busy since being challenged, selling off properties by way of delayed contracts, some delayed for eighteen months. I hope it is realised that these properties will remain as a NTA and therefore will be audited and the last audited figure is what WC will be paid if removed or retired as RE of fund. The eighteen months timeframe is very important to WC and most detrimental to unit holders. The last audited figure will be about the time the fund is finally wound up. What does that tell you? In addition, as we have been told, any settlement of the class action by IMF will be paid into the PIF which will be controlled by Wellington Capital. With me so far? Therefore, assuming three hundred million is paid into the fund by IMF the NTA goes up. Agree? Well at the time of the last audited figure this amount will no doubt be shown as an asset. Can you tell me who will take 2% of the last audited figure? You guessed it. I would like to thank all the unit holders who rallied around and supported CASCAP. I honestly believe we actually had more proxies than that cobbled together by WC. We will never know. WC will never release them for scrutiny. There were many members of the class action who did not take the opportunity to vote either way, will no doubt be like the rest of us and be subject to the management of WC. I understand there will be a vote by proxy no doubt for unit holders to decide how proceeds of class action should be handled.
that is of course if a quorum is reached. Armstrong Registry, Owned by M/S Hutson, M/S Greaves (WC Secretary and Compliance Committee member and Rachael Weeks, WC legal advisor will no doubt be the INDEPENDENT registry. Best of luck to us all.

charles36 · 1 August 2011

charles36 said:
I would like to run this scenario past interested unit holders. Wellington Capital is very busy since being challenged, selling off properties by way of delayed contracts, some delayed for eighteen months. I hope it is realised that these properties will remain as a NTA and therefore will be audited and the last audited figure is what WC will be paid if removed or retired as RE of fund. The eighteen months timeframe is very important to WC and most detrimental to unit holders. The last audited figure will be about the time the fund is finally wound up. What does that tell you? In addition, as we have been told, any settlement of the class action by IMF will be paid into the PIF which will be controlled by Wellington Capital. With me so far? Therefore, assuming three hundred million is paid into the fund by IMF the NTA goes up. Agree? Well at the time of the last audited figure this amount will no doubt be shown as an asset. Can you tell me who will take 2% of the last audited figure? You guessed it. I would like to thank all the unit holders who rallied around and supported CASCAP. I honestly believe we actually had more proxies than that cobbled together by WC. We will never know. WC will never release them for scrutiny. There were many members of the class action who did not take the opportunity to vote either way, will no doubt be like the rest of us and be subject to the management of WC. I understand there will be a vote by proxy no doubt for unit holders to decide how proceeds of class action should be handled.
that is of course if a quorum is reached. Armstrong Registry, Owned by M/S Hutson, M/S Greaves (WC Secretary and Compliance Committee member and Rachael Weeks, WC legal advisor will no doubt be the INDEPENDENT registry. Best of luck to us all.

By the way, WC take home reward under the scenario I have mentioned will probably be about 11 million dollars. Any unit holder has a differing view please help me. We had a great chance to correct this most unsatisfactory state of affairs but unfortunatelly we did not take it. We will have to wait and see what develops from hereon.

charles36 · 1 August 2011

Just another little issue to help you digest your weeties, the fund cannot be wound up whilst in litigation, that of course includes the class action. WC will receive management fees until such time as class action or other litigation is satisfied and funds if any are distributed.

reasonable · 1 August 2011

charles36 said:
Just another little issue to help you digest your weeties, the fund cannot be wound up whilst in litigation, that of course includes the class action. WC will receive management fees until such time as class action or other litigation is satisfied and funds if any are distributed.

Our future would seem to depend entirely on whether Castlereagh want to take things further.

atlas1950 · 1 August 2011

Hi Charles36

If we are successful in the CA, and if we are award, say $200 million, as far as you know, would this money be given to us investors who participated in the action directly, OR, would it be given to WC for them to do with it as they see fit.

If it is given to WC, and they waste it upon themselves at our cost,what a great injustice that would be.

Keep the faith,

Michael

ASICK · 1 August 2011

Rather than face the wrath of Simgrund and his whipping boy, Mr. Joseph Blow, I'll post comments from time to time on http://www.moneymagik.com/pif.php.

gardie · 1 August 2011

Seamisty

It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.

They will have to produce a record of it appears two acquisitions of the register by an independent third party when ASIC comes knocking on their door.

Any other outcome points to what appears to be criminal behaviour.

Surely not the case ????

Javier · 1 August 2011

charles36;649145 In addition said:
Huh?????? That's news to me? When where we told ANY proceeds of a succesful class action be put back into the fund? I signed up for any proceeds to be given directly to the participants of the class action who held units at the mentioned qualifying date in 2008 (??) What you are saying can't be correct as the class action only benefits the unit holders of the fund in that 2008 and prior timeframe , irrespective of whether those units may have now been sold, the class action in NO WAY benefits people that purchased or acquired shares after that date.

To Trusting · 1 August 2011

gardie said:
Seamisty

It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.

They will have to produce a record of it appears two acquisitions of the register by an independent third party when ASIC comes knocking on their door.

Any other outcome points to what appears to be criminal behaviour.

Surely not the case ????

Gardie - Love your work.

seamisty · 1 August 2011

gardie said:
Seamisty

It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.

They will have to produce a record of it appears two acquisitions of the register by an independent third party when ASIC comes knocking on their door.

Any other outcome points to what appears to be criminal behaviour.

Surely not the case ????

As I have been indicating for quite some time Gardie::

Quid pro quo
Quid pro quo (From the Latin meaning "something for something") indicates a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services. English speakers often use the term to mean "a favor for a favor" and the phrases with almost identical meaning include: "what for what," "give and take," "tit for tat", "this for that", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Something like "Reap and Sow" also applies to this phrase

Translated=
Incestuous connections in the corporate world!!
We are on to it, but sadly ASIC lags behind as per usual, permitting the trail to grow cold why they procrastinate and wonder how they can proceed to intervene without being implicated themselves in our losses through lack of action on their part. Unlike investors caught up in these rip offs, ASIC employees still get paid whether they produce results or not. Thanks for your input, Seamisty

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

seamisty

tinhat

Pocket Calculator Operator

JohnH

simgrund

simgrund

Jadel

AusInCA

Sutho81

seamisty

seamisty

charles36

charles36

charles36

reasonable

atlas1950

ASICK

gardie

Javier

To Trusting

seamisty

Similar threads

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Pocket Calculator Operator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency