Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Sutho81 · 2 August 2011

I am still hopefull that Castlereagh will have another attempt at the fund. I would really love them to. They have my vote already.

Its clear the fund is no good in Hutsons hands. The Armstrong Registy is a slap in the face to us investors that she is draining the fund of funds with proceeds going straight to her fat rear ended pocket!

Wayne Wheeler · 2 August 2011

charles36 said:
Mr. Wheeler, I notice you advocate liquidation but you agree in as many words that you do not know what assets and value of such assets are. I find that odd. You have made some comments re shady dealings, snouts in trough etc., which of course to the untaught mind would suggest improper practices on behalf of our RE. Your credibility would be seriously enhanced if you took yourself and your evidence to ASIC. By adopting this suggestion you would be demonstrating that you are a good citizen doing your duty and reporting a crime. I will watch for developments.

Well, Charles, I'm suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it. I have no detailed understanding of how your RE has managed your fund other than what I read here or via public media outlets such as the NSX. Please don't try to attribute this type of innuendo as being originally sourced from myself.
My comments here are, and always have been, a reflection of the comments & statements which have been previously posted here by unitholders and other interested parties, some of whom have alleged improper associations by former people associated with your fund at various stages of it's history. The post above is ample evidence of the dissatisfaction voiced on a daily basis since the inception of this forum.
I have already mentioned our instructions to refrain from any public comment during the bid enquiry process - that is now a matter of record. I have no wish to stir those matters up again.
I'm not sure how you think that we are somehow accountable for your current situation. We would simply propose an alternative method of realising the maximum return on the funds assets. You can choose to agree or disagree with our proposal - but surely you would want to hear the offer?

WW

simgrund · 2 August 2011

Wayne Wheeler said:
-------------------I think I read the term malodorous used here somewhere - Indeed!----------------------

WW

Then don't try to become One!

aroach · 2 August 2011

With respect to all, please heed the very justified warning from the Administrator, Joe Blow in his post #8543.

Please stay focussed on using this thread for providing information, and on the common cause of trying to find ways to restore the PIF to something that actually returns some value to us investors.

So, in that light it's best to simply ignore posts you don't like rather than attacking the poster.

Thank you

Ashley

charles36 · 2 August 2011

Wayne Wheeler said:
Well, Charles, I'm suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it. I have no detailed understanding of how your RE has managed your fund other than what I read here or via public media outlets such as the NSX. Please don't try to attribute this type of innuendo as being originally sourced from myself.
My comments here are, and always have been, a reflection of the comments & statements which have been previously posted here by unitholders and other interested parties, some of whom have alleged improper associations by former people associated with your fund at various stages of it's history. The post above is ample evidence of the dissatisfaction voiced on a daily basis since the inception of this forum.
I have already mentioned our instructions to refrain from any public comment during the bid enquiry process - that is now a matter of record. I have no wish to stir those matters up again.
I'm not sure how you think that we are somehow accountable for your current situation. We would simply propose an alternative method of realising the maximum return on the funds assets. You can choose to agree or disagree with our proposal - but surely you would want to hear the offer?

WW

Not really, I deal in facts not fiction, maybe or possibly.

Wayne Wheeler · 2 August 2011

Please note that my last (and penultimate) post should begin....: "Well, Charles, I'm not suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it...."

simgrund said:
I would rather have #8550 as our standard bearer during this infestation.
Cheers

And message understood, Simgrund. Good luck to you all!

Harald · 2 August 2011

aroach said:
With respect to all, please heed the very justified warning from the Administrator, Joe Blow in his post #8543.

Please stay focussed on using this thread for providing information, and on the common cause of trying to find ways to restore the PIF to something that actually returns some value to us investors.

So, in that light it's best to simply ignore posts you don't like rather than attacking the poster.

Thank you

Ashley

Don't You think that Your advise would be to simplistic Ashley?

When we would follow Your advise WW and maybe even JH would take over
this thread.

simgrund · 2 August 2011

selciper said:
Sutho81 - I notice that in references to Castlereagh you use the past tense which is significant for any of us who hope that CasCap are maintaining an interest in PIF. We are certainly in need of some morale-boosting news.

Selciper, Sutho,
There are simply too many steps taken by CasCap along this track to swerve off it right now.
And both judgements have openings for forward movement.
In particular this passage in Judge Dowson's reference to another Judge's
decision re relationship between responsible entity and a member.
That relationship being analogous to the relationship between trustee and a beneficiary.
"While the duty of a trustee is to exercise a degree of restraint and conservatism in investment judgements, the duty of a director may be to display enterpreneural flair and accept commercial risks to produce a sufficient return on the capital ivested." (From Daniels v Anderson (1995))
A golf adventure is such a flair and ASIC seems to be saying that WC would act outside its trustee responsibility.
So the definition is set by this precedent and there is plenty for CasCap to get
their teeth into.
Let's help

Regards,

Cheers,

DoraNBoots · 2 August 2011

Wayne Wheeler said:
As you would all know, our ALF PIF Finance bid was "knocked out" by the TakeOver Panel on a technicality to do with mail-out details - not our fault. We all know who raised the matter and complicated the issue - the same entity that had your EGM knocked out on a similar technicality

I don't agree with the above. The ALF unacceptable circumstances decided by the Takeover Panel seem serious to me and nothing like the reason the AG meeting was deemed invalid.

For those interested in the unacceptable circumstances for the ALF PIF offer see this link:
http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/Reasons_For_Decisions/2011/downloads/010_Premium_Income_Fund.pdf There's a summary on page 16 in Annexure C.

One unacceptable circumstance is in the quote below but there are many other similar issues:

50. The replacement bidder's statement does not go into any detail about how the value of the bid consideration is derived. PIF’s stated net asset backing at 31 December 2009 was 35 cents per unit. Accepting unit holders get a preference share in ALF Finance, said to be worth 15c per unit (assuming redemption), plus 19.09% of ordinary equity. ALF Finance and Mr Byrnes in submissions each derived a value for the offer consideration based on the stated net asset backing of PIF units. Therefore, the value of the offer comes from the value that is assumed to be in the target itself.

51. This of course assumes that the preference shares are redeemed for cash, which ALF Finance is not required to do. It also assumes access to the net asset backing of the PIF units, which may be unavailable if ALF Finance does not get all the units.

52. In our view, the value of the offer, and particularly the fact that it is based on the value of the target, was not disclosed adequately, or at all, to unit holders. Nor were the risks of the preference shares not being able to be redeemed.

Mr Wheeler, I'm interested to know why you didn't follow up concerns re Wellington's disclosure? The following states Mr Byrnes was informed of his ability to make an application but it seems he didn't do so:

71. We think that Wellington should have addressed, either in the target’s statement or a supplementary target’s statement as appropriate, the circumstances surrounding the need to raise capital shortly after making a distribution, whether there are legitimate claims by or against it or PIF that are likely to be the subject of litigation, and information regarding the ‘PIF Action Group’, being unit holders holding approximately 27% of the issued units who are seeking to replace Wellington as the responsible entity.

72. Mr Byrnes was informed of his ability to make an application, as such matters were not addressed in the application before the Panel. He did not do so. He was also informed that he could perhaps raise his concerns in a preliminary submission (if he became a party), but the Panel may decide that they were not relevant to the application. We are inclined to think there is some merit in his concerns, and we would have been prepared to consider these issues (and possibly others that he and ALF Finance raised), and we may perhaps have issued a supplementary brief. There is no utility in taking this course in all the circumstances.

seamisty · 2 August 2011

Wayne Wheeler said:
OK - a couple of quick responses. Many thanks, and a couple of quick notes before I head out.

Seamisty - Thanks for your honest appraisal. The simple truth is that we were firmly ordered by the Takeover Panel to not have any public comment or discourse on this matter whatsoever. As I've said above, there was even an attempt to have us silenced on this forum. It wasn't that we "sat back" and did nothing - we were forcibly muzzled under threat of enormous fines, whilst others were seemingly free to enact duplicitous dealings with impunity. Breathtaking!!
I'm pleased that you have managed to elicit the truth in the outrageously deceptive circumstances of the whole, sorry PIFAG and the further attempts to smear ALFPIF and Jim Byrnes. Let's be clear, we (ALF PIF Finance P/L) had no part in any of those communications and have had no dealings whatsoever with WC.

WW

Thanks Wayne for your response. Fair call ALF PIF could not correspond directly with PIF unitholders re the ruling from the takeovers tribunal, I buy that. A media release however refuting the PIF AG/Jim Byrnes 'secret deal' association would have put an end to speculation and any distrust relating to the mailout if ALF PIF had wanted to. My own thoughts are that because ALF PIF had failed in their own proposal to take control of the PIF, by not intervening it would cause damage to the credibility of the PIF AG executive committee. So now we have ASIC not regulating (as usual), ALF PIF not taking responsibility for false statements relating to themselves and PIF AG and Wellington Capital still wasting our money and using our Fund to prop up their own image and contribute to WC operating expenses which sees PIF unitholders getting approx 2 cents return of capital for every $100million of their own assets liquidated. Great.
Also being the personal target of a smear campaign funded by ............., I was hoping that ALF PIF may share the links to the un named blogs/forums etc that have caused them grief also with "negative, false, and misleading, deceptive, defamatory, and libelous statements"? http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13211.html
Get the drift Wayne? The reason PIF unit holders trust so few is because there are so few to trust. Seamisty

simgrund · 3 August 2011

Joe Blow said:
A reminder to everyone on this thread to please ensure that you close your quote tags when quoting another post. I will be removing all posts that make incorrect use of the quote tags as a mater of course.

When posts without closed quote tags are subsequently requoted, it becomes almost impossible to determine who is saying what, and it can appear that statements are being attributed to persons who did not post them.

Please take a couple of minutes (and that's all it will take) to learn how the quote tags work by reviewing this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

The last two posts on this thread were removed for this reason.

Joe, I could not follow instructions given on site above.
Instead, I found that clicking on 4rth icon from right on the main bar containing B, I, U will bring out the quote tags for any text inserts to fit between them.
Would it be possible for you to reinstate my post on private message box so I can do the right thing with the Q-tags.
Thanks

Joe Blow · 3 August 2011

simgrund said:
Would it be possible for you to reinstate my post on private message box so I can do the right thing with the Q-tags.
Thanks

20 minutes after a post has been submitted it can no longer be edited. You will have to repost anything that you would like to correct.

aroach · 3 August 2011

Harald said:
Don't You think that Your advise would be to simplistic Ashley?

When we would follow Your advise WW and maybe even JH would take over
this thread.

I should have been clearer with my post. When I said "that you don't like" I didn't mean ignoring posts that we disagree with.

If we disagree with a post then by all means reply with a substantiated counter-argument. After all, that's one of the reasons forums are created.

By saying "a post you don't like" I was trying to say "a nasty post" or "a personal attack post", but in a nicer way...didn't work.

So basically, if we all refrain from personal attacks in our posts, this thread will be kept open and we will at least maintain one of the objectives toward trying to restore some PIF value...keeping unit holders better informed.

But if you are personally attacked in a post then report it immediately to the moderator and I'm sure he will remove the offending post and possibly the poster too.

Thanks

selciper · 3 August 2011

More on Centro. SMH today.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/weve...ro-nonexecutive-directors-20110802-1i9t4.html

Jadel · 3 August 2011

BABIHUTAN said:
Jadel, Javier , Seamisty & other posters on this theme - tt too is my understanding of what many Investors signed up for in 2008. There was a specific cutoff date tt was subequently extended by IMF by a few months - no quarrel there, provided it did not allow Johnny come lately investors who saw an opportunity to make money as a result of our misfortunes - $1 tt we pd against 0.06 - 0.09 tt they wud hv come in at in order to reap the same rewards of the CA if successful. No one in their right mind would consider buying for appreciation in the forseeable future.
The criteria to participate pro-rata in the CA recoveries is linked directly the holdings those signed up Investors held on tt second cut off date.
IMF made very clear tt if, for whatever reason, an Investor subsequently needed to sell part or all of their holdings after tt 2nd cutoff date their pro-rated CA recovery (if any) would not be compromised. IMF took this litigation on, on a no cure no pay basis.
If the CA is ultimately successful those qualifying Investors would share pro-rata in any recoveries and likewise they wud share the fee tt Investors agreed to pay IMF by the same ratio.
I cannot see how WC can come into the equation other than if WC was [if it is in fact legal for an RE to hv a pecuniary interest in a fund tt it manages] an Investor in its own right on the cut off date. WC wud then hv the same rights as all of us pre cut off date. IMO WC as RE has nothing to do with the CA except to piggyback with us if qualified.

We, as a group of investors hv got to where we are today entirely thru the selfless efforts of those dedicated members of the PIFAG. WC as RE has had & nothing to do with the success of findng someone take on the case, rather as I recall went out of their way in frustrating appoaches made by the PIFAG, IMF and their former lawyers for legitimate assistance.
My wife & I invested with Mclaughlins FS fm its early days and after serveral years with good but not excessive returns started rolling over distributions and never drewdown on capital, paying tax on years of distribution monies we are unlikely to ever see - so much for the power of compounding - BAH!

Hi Bahbituan
In a perfect world , new investors who have not lost money as a result of the PIF fraud should not be entitled to any proceeds from the Class Action at the expense of those investors who have suffered financially.

I sincerely hope this is the case; the presiding judge of course will make the final determination on who is included or excluded....

Duped · 3 August 2011

As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:

"Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND". Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise? Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?

Then there's this quote the Reaction Group attributed to a poster on this thread: "I have had investors speak to me saying they have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund". Really? Hmmmm.

This is what the Australian Financial Review published on 10 May in an article by Ben Wilmot entitled "Ferrier backs PIF rescue bid".

"The PIF is subject to a separate takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance, which is controlled by an offshore company led by Jim Byrnes.

Wellington Capital managing director Jenny Hutson raised concerns that ALF and Castlereagh Capital were working together.

"I have had investors speak with me today indicating they've been contacted by ALF PIF recently and been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund" " [emphasis added]

Eh? Substantially the same quote isn't it? What's the Reaction Group trying to pull/push in this sample from their mail out?

Duped · 3 August 2011

Oh dear! Found another statement in the Reaction Group's mail out that seems to be due scrutiny.

"7. In a TOP SECRET DEAL, Jim Byrnes has been guaranteed a share of all proceedings from OUR LITIGATION in return for his vote. Jim Byrnes estimates this is worth $46 million. Thats 7 cents per unit." [emphasis added]

"TOP SECRET DEAL" is it? Ummm type "ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED" into google. On the very first page of results is the link to http://www.irw-press.com

IRWPress has a number of releases by ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG. On 4 April 2011 ALF GROUP published (to the world and anyone who could be bothered to do some due diligence on ALF):

"Further, to add to the prospects of the success of the bid, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALF, has agreed to take over and fund all recovery action, all unit/ shareholder class action claims against the existing manager and all recovery action against third parties who may have a liability owing to PIF.

The offer from Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd provides existing unit holders of PIF with the comfort that the PIF capital will not be dissipated by expensive and time consuming litigation and that Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd will work on a no win/no fee basis and take a fixed percentage of 33% from all recoveries (plus legal costs).

ALF believes that there is potentially over AUD $140,000,000 in potential claims, suits and recoveries. This means that there is the potential to deliver fees of approximately AUD $46m to ALF from litigation recoveries alone." [emphasis added]

Is this the "TOP SECRET DEAL" that the Reaction Group is referring to? If it's the same deal then it's probably about as TOP SECRET as what we publish on this thread is TOP SECRET to those ALF GROUP investors over in Europe.

DoraNBoots · 3 August 2011

Duped said:
As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:

"Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND". Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise? Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?
...

That's exactly what I thought when I read it. It made Ferrier's look like the better option as they got a good deal for their client while WC negotiated a terrible outcome for the PIF.

Duped said:
As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:
...
Then there's this quote the Reaction Group attributed to a poster on this thread: "I have had investors speak to me saying they have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund". Really? Hmmmm.

This is what the Australian Financial Review published on 10 May in an article by Ben Wilmot entitled "Ferrier backs PIF rescue bid".

"The PIF is subject to a separate takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance, which is controlled by an offshore company led by Jim Byrnes.

Wellington Capital managing director Jenny Hutson raised concerns that ALF and Castlereagh Capital were working together.

"I have had investors speak with me today indicating they've been contacted by ALF PIF recently and been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund" " [emphasis added]

Eh? Substantially the same quote isn't it? What's the Reaction Group trying to pull/push in this sample from their mail out?

Wow, that's interesting. I was amazed when I read Ms Hutson make such a ridiculous comment to the media and I find it hard to believe anyone not associated with her could write it again and attribute it to an AG member.

http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/DisplayDoc.aspx?doc=reasons_for_decisions/2011/010.htm The Takeover Panel say that Hutson breached the media canvassing undertaking that Wellington gave to them and a further undertaking was accepted by the Panel on 30 May 2011 as follows:

Pursuant to section 201A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001(Cth), Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund (PIF) undertakes to the Panel that:
1.it will not publish or dispatch any further material to PIF unit holders in respect of the takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance) contrary to the undertaking it has provided in its Notice of Appearance.
2.until the Panel has determined the proceedings, it will provide to the Panel for its consideration, any future statements that it wishes to publish or send to PIF unit holders in relation to the ALF Finance bid before those statements are made public.
Signed by Jenny Hutson
with the authority, and on behalf, of Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund
Dated 30 May 2011

WC were not allowed to communicate with investors about the ALF PIF deal but on the 31 May 2011 (the day after the above undertaking) an anonymous letter is sent to all unitholders saying:

"In a TOP SECRET DEAL, Jim Byrnes has been guaranteed a share of all proceedings from OUR LITIGATION in return for his vote. Jim Byrnes estimates this is worth $46 million. Thats 7 cents per unit"

Duped · 3 August 2011

Duped said:
As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:

"Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND". Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise? Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?

...

Ooops. I meant to write:

'he's really good at getting the best outcome for his client?'

and not "he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client?" Doh!

As for BRI Ferrier's cut of that $55m. Isn't 'paying more for better service' a key aspect of the market based economic system that our nation subscribes to? Don't us Aussies use the expression 'pay peanuts and you get monkeys'?

ian1328 · 3 August 2011

If things turn per shaped and Joe Blow closes us down, is there another way of keeping in touch?

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Administrator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency