The SMH CBD coverage of the Sydney meeting certainly has more teeth to it than the Australian's tepid offering. What we need to find is a bright, resourceful and ambitious journalist who might investigate our problems in the hope that his/her efforts could be rewarded with a Walkley recognition. Unfortunately "Crikey" seems to have lost its early verve, but a new well-funded online Australian publication, "The Global Mail", will hit our screens early next year. Monica Attard, ex-ABC will be in charge.Ahhh. Now we're getting somewhere.
Raise funds from Peter to pay Paul
Scott Rochfort
September 7, 2011
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/raise-funds-from-peter-to-pay-paul-20110906-1jw09.html#ixzz1XE908HDF
The question remains? But why did Hutson address that group of investors when the PIF constitution requires all unitholders be treated equally?
Ahhh. Now we're getting somewhere.
Raise funds from Peter to pay Paul
Scott Rochfort
September 7, 2011
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/raise-funds-from-peter-to-pay-paul-20110906-1jw09.html#ixzz1XE908HDF
The question remains? But why did Hutson address that group of investors when the PIF constitution requires all unitholders be treated equally?
There's a clue to the level of tension between some unitholders and Wellington in the almost unprecedented episode in June when 200 extras were hired by a supporter of Hutson and told to vote in her favour at a Sydney meeting called tFrom the Andrew MAinot voting and in July, Hutson told judge John Dowsett of the Federal Court in Brisbane that she had "no idea" about the 200 extras and had had nothing to do with their each being granted 1000 units in the fund in order to vote.
Meanwhile, the registration of their holdings was backdated by a day to satisfy the NSW law that investors must have held units in an entity for 48 hours before they can vote at meetings.
Justice Dowsett had been asked to rule that the June meeting had not been validly called because the PIF Action Group, which called the meeting, had not used an up-to-date share register in notifying members about the meeting.
He refused to describe the backdating of the register as a fraud but conceded it was a "possible irregularity on the register". bolding added
From Andrew Main article in the Australian 5 September 2011:
Justice as dispensed by Justice Dowsett:
"possible irregularity on the register"???; not to be pursued by this judge.
Still dumbfounded.
Off to GC to hear what I already know from Sydney and Melbourne collegues.
Regards,
Exactly simgrund.
"Possible irregularity of the Register"
Hired actors/students supporting Hutson
Hutson choosing to address the rent a crowd.------------------------------------
" ... Critics have alleged Wellington attempted to stack an investor meeting in Sydney with up to 200 hired actors provided with free shares but Ms Hutson has denied any involvement in the aborted scheme. ..."
Um that's completely wrong. Hutson WAS INVOLVED with the attempt to stack the July meeting. Hutson chose to address them. That's involvement in my opinion.
From the US "Audit Directory" - irrefularity and fraud.
http://www.auditing.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=79191
Just returned from the Gold Coast Meeting. ....
She quickly came back with the answer that what she had said was that if she was dismissed as RE for non-performance she would not take the 2% fee, and that still stood.....
Towbar,Have just returned from "briefing on Gold Coast,some 300plus unitholders were in attendence,mostlly "grey nomads".Jh performance was slick.She wore the same Red Jacket,some sarcastic remarks from the audience.Each asset & security was discussed at some length, as per presentation.NO MORE CAPITAL RAISING!!& ALL MONIES AS THEY CAME TO HAND would be returned to pre 2008 investors.She spoke at some length about the Sydney EGM,& THAT SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE 200 actors
At Question time some one wanted to know where the fund would be in 10years, her reply was"a very distant memory!! Anothere question was about the loss of 34.48 million in the last finanacial report, she didnt reply to it . Spoke to people around me, they knew nothing about the" Aussie Forum"They got all their info from the papers
Thanks Mae, John and Towbar
What comes across is that the great majority of investors simply do not understand
what has actually happened to our Fund.
The fact that people would actually applaud someone ,who was cynically prepared to devalue their assets by 30% to save her skin , and is now prepared to take a 2% fee after abysmal non-performance ,is very sad.
Of course, a wind up scenario was always going to be attractive to an investor group predominantly over the age of 73.
Unfortunately, it has taken three years and many millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses for Jenny H to finally come to this conclusion.
Hi all. Have been reading all the threads. Can't help but write something, sorry to some in advance.
JH states that WC will not take their fee if removed as RE. The answer to nearly everyone of the posts is right there. The constant posting of the same points is (in my opinion ) is just a waste of time. Individually we cannot do anything and are quite powerless. JH knows this and wrongly or rightly uses this to her advantage. The PIFAG was set up for the collective gathering of us all to counteract some or all of the antics/tactic not too mention some committee that was set up back in 2008 that I've never heard from.
I know this will not go over to well but PIFAG has to take some responsibility albeit not for any financial losses we have had to accept. That clearly belongs to WC. But some of us did put our faith in PIFAG and I know they have worked hard and for no short term compensation but have clearly failed to date in removing WC as the RE. Now this could be from poor legal advice as it appears that most issues did not get judged in our favor but the processes and the potential tactics of the defendant were mostly known.
Based upon some of the recent posts it is unclear whether a large percentage of the 10k investors were on board as well although it probably depends on which register was used I guess.
Basically I would like to know what is actually being done by PIFAG in response to all of these meetings along with the continual reporting of the same issues that have always been in place and acted upon by WC. If there is nothing that can be done than let's move on and we'll just go down the WC road. As I mentioned, individually we can do nothing other than complain which is okay a couple of times but continually on the same topics for a lengthy period of time is just not healthy as much as that is hard to swallow. As I have stated a number of times both on this forum and in private messages I will help where in can although I certainly do not have the financial or techincal knowledge of most on this forum, I will help where I can. I have pretty much written off my 300k, but do know that ACTION can only be taken as a group.
With respect to all
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?