Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Marcom,

Like many others, I have no faith in ASIC. I will believe it when I see it in terms of monetary retrieval. We can live in hope, but until I see there money coming thru, I believe that my three areas of retrieval are the most likely.

Can anyone think of other areas that we can hope for???

Michael

atlas1950 said:

1) Hopefully some release of our funds from Bentleys as stated from them about 3 weeks ago.

Click to expand...

That money will be paid to PIF and it will be entirely up to the flip-flop WC as to what happens to it.

How good is Hutson's judgement. Well she didn't seem to think it was a bad idea to address the rent a crowd?

marcom said:

We might also get something out of the ASIC case against MFS directors and others when ASIC get off their backsides and get the case going.

Click to expand...

Conjecture again on my part - ASIC may be keenly waiting on the Bentleys report and recommendations to be released. After all, Bentleys will have done the burdonsome chores for the regulator over the past eighteen months or so (giving ASIC a free ride).

Seamisty, your hard work is invaluable!

Let us hope you are right. There have been too many disappointments with ASIC, so I personally don't put too much faith in them.

It seems to me the CA is our best hope, plus the other drips and drabs filtering thru.

Keep the faith everyone.

Michael

atlas1950 said:

Hi All,

Am I correct in saying that our next important date we should keep our eyes open for is at the end of October when Bentleys might distribute some of our frozen funds.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom, and the way I see it, we have three areas of retrieving some of our investments.

1) Hopefully some release of our funds from Bentleys as stated from them about 3 weeks ago.

2) The eventual 1 cent distribution from WC. I am sure this one will come so that it will allow her to pay herself the .7% management fees.

3) The eventual distribution from our Class Action.

The CA is the one that I put a lot of faith into. IMF would not be putting there time and millions of dollars into it, if they felt we had no case. So let us not loose complete faith in all the hard work that we have done so far, and the name of the exercise now, I believe, is retrieving as much of our capital as possible.

Apart from my 3 points, can anyone think of any other areas where we could get some of our investment back.

Michael

Click to expand...

Michael, There are a few more ways to recover some of our money but at this stage less said the better. "Never telegraph your punches."

An interesting piece in the LAWYERS WEEKLY

Fine line between super boss and psycho
Posted Oct 06 2011, 08:27 PM by Lawyers Weekly

According to psychologist and executive coach Paul Babiak, psychopaths - who are generally described as being "completely amoral and concerned only with their own power and selfish pleasures" (sound familiar?) - are likely to be overrepresented in the business environment because it happens to play to their strengths.

In short, where greed is considered to be a good thing (worried yet?) and profit-making tops the values list (run while you can!), psychopaths thrive.

Frankly, based on that little assessment, it seems likely that most lawyers are probably working with at least one psychopath.

More from http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo.../fine-line-between-super-boss-and-psycho.aspx

I can think of one that fits the description - wonder who that would be?

charles36 said:

Michael, There are a few more ways to recover some of our money but at this stage less said the better. "Never telegraph your punches."

Click to expand...

Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June. That was the decision where the FCA said that Hutson's WC illegally changed the PIF consitution so that it could issue more units that substantially diluted the value of the existing unit holder's investment.

Hutson's response (http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF) to Gordon J's decision was "It is disappointing that having taken appropriate legal advice in relation to the issue that the outcome is a decision by Justice Gordon that the issue cannot proceed" [emaphasis added]

Well how "appropriate" WAS that legal advice? We've got two judges now that disagree.

On June 21 The Courier Mail published "Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson described the decision as "disappointing" and disagreed with the court's interpretation of how a fund manager can implement changes to a constitution without adversely affecting investor rights." [emphasis added]

Hey Jennifer Joan Hutson - it appears there are now TWO judges that disagree with YOU.

Add this to your bad decision to choose to address the rent a crowd.

From such information it seems your WC is either a sham/front as some are alleging,or you're not showing very good judgement. Both are grounds for the interests of unit holders being served best by your immediate resignation.

And you can more quickly precipitate your desire to make PIF "a very distant memory" (see post #8835).

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=154995

http://www.freehills.com/7528.aspx

http://www.minterellison.com/Pub/NA/20111011_Centro/

Duped said:

Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June.
http://www.freehills.com/7528.aspx

Click to expand...

I isolated these 2 sections from Freehills for better analysis.
What is the correct interpretation?
As long as the "rights" are untouchable, the bread & butter "interests" can be
slaughtered for the original unit holders???

06 October 2011
In brief

Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) allows the responsible entity of a managed investment scheme to amend the scheme constitution without unitholder approval if the responsible entity reasonably considers that the changes will not adversely affect unitholders’ rights.
The recent Premium Income Fund case cast doubt on the previously widely held view that amendments which merely affected the price at which units were issued did not affect any ‘right’ of unitholders and therefore could be implemented unilaterally by responsible entities.
In In the matter of Centro Retail Limited, Barrett J rejected the Premium Income Fund case interpretation of section 601GC(1)(a) and expressly held that the responsible entity of a managed investment scheme has the power to amend the scheme constitution to set new unit pricing parameters without the need for unitholder approval because such an amendment does not ‘affect unitholders’ rights’, although it may affect their interests.
However, Barrett J noted that the responsible entity must exercise the power to amend the constitution consistently with its fiduciary obligations to act for the benefit of unitholders.

Click to expand...

and further

Ruling

Barrett J analysed the Premium Income Fund and ING Funds Management Ltd cases, as well as various cases which addressed similar issues in the context of the rights of shareholders in a company. His Honour noted that the suggestion in the Premium Income Fund case that unitholders had a ‘right’ to insist that no new units be issued other than pursuant to the existing pricing formula was dicta. He then went on to expressly reject this interpretation of unitholders’ ‘rights’, contrasting the meaning of unitholders’ ‘rights’ with unitholders’ ‘interests’ (ie, something that affects the enjoyment or value of unitholders’ rights). His Honour then held that it was open to the RE, on reasonable grounds, to find that the pricing amendments would not adversely affect unitholders’ rights.

Barrett J went on to note that although the RE had the power to make the amendments under section 601GC(1)(b), it still had to ensure that it properly discharged its fiduciary duties when exercising that power. In particular, His Honour emphasised that the RE must conclude that it is acting for the benefit of unitholders when committing to a particular course of action. In this case, His Honour was satisfied that the RE had adequately considered relevant issues and documented its reasons for exercising its amendment powers.

Click to expand...

Duped said:

Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June. That was the decision where the FCA said that Hutson's WC illegally changed the PIF consitution so that it could issue more units that substantially diluted the value of the existing unit holder's investment.

Hutson's response (http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF) to Gordon J's decision was "It is disappointing that having taken appropriate legal advice in relation to the issue that the outcome is a decision by Justice Gordon that the issue cannot proceed" [emaphasis added]

Well how "appropriate" WAS that legal advice? We've got two judges now that disagree.

On June 21 The Courier Mail published "Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson described the decision as "disappointing" and disagreed with the court's interpretation of how a fund manager can implement changes to a constitution without adversely affecting investor rights." [emphasis added]

Hey Jennifer Joan Hutson - it appears there are now TWO judges that disagree with YOU.

Add this to your bad decision to choose to address the rent a crowd.

From such information it seems your WC is either a sham/front as some are alleging,or you're not showing very good judgement. Both are grounds for the interests of unit holders being served best by your immediate resignation.

And you can more quickly precipitate your desire to make PIF "a very distant memory" (see post #8835).

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=154995

http://www.freehills.com/7528.aspx

http://www.minterellison.com/Pub/NA/20111011_Centro/

Click to expand...

DUPED Do you think you might be a bit premature in your summation, Wellington are winding up the "Spinning Top" to make an announcement re the judgment. Either way it cannot be justified to say that the "Placement Issue was in the interest of unit holders, diluting our assets could never be described by any reasonalble authority as an advantage. However, you never know what spin will follow. Cheers.

I've actually posted this on here previously http://www.liv.asn.au/News-and-Publ...-that-come-back-to-haunt--Ensuring-company-pr but I personally cannot see that the 'Explanatory memorandum' offered to us by Wellington Capital and Ms hutson is/was any different to a prospectus as such. It was a booklet containing information relating to our fund and the reasons why PIf unitholders would be better off electing WC as RE to take the fund forward, recommence distributions and return the unit value back to a dollar in 3-5 years as opposed to liquidation. It did not eventuate and the PIF is being liquidated with no consultation with PIF unitholders who were vehmenently opposed to liquidation hence electing a company who assured us that was not going to happen if we elected WC. It was also WC that instructed Radar promotions to draw attention to the fact that Castlereagh Capital were liquidators when they contacted all PIF unitholders (except me!!) and that they should vote for WC.
It would be interesting to know legally the obligation differences between both a 'prospectus' and an EM and what recourse investors have when it is proved that investors were deceived and misled into giving control of their Fund to an RE on the content of an Explanatory Memorandum which proved to contain false information.

Having recently viewed the UK fraud squad documentary, I looked up a dictionary definition of 'a gang': "A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit". And they got their man by using high-tech methods.

Not directed at you charles36 and simgrund

Barret J found that members having the right to have the PIF units valued in accordance with the PIF constitution was merely 'obiter'.

Hutson's Board still illegally changed the PIF constitution. And we have two Judges supporting the illegality of what Hutson's Board did.

So either Hutson's legal advice was not "proper and appropriate" as she publicly opined. Or she misinterpreted or ignored that "proper and appropriate" legal advice. Yikes?

Hutson is showing poor judgement and decision making. Recall that she chose to address the rent-a-crowd. Without identifying who they are? So how easy is it for select unit holders to ensnare and use Hutson as a weapon against other unit holders? Is it safe for Hutson to be in charge of PIF then?

And then , according to the Age, "One person asked if it was moral. The lady in the red coat told them what they were being asked to do was not illegal. "The NRMA did it," she said, according to the movie extra.". If something's "not illegal" then you'll do it eh Hutson?

It seems that Hutson thinks it's OK to return to the bad old King days of questionable and unprofessional management of PIF. Remember the allegations of our RE backdating documents? Thanks to the brave legal action taken by PIFAG (The conduct of the secretive 'PIF ReAction group' confers PIFAG's courage), Gordon J's published decision reveals that Hutson doesn't think her Board need undertake due process for deciding to amend the PIF constitution. What? Hutson again thinking it's 'not illegal'? We've got two Justices now conferring that the Hutson board's actions were illegal.

Oh at it seems Hutson has found a loophole whereby it's not illegal to leave the annual financial statement without an audit.

For the best interests of unitholders, WC must resign immediately.


Hutson's latest words of wisdom are that "Wellington is committed to no further further capital raising". Hence Hutson has lead the market to believe that new units will not be issued. A complete back flip from the Hutson' position less than 2 months earlier. (WC July 11 NSX release: WC "now proposes to undertake a further capital raising".) Will the Flip Flop Hutson board back flip again? A flip flop board that is lead by Not-Illegal Hutson who does whatever she wants; even stuff Judges subsequently find illegal. Only when she' s caught of course. Hutson who wishes for PIF to be "a very distant memory".

In her MD report in the latest annual report Hutson didn't even have the courtesy to address the $20M+ (UN-audited) loss for the year . Yet she throws in some hyperbola about debt instability in the US and Europe. Yeah, so what. WC paid off PIF debt by selling PIF assets. And in doing so, Hutson's WC incurred huge losses. Whoop-di-doo. What's that got to do with the price WC is getting for flogging off PIF assets?

How much more unprofessional and dangerous for investors can the Wellington Charade (Wannabe Charade?) be? Under WC the NSX unit price continues to linger WAY below NTA. Hence PIF continues to be a target of another 'opportunistic' takeover bid. A bid that WC will spend more PIF investor $ to defend.

But WC's rusted on supporters still don't get it. They'll hand over their cash to any slick salesman? Which is why they're in this situation in the first place?

New York hedge fund executive gets a long jail term (Bloomberg). American judges certainly frown on white collar crime.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nce-sends-wall-street-right-m-view.html

Outrigger buys Surfers Holiday Inn

Lucy Ardern | October 12th, 2011
OUTRIGGER Hotels and Resorts has purchased the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise, which has been in receivership since 2009.
Outrigger Hotels regional general manager Grant James said the investment in the city was a ''major show of confidence'' in its tourism industry.
The sale contract, which includes the management rights, is expected to settle late this year or early 2012, when the property will be renamed Outrigger Surfers Paradise.
The management rights were purchased from receiver managers Colryan Pty Ltd.

Forest Resort is back in court again today re 'directions hearing'
Supreme Court List for Friday, 14 October 2011

Commercial Court - List E
RYTELLE PTY LTD (ACN 105 101
639) (Receivers and Managers
appointed) & Ors.
10:00 S CI 2009 06858 PERPETUAL v. Directions Hearing
NOMINEES LIMITED (ACN
000 733 700)

seamisty said:

Forest Resort is back in court again today re 'directions hearing'
Supreme Court List for Friday, 14 October 2011

Commercial Court - List E
RYTELLE PTY LTD (ACN 105 101
639) (Receivers and Managers
appointed) & Ors.
10:00 S CI 2009 06858 PERPETUAL v. Directions Hearing
NOMINEES LIMITED (ACN
000 733 700)

Click to expand...

Just an update to this post. Todays hearing has been adjourned until the 18th November when it is expected the setting for a trial date will occur.

Is it possible as part of the CA that we obtain Court approval under S 247A of the Corporations Act for a forensic accountant to inspect the PIF books with the view to amending the Statement of Claim to include all of the amounts that The Fat Slug (herein refered to as TFS in deference to John H's sensitivity to references to JH) has pilfered from our fund?

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 247A
Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme

(1) On application by a member of a company or registered managed investment scheme, the Court may make an order:

(a) authorising the applicant to inspect books of the company or scheme; or

(b) authorising another person (whether a member or not) to inspect books of the company or scheme on the applicant's behalf.

The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that the applicant is acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose.

(2) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

(3) A person who:

(a) is granted leave under section 237; or

(b) applies for leave under that section; or

(c) is eligible to apply for leave under that section;

may apply to the Court for an order under this section.

(4) On application, the Court may make an order authorising:

(a) the applicant to inspect books of the company; or

(b) another person to inspect books of the company on the applicant's behalf.

(5) The Court may make the order only if it is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is acting in good faith; and

(b) the inspection is to be made for a purpose connected with:

(i) applying for leave under section 237; or

(ii) bringing or intervening in proceedings with leave under that section.

(6) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

Another Corporate Casualty
Ex-Sonray boss Scott Murray sentenced to five years jail


THE former chief executive of Melbourne-based financial company Sonray Capital Markets has been jailed for five years for contributing to the company's collapse.

Scott Kenneth Murray, 33, pleaded guilty to 10 deception charges including false accounting and theft after the company went into administration last June with losses of $47 million
Full story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-to-5-years-jail/story-fn91v9q3-1226166689822

Another article relating to above:
http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/12753.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9633-DFFE1942 Investors participating in the financial markets are entitled to expect that their money will be handled responsibly and honestly. ASIC will act to ensure that anyone who acts in a way that causes a market participant to breach this trust, causing financial losses to investors, is brought to account."

Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets. We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are. For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.

charles36 said:

Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets. We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are. For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.

Click to expand...

I understand that this property/golf resort in Melbourne recently sold for $13million and is on 'par' with the Forest Resort at Creswick.http://www.insidegolf.com.au/news/heritage-golf-country-club-sale-finalised/

Wellington Capital values the Forest Resort at $40.9million. Any wonder the PIF auditors PricecewaterhouseCoopers were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion and accordingly could not express an opinion on the 2011 financial report ? Just how far out are WC current property valuations. 50% 6o%??