This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
selciper said:
It's always comforting to remember that however hard an organisation guards against the enemy from within, whistleblowers are always waiting for the right moment to spill the beans.
Click to expand...
Our thread on ASF has attracted a large following thats for sure. I sure receive some interesting diverse messages!!

IF YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH, HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH, COMMUNE WITH, WINK AT, TOLERATE, ABIDE THE ERRORS, (SIN), ARE PARTNERS, COMPANIONS, PARTICIPATING IN, SHARING WITH, ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOMINATION OF “THE CORPORATE IMAGE,” THAT JUST REFLECTS A MAN MADE INSTUTIONLISED MAUSOLEUM SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE DEPENDANT ON THIS ABOMINATION BUILT BY THE FLESH TO AFFIRM YOUR POSITION, THEN YOU ARE CONDONING THEIR EVIL PRACTICES:


DON`T AID AND ABET…DON`T “BID THEM GOD SPEED AND BECOME PARTAKERS OF THEIR EVIL DEEDS”….

DON`T BE FOUND GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION!!!!!!


http://straighttalkmin.org/doc/GUILTY_BY_ASSOCIATION.htm
 
And another article in Business Spectator

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20111111-NGRQE?OpenDocument&src=hp6

ASIC chief questioned over previous role: report

Published 8:31 AM, 11 Nov 2011

The new chief of the Australian corporate watchdog is facing questions regarding his past role with major international bank, Societe Generale, which has been accused of breaking corporate laws and engaging in misconduct, according to Fairfax Media.

Greg Medcraft was hand-picked by the Australian Government earlier this year, to chair the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and took up his $700,000-a-year post in May, the newspaper reported.

It has since emerged that Societe Generale is being pursued in the US over massive transactions involving sub-prime home mortgages in the lead-up to the global financial crisis.

The US Federal Housing Finance Agency has alleged in a lawsuit that Societe Generale's securitisation business – which Mr Medcraft oversaw – was negligent, did shoddy due diligence and seriously mislead American home loan providers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Jadel, looks like this is another one you can add to your list.
 
There is a supervised case review on the ASIC case today - 12122/09 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others . On 9 November: Affidavit by DB STARKOFF + EXHIBITS A AND B on behalf of the Applicant (ASIC) was submitted. Hopefully a hearing date will be set this time.
 
The chatter about the hand-picked Mr Medcraft will only result in ASIC officers wasting more time exchanging gossip at the water cooler. There should be an immediate resignation to clear the air. But we know that it will be business as usual with statements of "full confidence" from Treasurer Swan.
 

It's called mateship, selciper; M A T E S H I P.
Of the ALP type. The one that bedevilled Australia for donkeys years.
Remember Susan Ryan doling out ALP largesse on the white board?
And countless others. There's a recorded history.
This has been yet another addition to that shameful record.
Regards,
 
Simgrund, at the height of this year’s International Monetary Fund scandals, CNN published the following details about the then chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s salary package:

“According to his contract, Strauss-Kahn's salary in 2010 was $441,980.00. That's more than President Barack Obama makes, and Strauss-Kahn pays no taxes on his income. In addition, Strauss-Kahn receives a yearly allowance of $79,120.00 in monthly installments which, the contract says, comes "... without any certification or justification by you, to enable you to maintain, in the interests of the Fund, a scale of living appropriate to your position as Managing Director."

The salary of the ASIC chief is 700k.

Had the ASIC position been advertised, who is to say that a talented QC (SC) or retired judge would not have applied for the ASIC position?

Christine Lagarde, DSK’
s successor, despite incredibly high qualifications, had to be voted into her new position and had to beat off rivals in an open tournament.
 

I recall a Liberal Party MP who did the same thing on a whiteboard and had to eventually resign or was a misplaced person. How do we get accountability when people/investors/unit holders allow the foxes to roam within the confines of the fowl pen. Anything come to your mind immediately Simgrund? I do not know about anybody else but I have learnt and expensive lesson but fortunately I have an astute family who have gained from my unfortunate escapade into Managed Funds and they will never be enticed into such investments. If nothing else that is a "positive."
 

Of course Charles.
There are 2 kinds of Lessons: those learned in a nick of time to prevent next catastrophe; and those that were learned, alas, without an opportunity to put them to good use.
Which is where I am on the last rung of ladder to retirement next April.

With good wishes,
 
FYI - a reply I received from Wellington recently RE how they might handle any payments if received from Bentleys:
_________________________________________

Managing Director
Wellington Capital

If Bentleys, the receivers of Octaviar, shortly release any Octaviar assets (monies) to the PIF, say enough to pay one or two cents (one or two %) to PIF investors, will Wellington use this money for payment of the third cent to PIF investors?

If not, what would Wellington use Octaviar recovered monies for?

If Wellington uses any moneys returned to the PIF via Bentleys to pay PIF investors another cent or more, will Wellington begin to claim management fees of 0.7% per annum of current net tangible assets still remaining in the Fund?

If so, would these fees be back-dated? If so, how far back?

Would any other Wellington costs or fees be backdated after any Wellington management fees begin?

If Wellington does claim management fees, on what justification on profits Wellington has made for the PIF do Wellington claim such fees?

Sincerely

PIF Action Group
__________________________________________________


Wellington REPLY .....

I refer to your email addressed to Ms Hutson ....

Creditors Payment to Octaviar entities

We have not received any notification from Bentleys in relation to the creditors payment which was scheduled for 31 October 2011 as to acceptance of the Fund's proof of debt, or partial amount payable in total to all the creditors of the Octaviar group entities.

Any payment received by the Premium Income Fund from the liquidators of Octaviar entities would be paid to unitholders. This payment would be made if sufficient proceeds were received to make a sensible payment as compared to the number of units on issue. If there are insufficient proceeds received from the liquidators, the proceeds will be held in the Fund's account until such time as there are sufficient assets sales to make a further cash payment to unitholders.

Management fees to responsible entity


As set out in the NSX Release 30 March 2011, Wellington amended clause 23 of the Fund's Constitution, which deals with the remuneration of the responsible entity of the Fund. The amendment provides that once cash payments of 3 cents per unit have been paid to unitholders, the responsible entity will only be able to charge it's funds management fee for a period of two years.

Once a further 1 cent payment is made to unitholders, Wellington Capital Limited will be entitled to charge management fees as follows:

23.1 The responsible entity is entitled to be paid out of Scheme Property a management fee equal to the sum of 0.7% per annum of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. The fee will be calculated and paid monthly in advance.
23.2 The fee payable after 2008 to the Responsible Entity under clause 23.1 will only be paid for a period of 2 years commencing on the date unitholders are in receipt of cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit. After that period the Responsible Entity will no longer be entitled to the remuneration as set out in clause 23.1

The fee is a management fee not a performance fee. There is no mechanism in the (Fund) Constitution for the backdating of management fees.

Clause 23.9 sets out that the Fund must pay it's own expenses. There is no mechanism for the payment of any other fees to the responsible entity by the Fund

Signed
Wellington Capital Limited
Nov 2011
_______________________________________________

I note that my last question was not answered.
Breaker
 
Thanks Breaker. I also note that the majority of my questions/complaints to Wellington capital receive an unsatisfactory response. Finally after being fobbed off once again re a series of questions relating to the PIF 2011 annual auditand other PIF related concerns I took the advice from our complaints officer Caroline Snow to contact the 'Credit ombudsman' to make a further complaint as to the conflicting information from PWC and WC. To cut a long story short, the 'Credit Ombudsman' informs me that it is not in a position to deal with such complaints and will notify Wellington Capital Limited of this. I can only assume that WC were using them as another fob off avenue without doing their homework as to the actual roles and responsibilities of the 'Credit Ombudsman'.

I was 'encouraged' however from my communication from ASIC today informing me that they were continuing to examine my concerns relating to this and that their considerations into this matter was taking longer than expected.
 

Guess what? No member of the so-called PIF REACTION GROUP has come forward to explain their concerns. Why? Maybe they never existed. Who benefited? I know Wellington Capital definitely did because I spoke to numerous unit holders, particularly the older person, who believed what they read and changed their vote from Castlereagh Capital to Wellington Capital. I cannot think of any reason for the printing, packaging and posting of the documents in question other than to MENACE, HARASS AND CAUSE OFFENCE to the persons depicted in the publications. Well, my offer is still open to any person who has any information concerning these documents even if for some how you were personally involved there maybe some reason to offer for your exculpation. Certainly assisting the PIFAG is a good start.
 

WC will be outed not with a wimp but with a big BANG!!!
I publicly accuse them of perpetrating this outrage and the sooner ASIC's new boss shakes off his honeymoon veils the sooner he will start earning his inflated keep.
This forum will really serve it's purpose in exposing this scam.
Go on Reaction PIF, react!

Brickbats to you,

PS Thanks to seamisty & breaker1 on the latest; it helps
 
From a recent communication by Caroline Snow, Premium Income Fund designated complaints officer and Associate Director of Wellington Capital and I quote "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the PIF Reaction Group. The Fund has a diverse variety of unitholders who choose to communicate in a variety of methods.
Wellington Capital is unaware of who sent the correspondence of which you refer to
unitholders and does not support in any way the use of the Funds register for other than proper purposes" end quote.

Obscure or what??? We know the Fund has a diverse range of unitholdrs, especially when it is not a well kept secret that Forest Resort golfers and staff, part time actors and Wellington Capital Limited employees themselves were 'gifted' parcels of shares and in some cases all expense paid trips to Sydney as enticement to wave a pink slip in favour of Ms hutson as the preferred chairperson at the EGM in Sydney. I did hear a rumour that golf related persons from Victoria were interviewed by ASIC relating to this matter. I am told that the misuse of a client register, especially if it is proved that it was remotely connected to the current Responsible Entity is a SERIOUS OFFENSE!!! Golden eggs tarnish very quickly once the goose droppings start to pile up. Whew those big birds are reknowned for how much ****e they can produce and the trail usually always leads back to the hen house.
 

I have said that before in a previous post. There is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that Wellington, hutson and that other cohort yuan investments (or whatever he calls himself) are directly responsible for the concoction of the name of the group and the mailout.

It would appear with recent media articles that we are allowed to make these allegations of who we think is behind this fraud and conducted this criminal type behaviour.

I strongly believe that hutson was behind the mailout, knew it was fraudulent, cooperated, ordered and assisted with the mailout, covered up after the facts, refused to investigate and release infromation relating or proving existance of a group. It was hutson that had the most to gain and there is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that she was behind this criminal type activity that warrants further investigation into her activities for fraud, and other criminal activities relating to the mailout.
 

There is NO WAY this evidence is just cicumstantial.
Access to REGISTER can NOT BE GAINED without WC releasing it to asking parties;
be they rogue, foe or friend.
And they are bound to ASIC's rules on disclosure.
WC must vet such requests in their RE performance duties
to act in the interests of all unitholders.

Jenny, look closely at Japanese time-honoured hara-kiri
by those associated with wrongdoing.
Time you followed suit.
And be a redeemed shadow floating out there beyond the clouds.

Don't ponder too long,
 
An interesting development in the Qld Supreme Court ASIC case against MFS Directors and Managed Investments directors (including TFS). On Friday 11/11 the case review was heard by Fryberg J instead of Lyons J, the applications judge who has conducted the numerous case reviews since 2009.

Normally case reviews are scheduled on a 3 month basis but Fryberg J ordered the next review for one month on 12/12/2011 Review Supervised Case. Maybe the case will start moving next month and with a new judge.

http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esear...ocation=BRISB&Court=SUPRE&Filenumber=12122/09
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
2
Views
330
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
956
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
qldfrog
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...