Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

great dame said:

I agree with one thing you say RICK WE NEED TO FIND ANOTHER RE Have you anybody in mind ??????????? //

Click to expand...

Hi Great Dame,
I believe that we should stay with JH because she does have an agenda and that is to prove that she is one of the best in her industry and I believe that she will do everything within her power to achieve 6 cents per annum and $1.00 value within 3/5 years but 7 years does sound achievable to me based on borrowings to purchase really good assets at low prices.
Remember 75% vote is mandatory - We cannot afford to split the vote.
RickH:couch

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Flatback

I agree with most of what you have stated

However as i understand the situation at this point in time a clear offer has been made by Chris Scott to the PIF and other creditors which equates to approximately the figure mentioned .

I am more than happy to stand corrected if you can supply the necessary information.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

selciper said:

Splitpin -

The ongoing participation of the AG with WC is very important. By the way, what is the official status of the AG? Does WC have to recognise it? If so, up to what point?

....................

Am surprised to read that WC believe that only 1000 PIF investors are on the internet. This is way, way below the national average. Something is a bit odd about that figure. More regular on-line WC bulletins could quell a lot of understandable speculation on this blog

Any chance of Breaker 1 arranging another interview with JH?

Click to expand...

Selciper

From what I hear, the AG is going very well.

At the GC forum, JH did indicate she would facilitate the AG.

I would hope that may involve the AG within the compliance committee as suggested previously.

I trust the AG will inform us on further developments.

Regards


Splitpin.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Breaker1 its good to see that some common sense has prevailed, and upon reading your e/mail,please except my full approval for the road upon which you intend to travel,others may not agree, but you have my full support, this is at last, a work in progress which ask's the questions of JH to address these issues as soon as practicable,personly i cannot see why she cant give us an answer to the majority of these questions in the near future. thanks friend keep up the good work.
flatback

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

There was some confusion at the QLD meeting yesterday about how JH could tell us that we have to vote for her or wind up the scheme. If 75% of those that vote don't want WC to be the RE then the scheme will be wound up unless we appoint another RE. I've attached some extracts from the Corp Act and the PIFs constitution which I think are relevant to yesterday’s discussions. You can also see JH's quote (here http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/AFR_8july2008.pdf) from the BNE meeting saying she needs 75% of the votes of those that choose to vote.

On another topic, I had a discussion with a member last week about how the wholesale investors vote. I checked with WC and the class of investors who invested directly will vote in the usual way but the other class will vote though their rep or what ever platform they used to get into the fund. WC does not have any voting power in Aug.

I'm wondering if anyone can explain this statement made to Breaker at his interview with JH. "She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF" The Octaviar updates stated the $50mil SF was already called on Feb 26 2008 before she was in the picture so was there a need for an amending deed?.
Quote from the OCV updates:
"On 26 February 2008, Octaviar IM provided Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited), with 3 Option Notices to notify Octaviar Limited that it was calling on the full value of the Support Facility. The Support Facility has a callable value of $50m. The Fund has not yet received this payment and Octaviar IM continues to be a major creditor to Octaviar Limited. Repayment of the loan balance owed to the third party bank is not dependent on receipt of the $50 million in the near term."

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

breaker1 said:

I have asked a capable fellow OPIF investor in our action group to follow the NSW Bookmakers Super Fund up, to join us. An email was sent by him and I have subsequently asked him to chase the email up with a phone call to management of the Super Fund - should get a reply from him this week I hope.

Click to expand...

Did anyone get a response from the NSW Bookmakers Super Fund?

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

DoraNBoots said:

There was some confusion at the QLD meeting yesterday about how JH could tell us that we have to vote for her or wind up the scheme. If 75% of those that vote don't want WC to be the RE then the scheme will be wound up unless we appoint another RE. I've attached some extracts from the Corp Act and the PIFs constitution which I think are relevant to yesterday’s discussions. You can also see JH's quote (here http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/AFR_8july2008.pdf) from the BNE meeting saying she needs 75% of the votes of those that choose to vote.

On another topic, I had a discussion with a member last week about how the wholesale investors vote. I checked with WC and the class of investors who invested directly will vote in the usual way but the other class will vote though their rep or what ever platform they used to get into the fund. WC does not have any voting power in Aug.

I'm wondering if anyone can explain this statement made to Breaker at his interview with JH. "She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF" The Octaviar updates stated the $50mil SF was already called on Feb 26 2008 before she was in the picture so was there a need for an amending deed?.
Quote from the OCV updates:
"On 26 February 2008, Octaviar IM provided Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited), with 3 Option Notices to notify Octaviar Limited that it was calling on the full value of the Support Facility. The Support Facility has a callable value of $50m. The Fund has not yet received this payment and Octaviar IM continues to be a major creditor to Octaviar Limited. Repayment of the loan balance owed to the third party bank is not dependent on receipt of the $50 million in the near term."

Click to expand...

Hello All,
Thanks for your information, Dora. I was intrigued by the expression " ride on the coat tails of the Packer Empire" in the AFR article. Packer has done very well in divesting himself of media interests which are doing very poorly and in acquiring LLA at very good terms. As long as we (PIF)have an interest in LLA I am very happy to give Packer the opportunity to manage that part of our future.
Having read the extracts from the Corporations Act I see the mechanism as follows:
1) WC will put a Special Resolution to all unit holders asking for their vote either in person or by proxy. Special resolutions have to be voted on by a poll and at least 75% of all unit holders entitled to vote must approve the resolution. The words of the resolution should ask for approval by PIF unit holders for WC to to continue to act as the Responsible Entity.
2) At midnight on 21st August WC will have counted all the proxy votes and know whether or not 75% has been achieved or is likely to be achieved. If 75% or more approve then PIF lives. If it looks likely that 75% will not be achieved there is no possibility that a special or extraordinary resolution could be put to the meeting to delay winding up as voting by poll of all unit holders is required, not just those at the meeting.
3) If less than 75% of unit holders vote for WC to continue as RE, at the meeting on 22nd August WC will tender at least 3 months notice of termination of the scheme.
I can not think of a second extraordinary resolution or special resolution which can be put in conjunction with, or dependent on the first one asking for WC to continue as RE, which would give life to PIF and avoid termination.
JH is quoted as saying "choose to vote" which could merely refer to the likelihood that not all unit holders will vote. I know that here in Wollongong not all will vote as some are overseas and will not get their voting papers. I assume those that do not vote are not counted when the 75% is calculated.

I have no legal knowledge about deeds but could only propose that a new deed would be required so that WC, having assumed the role of RE and bought all the shares in MFSIM becomes the entity responsible for the execution of any actions on behalf of the PIF in relation to the Support Facility.

Mutchy

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

DoraNBoots said:

I'm wondering if anyone can explain this statement made to Breaker at his interview with JH. "She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF" The Octaviar updates stated the $50mil SF was already called on Feb 26 2008 before she was in the picture so was there a need for an amending deed?.
Quote from the OCV updates:
"On 26 February 2008, Octaviar IM provided Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited), with 3 Option Notices to notify Octaviar Limited that it was calling on the full value of the Support Facility. The Support Facility has a callable value of $50m. The Fund has not yet received this payment and Octaviar IM continues to be a major creditor to Octaviar Limited. Repayment of the loan balance owed to the third party bank is not dependent on receipt of the $50 million in the near term."

Click to expand...

Mutchy said:

Hello All,

I have no legal knowledge about deeds but could only propose that a new deed would be required so that WC, having assumed the role of RE and bought all the shares in MFSIM becomes the entity responsible for the execution of any actions on behalf of the PIF in relation to the Support Facility.

Mutchy

Click to expand...

To answer your query regarding the amendments to the deed of the PDS, if she didnt do this as new RE for the PIF it would have released the obligation of Octaviar to "cough up" the $50 million it was obliged to pay to us. Therefore she had to get the amendment through to allow this obligation to stand.

On another note, lots of emotion and angst is present in these forums notes and at the end of the day if WC cannot get the 75% vote to continue as RE, all that we have been talking about may have been in vain, regardless of whether we like JH or not.... at least if she gets approval to continue as RE we can then make moves to have an active and supporting role in the continuation of the fund to maximise our possible return. Then we can approach her with our thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc....

I truly hope that there is enough support when it comes to "the crunch" otherwsie we truly are beating a
:horse:

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Mutchy said:

Hello All,
Thanks for your information, Dora. I was intrigued by the expression " ride on the coat tails of the Packer Empire" in the AFR article. Packer has done very well in divesting himself of media interests which are doing very poorly and in acquiring LLA at very good terms. As long as we (PIF)have an interest in LLA I am very happy to give Packer the opportunity to manage that part of our future.
Having read the extracts from the Corporations Act I see the mechanism as follows:
1) WC will put a Special Resolution to all unit holders asking for their vote either in person or by proxy. Special resolutions have to be voted on by a poll and at least 75% of all unit holders entitled to vote must approve the resolution. The words of the resolution should ask for approval by PIF unit holders for WC to to continue to act as the Responsible Entity.
2) At midnight on 21st August WC will have counted all the proxy votes and know whether or not 75% has been achieved or is likely to be achieved. If 75% or more approve then PIF lives. If it looks likely that 75% will not be achieved there is no possibility that a special or extraordinary resolution could be put to the meeting to delay winding up as voting by poll of all unit holders is required, not just those at the meeting.
3) If less than 75% of unit holders vote for WC to continue as RE, at the meeting on 22nd August WC will tender at least 3 months notice of termination of the scheme.
I can not think of a second extraordinary resolution or special resolution which can be put in conjunction with, or dependent on the first one asking for WC to continue as RE, which would give life to PIF and avoid termination.
JH is quoted as saying "choose to vote" which could merely refer to the likelihood that not all unit holders will vote. I know that here in Wollongong not all will vote as some are overseas and will not get their voting papers. I assume those that do not vote are not counted when the 75% is calculated.

I have no legal knowledge about deeds but could only propose that a new deed would be required so that WC, having assumed the role of RE and bought all the shares in MFSIM becomes the entity responsible for the execution of any actions on behalf of the PIF in relation to the Support Facility.

Mutchy

Click to expand...

Hello Mutchy,
In respect of "members overseas", can a system of nominated proxies be devised beforehand to capture votes of those unable to be present???
Regards

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have just created a poll to get an idea of what people on this forum are thinking..it's a bit of a novelty, but it's FREE to vote..so spread the word and have a say. Here's the link:

http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

simgrund said:

Hello Mutchy,
In respect of "members overseas", can a system of nominated proxies be devised beforehand to capture votes of those unable to be present???
Regards

Click to expand...

Hi Simgrund,
Thanks for your question. I talked to one unit holder about this. He could have left me a letter assigning me as the proxy vote holder however he was unsure of how to vote until he saw the proposal and any figures provided by WC. Whilst he is quite technically literate and has the ability to do as follows, he did not take a computer with him and was not prepared to spend the effort necessary to monitor his mailbox at Internet Cafes whilst in foreign parts. For the other I will see what the situation is over the next week or so.
C'est la Vie!

All,
There are a few milestones coming up.
On Friday 1st August we need to know whether the Royal Bank of Scotland has been repaid their loan. This should be important enough for someone at WC to post a notice on the newpif.com.au website. It would be nice to know how liquid the fund is after this event and also to have enough information to gauge how well WC has performed in managing the asset sales.

I believe that we have to be given notice of a general meeting and while WC have spoken about a meeting to be held on 22nd August I have not seen anything which resembles a formal "Notice of Meeting". For organisations where I have been Public Officer in NSW the notice required is 21 days. I believe we should receive a formal "Notice of Meeting" with the details of and supporting arguement for a motion to accept WC as RE and for them to proceed to implement their recovery plan. The due date for that notice to be in our hands is Friday 1st August by my reckoning. Can anyone clarify that? What is the period required in Queensland or by the PIF constitution?

I, and most other unit holders I have spoken to are quite happy to have WC act as Responsible Entity for the PIF. However for the benefit of those doomsayers who post on this form, and those that just lurk, I also point out that Friday next is also the day by which you must have notified all unit holders of any motion to have WC replaced as RE for the PIF. You will also have had to find a firm willing to be the RE and have their agreement in writing. You also need 100 signatures for the petition to hold a general meeting and to have submitted that petition to the existing RE.


Mutchy
:fan

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier said:

I have just created a poll to get an idea of what people on this forum are thinking..it's a bit of a novelty, but it's FREE to vote..so spread the word and have a say. Here's the link:

http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php

Click to expand...

User name: PIFpoll
Password: spain123

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier said:

User name: PIFpoll
Password: spain123

Click to expand...

Sorry one more under Web Tools go to Web Poll then hit the "view service" button.

Sorry a little more complicated than what I thought

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Javiar, what a great idea....I have just voted... the stats so far look good....well done,,,,,:bowdown:

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier, if your poll shows a real trend, Jenny is a shoe in!

See how many more votes you get, as the numbers grow, the poll should become more accurate.

Trusting those trying to win us over to Jenny on the forum start to relax a bit.

Trusting you can't multiple vote - haven't tested that?

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

RickH said:

Hi Great Dame,
I believe that we should stay with JH because she does have an agenda and that is to prove that she is one of the best in her industry and I believe that she will do everything within her power to achieve 6 cents per annum and $1.00 value within 3/5 years but 7 years does sound achievable to me based on borrowings to purchase really good assets at low prices.
Remember 75% vote is mandatory - We cannot afford to split the vote.
RickH:couch

Click to expand...

Good morning Rick A few points i want to bring to your attentian You say let JH have her way by giving ys all 6% divedend a year & listing our units on the NSX for those folk who wish to bail out And let the fund grow to a $1 Sounds pretty good Hey LIKE HELL IT DOSE Rick if any of your clients want to bail out & go to the NSX they are in for a rude shock You would be lucky to find a buyer there & if you did you would get next to nothing for your stock believe me i know Another point is this When a company has lost so much value as the PIF has 55% it stops paying divedends And plowered that money back into to company to help it grow That 6 cents should stay in the fund not used as bait to get WC over the line Also i think its capital return Not income produced by the fund Rick please dont give your clients false hope By for now ///////

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

G.D. you are forgetting that it is 6 cents - not 6%.

6 cents return on say 45 cents - is over 13% return. This would certainly be attractive to some investors on the ASX

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

....NSX

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Wellington reckon they will take 3-5 years to restore the fund back.
That is nonsense, in a booming economy like Australia, getting trillions from our resources, Wellington should be able to invest in areas like Macquarie Bank do and recover easily by the end of the year! Why do you think some banks can offer over 8% term deposits now.

I think there is enough funds in the PIF to pay all redemptions and more.
Wellington are just trying to keep their jobs, by having our PIF, to themselves.
Why would they to all the trouble to acquire it and then go around the country promoting themselves, as some great saviour.

They have had our money for over 6 months, without paying out a cent, so if they have any morals, they should pay us out now and close down the fund.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

akernst said:

Wellington reckon they will take 3-5 years to restore the fund back.
That is nonsense, in a booming economy like Australia, getting trillions from our resources, Wellington should be able to invest in areas like Macquarie Bank do and recover easily by the end of the year! Why do you think some banks can offer over 8% term deposits now.

I think there is enough funds in the PIF to pay all redemptions and more.
Wellington are just trying to keep their jobs, by having our PIF, to themselves.
Why would they to all the trouble to acquire it and then go around the country promoting themselves, as some great saviour.

They have had our money for over 6 months, without paying out a cent, so if they have any morals, they should pay us out now and close down the fund.

Click to expand...

I can understand your angst but please note a few things,

The RBOS ( third party bank) has been collecting all payments being made back to PIF whether it be income or return of loans that have been repaid in order to pay back the loan of $200 million otherwise there was a risk that they would realise the loan assets and recover monies through their own action which they have the right to do, so they have been collecting our money and WC or JH could do nothing about that.

Secondly they cannot just go out and invest in anything they wish to, the PDS does not allow that although it sadly didnt stop MFS taking out money via the "so called loan" to its related companies.

JH was mentioning 3-5 years as a suggested time line because that is how long the property market may take to recover from its current level of losses with some property funds dropping in unit price value by as much as 45% or more, and those are the long term property funds such as GPT etc.. it could happen quicker but probably not likely.

Thirdly, if you read the comments on this forum from day 1 you may realise that to close the fund appears to be th eleast favoured option due to the fire sale that would happen of assets currently being held and in this market where property values have significantly reduced that doesnt seem sensible. She wants to hold onto the assets that are qood quality and then sell them at a time that is more appropriate so that it minimises any losses and the fund may be able to fuly recover its exposure on that particular asset.


Hopefully if you want to cash out your unit holding there will be a facility to do so but as most are saying the unit price you may receive as an offer to purchase may be substantially lower than your expectations, that may change you mind and you may wish to remain in the fund a bit longer while further legal proceedings are continued against MIF Directors and its management for the blatent "corporate theft" of our funds.

OH, there was a question raised about the 21 days notice for a meeting, my understanding is that they hope to have the notice of meeting out by mid August and then hold the meeting sometime aorund the first week of September. This was also mentioned in earlier posts.
:goodnight