Recent content by DoraNBoots

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. Wow, that's interesting. I was amazed when I read Ms Hutson make such a ridiculous comment to the media...

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...

If a request for the PIF members register is made, WC request the following: Between $250 and $300 be paid into Armstrong's bank account The requester must sign a WC document that says they will use it in accordance with the law The requester must tell WC how they intend to use the...

My first reaction group letter was marked the same as JohnH's and the second was stamped with: MRMC MLOCR 501 14 June 2011 (6.PM 14 JUN 2011) HUNTER REGION NSW 2310

Yes, it's true. Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms, BUT only if the resolutions were passed. Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable. Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid...

Hi ASICK, I think the above from Harald says it all. I have found most on this threat that have the ability to look at the detail and provide constructive comment are bullied to the point that they go away. And anyone who isn't a unitholder seems not to be welcome. I find this severely reduces...

The judgement says that on the 21 June 2011, the AG tried to come to an agreement with WC to adjourn the 23 June 2011 meeting until issues were resolved but WC declined the proposal, while at the same time WC ask the court to deem the meeting invalid. WC said they want the meeting to go ahead...

Judgement for Wellington Capital Limited, in the matter of Premium Income Fund v Premium Income Fund Action Group (Includes Corrigendum dated 25 July 2011) [2011] FCA 781 (25 July 2011) found here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/781.html

Will be interesting to see what eventuates from the side issue that popped up at the latest hearing. WC tried to have a unitholder removed from the court room. As reported in the media WC said this "person had allegedly violated a restraining order. Justice John Dowsett was having none of...

I agree. And a huge thanks to Castlereagh. Without them the illegal amendments that Wellington Capital made to our constitution would still be in place. It amazes me that a third party has to step in and help decimated (mum & dad) investors fend off illegal activity from the RE while ASIC watches.

With another meeting. It will be interesting to see the judgement. On Monday the judge was discussing the option of him ordering the meeting and in this case he seemed to be leaning towards allowing the already submitted proxies to be carried over. He should also be deciding some of the...

He would be doing it now...

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions 13-Jul-2011 14:15 Judgment Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7

Hi JohnH, A time is not yet set for the judgment. I just spoke to the court and was told: The judgement is being written at the moment and the parties will be notified when a time has been set, the web site will also be updated...

Today's hearing will continue on Monday: 11-Jul-2011 11:00 Part Heard Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7