octaviars debt to pif, page-10

Athryio, thank you for your response which raises as many questions as it answers!

CP and PIF
==========
City Pacific did the due diligence on PIF and then publicly announced that it was not interested in acquiring PIF and would NOT be back for another look. And how do we know that other parties did not look at PIF?

The interesting question is this - why was CP (or anyone else) NOT interested in BUYING the RE to PIF? The answer was provided by Seamistry and myself - PIF is a performance based fund & is not performing. The PIF RE is WORTHLESS.

You replied that the RE gets management fees of 2% and that amounts to $20 mill pa. If this were accurate, then you are correct - the RE is a worth bunch of money.

But you are wrong - there are NO management fees at PIF. It is a totally performance based fund. This info is on the public record. Seamistry and I are correct.

Hutson and PIF
==============
You ask whether anyone would have anticipated Hutson getting PIF. I agree with you. It was unanticipated. But it happened. Why? We can only guess.

But I think it has something to do with RBS. You are entirely correct to point out banks just want their money and, by implication, do not really care who gets hurt. RBS got into trouble big time internationally and just raised about USD7 bill to bolster their balance sheet.

I suspect that RBS got brutal with PIF after PIF breached a covenant(s). You can see this alluded to OCV half year accounts where it is pointed out that RBS had called the loans in but then gave a further extension until 31 July 2008. My guess is that RBS had threatened to put PIF into liquidation unless the OCV connection was eliminated and done so very quickly. My guess is that there was no one else and the aim was to save PIF from the dreaded Receiver.

Other Assets
============
1) Cavill - I am in this line. I can tell you that OCV
has conducted 2 nationwide campaigns to sell Cavill.
Asset prices nationwide are falling and especially so
for perceived distressed assets. My understanding is
that this asset is no longer for sale.
2) Port Douglas - Similarly, there have been 2 national
campaigns here. Both failed. I believe the search
for a buyer has now gone international.
3) L&L - This is now LLA. Packers Artic Capital from Hong
Kong has an offer there to recapitalise. I believe OCV
has about 19% of LLA. Are you saying that OCV & Packer
are related parties? Really!!

Related Parties
===============
You claim that OCV is selling the above assets at below cost. In this market and in these circumstances, do you really believe you could sell these assets at a profit?
Anyway, it is clear that neither Cavill or Port Douglas
has a buyer yet. So how can the non existent be a related party?

Anyway, I ask you to name these mysterious related parties. You say clearly that there are "too many related parties". Please give us the evidence.

OCV Pushing Assets Into PIF
===========================
I asked you to name a single asset that OCV has pushed into Wellington (other than the RE). You did NOT respond. Can I assume that you now agree that this has not happened?

Stella
======
I also asked you if there was any factual basis to your suggestion that Scott and Hutson might be after part of the OCV 35% share in Stella. I think you called Scott and Hutson "brazen". You did not respond to this either. I ask
you again - please produce some evidence.

Liquidation
===========
May I share with you the reasons why I have become involved in this discussion?

It seems to me that you are pushing the idea of liquidation BECAUSE you believe that Scott/Hutson/OCV are engaged in some sort of asset stripping and that a liquidator would discover this, stop it and even reverse decisions already made. The problem is that you can provide absolutely no evidence at all to back up your assertions.

I am involved because you are inducing others to pursue this course which I believe will lead a far worse outcome than a voluntary workout.

I am not so worried that you are trashing the reputations of Hutson, Scott and the OCV Board - they can look after themselves.

But I object to your misleading the PIF unitholders. I think this is very, very wrong.