8 December 2014,

" Leave it to the Judge 8TH .Dec & now new date 9th dec ??
hopeing it is good news for all pifers.. good luck all.... we need it .. Nor.."

I just received a letter from the (FC) Court (Associate to Justice Perram)
confirming Monday 8 December 2014 14:15:
"so that the Court may hear submissions regarding the settlement of the representative proceedings"
Tuesday 9/12 9:30 may be a continuation of these proceedings, or the next interlocutory hearing.
Note may be made of different court rooms.

So those of us streaming there with bulging affidavits should take this date confirmation as standing firm.

Don't miss it folks!    Regards,

Below are my concerns I wish to unload there.
========================================================
Points of injustices in Premium Income Fund previous court proceedings:

*** ASIC v Wellington Capital [2014] HCA 43
WC as Responsible Entity was found to be in breach of some sections of Corporation Law
to the detriment of PIF members, yet there were no Orders issued to reimburse
PIF members for the losses caused by these breaches.

*** Class Action NSD324/2009
Why was the fault shifted to former PIF/MFS managers away from KPMG only to be
followed by the disclosure that these managers did not have appropriate indemnity insurances
to provide some or all of the relief for the losses in the assets they manage?
It must be seen as implicit in KPMG “settlement offer” that they, KPMG, are at fault.

*** Unitholder meeting declared invalid; FC proceedings 140 of 2011:
Where some 150 “new unitholders” were absent from the Register, which in turn was
under Wellington Capital control and its release to PIF AG was denied by WC Director.
The Judge neglected or ignored to investigate the “birth” of these new investors despite
numerous applications to ASIC pointing to a “Rent a Crowd” scam with 1,000 shares gifted
to hired actors from promotional agency to legitimise the scam.
And then, by deliberate act of not being on the register, caused the procedural default,
which the Judge cited as the reason for declaring member meeting invalid.
It was hoped by the members to have acquired better control of their fund by changing
the Responsible Entity, being Wellington Capital at the time.
Retention of this RE has compounded PIF losses to the present day as the judgement in
[2014] HCA 43 shows.

*** Rights & Placement (share) issues [2011] FCA 698,
“Her Honour made orders preventing the issue of units under the rights issue (which had not yet
completed at the time proceedings were brought).
However, she refused to exercise her discretionto order that units that had been
issued under the placement were cancelled.
Doing so would impact on the rights of third parties
(who had bought some of the newly issued units on market).” http://www.mallesons.com/
Again, Original Members were wronged by having their interests downgraded by concern for “new” investors.
Orders for REFUNDS would be most equitable then.
---------------