This is why you want a good discount to the economic value of the underlying assets whenever you buy anything that is an ARSN with a responsible entity and/or external manager. There is always going to be some leakage of the value because despite what is trumpeted, the interests are not adequately aligned.
Ergo you hope to buy it at (e.g.) a 25%+ discount to what you think the unencumbered assets would be worth, with the expectation that in the fullness of time you're able to get, say 90% realisation and hopefully collect some distributions along the way.
Some of these structures are borderline criminal and most of them are notoriously inefficient - one need only look to the likes of their LIC cousins (Ellerston, Dixon, etc) and slated conversions into unlisted unit trusts to recognise that the way the vehicles are set up is flawed because there is no robust relationship between the underlying assets and the trading valuation which would arise if there was an explicit buy/sell spread with a mandated market maker to ensure a fair dinkum price for investors to get in and out.
The 'nuclear option' is using Section 601FM of the Corporations Act to dismiss the responsible entity and then not appoint a new one - this would trigger a winding-up of the scheme. Then you could just sell all the assets to the highest bidder and not worry about the agency/moral-hazard risk of managers stuffing the fee cow with assets again. Proviso is that as a special resolution, it would also need 75% to get up.
