Youranalysis, in the separate blog for CD4, is chilling. I’m hugely relieved that Iam not an investor in CD4. I feel that the PDS for the proposed merger could mislead in some respects, except on a very careful reading, including in downplaying that Cordish would not invest in the evergreen fund. However, you have raised even more serious examples that suggest the CD4 PDS was reckless in its promotion and understating its risks. I have not examined the CD4 context, or its PDS, because I am not an investor, but you have raised enough problems to suggest that there was a high risk of mis-selling of CD4 to some investors. This is appalling, especially given the mis-selling of URF by Dixon Advisory, which resulted in a $7m fine by ASIC. On the face of it, there appear to be grounds for some CD4 investors to claim that it was mis-sold to them, and that the CD4 PDS itself was misleading.
It wasn’tsurprising that 84-86% of the proxies for CD1, 2 and 3 were against the merger,because it was so horrible for them. BUT…
As you say “It turns out that a majority in all four CD funds voted against E&P’s MergerProposal, and given CD4 investors were the only ones who had any chance ofbenefiting, it is even more humiliating for E&P that they also votedagainst - presumably because they simply don't trust E&P!”
It is stunning that 64% ofthe proxies (excluding open votes) of CD4 voted against this, even though fund 4 was the only one of the 4 fundsthat would get an obvious benefit- at the expense of the investors of CD1, 2 and3, especially CD1 and 2. That is a complete humiliation for E&P. How can they possibly continue to act as an RE for any fund, when this degree of investor hatred and distrust has been shown?
Not advice. DYOR.
