As you are aware, Simgrund,I informed you recently that I would...

As you are aware, Simgrund,I informed you recently that I would not be posting further on Hot Copper because of some serious domestic issues. However, these are my thoughts on the matter and this will be my last post and on this issue unless serious pro -active action is taken e.g. an EGM is initiated and it is clear that the overwhelming majority are against acceptance of this pathetic offer.
Shareholders are simply requesting that the matter be FULLY TESTED IN A COURT of LAW and not in a private settlement that will result in a miniscule, probably well under 1% in the dollar, return of their losses. Seriously, what s the point of such an insignificant payout?I wonder how many investors would vote for that amount of compensation an EGM? IF there are any on this forum who would do so, please let us all know your reasons why you would accept this offer. In fact we can use Hot Copper for a statistical analysis on this matter
I can see no legal reason why an EGM cannot be called to decide this issue, so that the democratic rights of ALL shareholders can be exercised. Remember, ARL a still legally a part of WC until the results of the High Court Action instigated by ASIC are known. As I understand things, the Hodges and Co. action is a completely disconnected action from the WC claim.
I can also confirm that one of our previous PIFI members was informed directly by Jenny H -'in person’ - that WC was the far stronger legal claim in a court of law.

Please see below the results of a class action with what I would consider far less malfeasance and losses than occurred with the PIF. It may be that another litigation funder may agree take this case to court (e.g. the US funder quoted below).


I think it is still the Corporation law that just need 100 members to call an EGM ( there was some discussion on amending this position). My understanding is that the company ,Wellington Capital ,is then responsible for expenses made in informing members by post and the venue for the vote. We would of course have to seek legal advice on this issue . I believe their would be a relatively minor cost involved for that advice

However,Please bear in mind that we would need to put forward a specific resolution for consideration and voting on at the EGM and it is quite possible that we could lose the case in court .



I quote:
Thousands of shareholders who took on listed property trust GPT Management Holdings Limited and GPT RE Limited (GPT) in a class action will share in $75 million after a conditional settlement was reached today.
Slater & Gordon negotiated the settlement on behalf of more than 2,300 class action group members in a deal that followed a four-week trial in the Federal Court of Australia.
Class action lawyer Ben Phi said the settlement was great news for participating shareholders, who were awaiting judgment from Federal Court Justice Michelle Gordon following the trial’s conclusion last month.
‘This is an excellent result for group members and follows complex and hard-fought litigation,’ Mr Phi said.
‘The settlement provides a strong return on the losses claimed, and reflects the strength of the evidence presented at trial.’
Slater & Gordon filed proceedings in the Federal Court in December 2011 on behalf of a group of investors who acquired stapled securities in GPT between February 27, 2008, and July 6, 2008, alleging the company had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations.
Mr Phi said the firm would commence contacting those who had registered for the class action in coming days to provide them with details of the proposed settlement and to explain the next steps.
The case was supported by a large group of current and former shareholders, ranging from small retail investors to prominent institutional investors (including banks and fund managers).
Comprehensive Legal Funding (CLF) funded the class action, paying the applicant’s legal costs and providing security against adverse costs. CLF is a US-based litigation funder with offices in Melbourne. Its successful track record includes class actions against Centro, Nufarm, Opes Prime, Sigma Pharmaceuticals and now GPT.
GPT denies liability under the terms of the settlement.
The settlement will be put to the Federal Court for approval in coming weeks.
Background
Slater & Gordon commenced proceedings against GPT in the Federal Court of Australia in December 2011. The claim was brought on behalf of those that purchased shares in GPT between 27 February 2008 and 6 July 2008.
The class action followed a GPT announcement on 7 July, 2008, in which the company downgraded its forecast earnings and distributions for the 2008 financial year by almost 30%. In response, GPT’s share price fell dramatically over the following days.
It was alleged that when GPT provided its distribution guidance on 27 February 2008 it was aware that it faced material and substantial risks that it failed to disclose. Compared to previous years, a much greater proportion of GPT’s forecast income was to be derived from large asset sales. These sales would need to be completed in the difficult market conditions prevailing at that time.
It was further alleged that these risks substantially materialised over the subsequent months. On this basis, the applicant alleged that GPT engaged in misleading conduct when, at its AGM on 1 May 2008, it confirmed its guidance and made unqualified representations concerning its forecast underlying earnings.
On 6 March 2013, the class action went to trial before Her Honour Justice Gordon. In the four weeks that followed, lay evidence was heard from investors, current and former GPT executives, credit rating agencies, and a significant number of independent experts. The trial concluded on 9 April 2013, with her Honour reserving her decision.
The conditional settlement was achieved following further negotiations having regard to the strength of the claims made at trial.
End Quote