Oops, thank you moderator for your leniency and understanding.I...

Oops, thank you moderator for your leniency and understanding.
I respect your prepotency.

My posting in part on around the 20th last month ( The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 alleges:
On or about 18 Feb 2008, Michael Skepper of MFSIM’s internal compliance unit (Compliance) raised a concern that s1017E of the Act had been breached because, although the records of MFSIM as RE forPIF showed an investment of $85 million into MYF by MFSIM as RE for PIF, no corresponding funds were received into MYF application account (the anomaly). , I have been informed, had zilch to do with Freehills.

So, to heed the advice given by the likes of Jadel seems to more astute regarding the ARL AGM.

A few clips regarding the Wellington - ARL decision to be heard by the HCA at a date to be announced. It's surely not valid for this Meeting to go ahead, as was the case regarding Wellington in June :- ( Unitholders should note that:
? there will not be a meeting on 14 June 2013;
? the sale of assets to Asset Resolution Limited will not proceed and the contract to sell those assets to Asset Resolution Limited is now at an end; )

The WCL - ARL alliance seems somewhat outr'e.


The Full Court found Wellington improperly distributed shares in Asset Resolution Limited (ARL) to unit holders in the Premium Income Fund (PIF).

Ruling in favour of ASIC, the court ordered declarations that Wellington did not have the power to make an ín specie distribution of shares, as opposed to cash, to unit holders in the PIF and that Wellington had acted contrary to the PIF Constitution in doing so.

The court also rejected Wellington’s arguments as being ‘fundamentally flawed’.

The court said that Wellington’s conduct, as responsible entity of the PIF, ‘amounted to a partial retirement from office other than in accordance with the provisions of the [Corporations] Act’ and ‘without the consent of the unit holders.’

ASIC notes that Wellington issued, on 28 May 2013, two releases on the NSX saying they intend to apply for leave to appeal the Full Court’s decision to the High Court and that the decision did not impact the in specie distribution of shares to unit holders in September 2012.

In October 2012, ASIC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court asserting that the constitution of the PIF did not permit Wellington to distribute shares in ARL to the PIF unit holders. The distribution of ARL shares occurred in September 2012 without Wellington consulting with or obtaining consent from the PIF unit holders (refer: 12-251MR).

The Full Court also declared that by making the in specie transfer of ARL shares to unit holders of PIF, Wellington did not operate the PIF and perform the functions conferred on it by PIF’s constitution, and contravened section 601FB(1) of the Corporations Act 2001.

On 2 July 2013, the Full Court delivered its judgment on costs in ASIC's appeal. The Full Court ordered that Wellington pay ASIC's costs at first instance (with one exception) and of the appeal.

The Full Court also ordered that Wellington is not entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the Premium Income Fund in respect of either ASIC's costs or Wellington's own costs of and in respect of the proceedings, unless it obtains the consent of the unit holders of the Premium Income Fund.