pxupas have a problem which is solveable, page-7

It seems to me that whether or not it is lawful, clause 23 would no operate to prevent the Holders from requisitioning a meeting (and then passing a resolution) to replace Trust Co with a new, friendly, RE. That is not an amendment to the Constitution or the rights attaching to a class of units.

If that resolution were then passed, Trust Co would have 20 business days to Realise (see SPS Terms clause 7.4).

If it does not do so, then the new RE will have been installed.

Next step would be to requisition a meeting to consider a resolution to wind up the Trust.

That calling of a meeting alone is a "Trust Winding Up Event", which in turn would allow the new friendly RE to Realise by issuing an Issuer Realisation Notice (see definitions, and clause 7.4 of the SPS Terms).

The thorn in that seems to be that unless clause 7.7 has first been deleted (per the current requisition), PPX would be able to determine the Realisation Method.

Even that seems to be limited to cash (not likely) or conversion to PPX. In the latter case though, at the Constitution ration (1800:1 odd) not the Mickey Mouse 50:50 nonsense being bandied about.

Difficult to see readily how clause 23 is very different to the kind of arrangement that the High Court unequivocally canned in the AMP v Westfield case in 2012 (obviously post-dating the Constitution).

All ramblings not advice.