In correspondence I received today from Wellington Capital Ltd's...

In correspondence I received today from Wellington Capital Ltd's associate director Caroline Snow it states 'neither Ms Hutson or Wellington Capital Ltd were an adviser to MFS or Octaviar in relation to any element to the MFS or Octaviar group interest in the Premium Income Fund'
I find this statement rather disturbing (misleading even) especially as there have been several media statements claiming otherwise.
Two examples:
Gavin Thompson, SC, acting on behalf of the liquidators of Octaviar Investment Noteholders and Octaviar Investment Bondholders, revealed that Ms Hutson had been formally appointed as an adviser to the MFS board soon after she had successfully lobbied for Chris Scott and his associates to become directors of the company. In this role she attended board meetings in April.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-adviser-had-benefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html#ixzz20NuZFRVW


THE insolvency specialist Mark Korda told a public examination of the collapse of MFS yesterday that the decision to appoint Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital as the manager of the Premium Income Fund was the ''lesser of all the evils we could have done''.
Ms Hutson was acting as an adviser to the MFS board at that time, raising doubts it was an arms-length transaction.
''At the time of the transaction I don't think they were independent,'' Mr Korda said yesterday.
http://www.businessday.com.au/business/mfs-inquiry-hears-evidence-of-implosion-20100915-15con.html

Wellington Capital Ltd (per Ms Snow)also state that it was Perpetual Nominees Ltd, the PIF custodians who instigated legal proceedings against the guarantors connected with the loan to Rytelle PTY LTD (Forest Resort)
Now my understanding is Perpetual's role as custodian is limited to holding assets of the fund as an agent for Wellington Capital Ltd as responsible entity of the PIF. Perpetual Nominees Ltd acts as the custodian, but has no supervisory role in relation to the operation of WCL schemes nor is responsible for protecting investor's interests. Perpetual has no liability or responsibility to investors for any act done or omission made in accordance with the terms of its services agreement or custody agreement with WCL.
If this is correct then someone must have instructed Perpetual to initiate legal proceedings? Anyone please correct me if I have this wrong?
I will try and get some clarification tomorrow from both Bentleys and Perpetual because I am sure they both would not like it if I have been given incorrect information.

(Gardie please e mail me your current ph no)