City Pacific outvotes Balmain Trilogy in 'verification' count

6 July 2009 | by Liam Egan

Print this article Comments Bookmark and Share

A verification count by City Pacific has found that Balmain Trilogy did not receive the required 50 per cent of votes by unitholders of the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund to remove City Pacific as its responsible entity.

In a media statement released to the Australian Securities Exchange this morning, City Pacific said Balmain Trilogy had received only 441,359,245 votes of the eligible 886,662,883 votes.

“Balmain Trilogy received 441,359,245 votes and therefore did not receive the required number of voting units to pass the resolution.

“Accordingly, the resolution as proposed by the requiring unitholders has not passed and City Pacific will remain responsible entity of the fund,” the statement said.

Last week, Balmain Trilogy lodged a notice with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under the Corporations Act requiring the regulator to register Trilogy as the new responsible entity of the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

Balmain Trilogy joint chief executive Andrew Griffin said the notice was lodged on the basis that City Pacific had no interest in accepting an “overwhelming” vote of the fund members last Thursday for Trilogy to replace City Pacific as responsible entity.

“City Pacific has no interest in listening to the members that it allegedly represents and has brought court action after court action, at the expense of members, to overturn the clear wishes of the members.

“It can only be assumed that City Pacific wishes to remain a responsible entity for the interim period, which in effect would enable it to continue charging fees well beyond that which Trilogy has agreed to charge and use fund assets to pay for the litigation.”


Tags: Balmain Trilogy | City Pacific | financial planners | First Mortgage Fund | fund managers | responible entity | 'verification' vote count

Just in:


Add a new comment

Enter the code shown:

1MM-AdviserPenalties Are penalties against advisers enforced by ASIC stringent enough and do they deter bad practice?
Yes, they are stringent enough and act as a deterrent against bad practice and unethical behaviour.
 
9%
Yes, but they are not enough of a deterrent.
 
5%
Yes, but there should be a register of those who have breached the law.
 
16%
No, they achieve nothing as recalcitrant advisers can simply set-up again after a few years.
 
70%
The poll is closed.

News Roundup

Sponsored links

The Blue Book Directory

Recent comments

Recent tweets