Untitled Document

WESTPOINT TIMELINE

NB. Red references in brackets, eg [ P5 1a ], means page 5 paragraph 1A of Carey V ASIC.

DATE	ENTRY
1985	Westpoint registered [P5 1a].
1995	WPC retains Boston Consulting Group advising on business strategy, including the public listing of Carey's shares.
PRE 1996	Westpoint funded projects by investing funds and taking out bank loans. [P6 9].
	Boston advises on a raft of matters in order that Westpoint can go public by no later than 2006. [ P6 11 ]
1996	Westpoint Management incorporated with view to form funds management business and manage managed investment schemes within funds management business. [P7 12}.
1998	Westpoint retains Freehills [P7 13].
1999	Westpoint instructs Freehills to develop subordinated product to fund property development projects [P9 19].
2000	Denise Brailey discussed a proposed Westpoint Information Memorandum with ASIC, and warned them of the problems that might arise if ASIC allowed Westpoint to market the product without a prospectus. Her warnings went unheeded with dire consequences for investors.
17_01_2000	Freehills letter to Westpoint outlines a method that takes the PN scheme outside the Corporations ACT. Frehills claim the scheme is neither debenture nor MIS. [ P9 20 ]
09_02_2000	In a letter to Westpoint Management dated 09_02_2000. Freehills advised: A promissory note falls outside the definition of debenture and therefore the definition of securities in the Corporations Act. b). No prospectus is need to issue promissory notes. c). The rules applicable to offering securities and giving investment advice under the Corporations ACT in relation to Securities does not apply. *The audience is undefined at this point in time.*
xx_03_2000	Well known advocate, Denise Brailey learned of the intent to issue Westpoint products via Information Memoranda, and discussed the matter with WA lawyer, Doug Solomon. He told her that the scheme model was an illegal Managed investment Scheme. She attended the ASIC offices in March 2000 and presented them with: a). Two different Westpoint Information Memoranda suggesting “safe and secure”. b). On a Financial planning Letterhead, a copy of a letter to unsophisticated investors. c). List of vulnerable consumers. Some of whom were finance broker victims. d). A RECA letter of explanation. e). A copy of letter received by a pensioner. f). Information to the Commissioner that a lawyer claimed the scheme to be an illegal MIS g). An invitation to phone the lawyer mentioned in (f). h). She met again in May with the Commissioner to discuss the foregoing.(b) and (c) suggest the target is not sophisticated investors –DESPITE Carey’s claim that they were![2005_02_03_WAN ]
March 2000+	Bayview raises funds via PNs. [P11 22b].
xx_05_2000	ASIC commences investigation into PNs in May 2000. [P11 23].
02_06_2000	Freehills, In a letter dated 02_06_2000 to ASIC and copied to Bayview, Westpoint Management and Carey states that the promissory notes were neither debenture or interest in a Managed Investment Scheme [ 11 24 ]*Once again, the investor target is undefined, but the restrictions would indicate sophisticated investors*. [ P11 24 ]
02_06_2000	Freehills reassured the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in 2000 that each investor in Westpoint's Bayview mezzanine fund was "experienced in investing in securities" [ 2006_07_10_SMH ].. *Once again, the investor target is undefined, but the restrictions would indicate sophisticated investors.* Westpoint used the identical model in all of its Mezzanine products. In making such statement, Freehills gave ASIC a guarantee to ASIC that Westpoint would only sell their Mezzanine products to those experienced in investing in securities. In turn, as the watchdog, accepted the task of ensuring Westpoint products. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ASIC LED BOTH PLANNERS AND THE INVESTING PUBLIC ASTRAY BY ALLOWING WESTPOINT MEZZANINE SCHEMES ON THE MARKETPLACE AS REGULATED PRODUCTS.
23_08_2000	ASIC gave Westpoint lawyers, Freehills, a letter stating they could find nothing wrong with a proposed mezzanine scheme involving the use of promissory notes PN's [2006_07_07_SMH] To give the "green lightto these PN's, ASIC must have examined the business model in which they were to be used. ASIC failed to recognise the Westpoint Mezzanine Companies as unregistered Managed Investment Schemes as shoen by their own Media Release 06_198. ASIC made a catastrophic error in not recognising the first Westpoint Mezzanine Model as an MIS. AS A RESULT OF ASIC'S INCOMPETENCE/NEGLIGENCE EVERY WESTPOINT MEZZANINE INVESTOR PUT THEIR MONEY IN AN UNREGISTERED (ILLEGAL) MANAGED INVESTMENT SCHEME BECAUSE OF ASIC'S LEGAL INCOMPETENCE.
2001	Denise Brailey aned I appeared on stated on the Channel Ten's David and Kim morning TV show of 2007/05/05, thatshe flew to Brisbane in 2001, and met with the ASIC Queensland Commissioner and his senior legal council to discuss the problems of fissuing the Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes, issued on IM's, without a prospectus. Ms. Brailey claimed ASIC told her the Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes were MIS's, and that people would lose their money. Why didn't he do something abut? If ASIC Queensland Commissioner knew, how could the rest of ASIC not have known?
2001	In the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of 31/05/2006 Hansard records ASIC's Mark Steward admitting ASIC had ongoing discussions on Westpoint with the WA Government as far back as 2002. Further, in the same document Senator Watson refers to complaints concerning Westpoint made to ASIC in 2001. Why didn't ASIC advise Westpoint investors of these concerns?
2001	As part of the Financial Services Reform Act of 2001, the Federal Government assessd laws mandating an Australian Financial Service Licence(AFSL) holder possess a minimum of PII cover per case for $1 million. The Government immediately disengaged that legislation by disabling the limit per case. While a minority of planners took out very little PII cover, the majority took out reasonable amount of cover. The Government made the further mistake of prescribing the wording of PII policies. The net result of these actions was whenWestpoint failed, there were so many escape clauses in the PII policies as to render them useless to planners and investors alike. Although I don't have the documentary evidence, I rate the veracity of the following information at least a 60% chance of being true because of the reliability of the unnamed source. I believe the name of the Westpoint venture was Paragon. In 2001 the venture held a creditors meeting. Westpoint rescued the situation by offering the Paragon investors free entry into Market Street. ASIC must have known of this event, but there is no record of it on the Internet, and Westpoint failed to advise investors on this matter before they invested in Market Street.
2002	The WA Government wrote the first of five letters to Treasury/ASIC. [Edwards letter]. No action was taken on any of these letters, and the investing public were ever informed of the concerns they contained.
xx_08_2002	"The Reserve Bank contacted APRA about the use of the words Boutique Bank on a Kebbel website. APRA rang Kebbel and spoke to person they believed was Neil Burnard, who told them it had been put there by the web designer. The APRA person then wrote a report to her superior, and the matter seems to have died a natural death. The reason why she was unsure of to whom she had spoken was her notes contained the word "spiel". The judge explained in the pretrial of Neil Burnard that spiel is a commonly used term at the beginning of a telephone conversation within APRA in which unimportant information is not recorded [Neil Burnard Trial Notes]. I can only wonder at how lax procedural matters might be in APRA It would seem that none of this was passed on to ASIC at the time.
xx_01_2003	Mr. Kolbeke, the West Australian Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection writes the second of five letters to ASIC and Treasury in January 2002. The Howard Government, in response to Mr. Kobele's communications, replied with the comment, "If required, the Government will consider any recommendations makes to improve consumer protection in this area and the Government will consider any legislative change should ASIC identify any regulatory gap"
xx_01_2003	Mr. Kolbeke, the West Australian Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection writes the second of five letters to ASIC and Treasury in January 2002. The Howard Government, in response to Mr. Kobele's communications, replied with the comment, "If required, the Government will consider any recommendations makes to improve consumer protection in this area and the Government will consider any legislative change should ASIC identify any regulatory gap"
01_02_2003	Norton Capital rated Market Street a "BUY". This was not an uninformed investor making a judgement, it was an ASIC approved research house.
05_02_2003	Freehills issues letter to WPC stating offer of PNs by York Street and Bayview complied with current law, and were neither debentures or interests in an MIS [P13-14].
xx_03_2003	Factors in_my choosing to_invest in Westpoint. ASIC claims Westpoint investors did not do their homework. It is true that many of them,realising they were not financially literate, sought advice from financial planners. It is equally true that the majority of these planners held an ASIC issued Australian Financial Services licence. ASIC had a clear duty under it's charter to ensure the protection of financial invertors. It it is understood ASIC cannot watch over every individual investor. It can, however, monitor what planners are doing. There is no evidence ASIC ever pre-emptively attempted to find out what its planners were doing, Instead, it slept in ASIC castle, sure in the knowledge the Government would protect it from all storms.
92-05-2003	Freehills issues letter to ASIC with copies to Bayview and Westpoint Management stating PN’s are neither debentures nor interests in an MIS for the reasons listed. [P11 24].
xx_07_2003	ASIC commenced a second investigation into PNs. [P18 30 ].
xx_07_2003	Between July 2003 and 26-02-2004 negotiationsok place between ASIC and Westpoint to move away from Pns. [31 70].
02_09_2003	At a meeting of Westpoint with Freehills the previous advice on PNs is re-iterated. Freehills confirms PNs legal, and were not interests in an MIS. This was confirmed by extensive research in 1999 by Andrew Sherwood of Freehills (who was present at meeting). [P14 28 ]
xx_09_2003	Westpoint gave ASIC a Power Point presentation of their future plans at the Freehills office in WA. They warned ASIC of the dangers to themselves and investor if ASIC acted against the previously approved promissory note usage. [The Carey document of 30/07/2007 which was sent to Tony D'Aloisio and selected Senators]
xx_xx_2003	One former Westpoint staffer said he complained to ASICin 2003, and received no response from the watchdog [ 2006_02_11_CourierM ].
xx_xx_2003	Managers inside Westpoint knew of problems in 2003 [ 2006_05_08_CourierMail ]. Why has ASIC not yet taken steps to prosecute these managers?
26_02_2004	Westpoint provided ASIC with an undertaking to transition away from PNs. [P31 71].
xx_03_2004	M. Kolbeke, the West Australian Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection writes the fifth of five letters to ASIC and Treasury.
13_04_2004	ASIC writes to Westpoint declaring the letter of undertaking of 26_02_2004 is no longer acceptable, and threatens immediate action unless Westpoint enters into an EU to cease the issue of PNs by 20-04-2008. [P31 72].
xx_04_2004	Jeff Lucy admits he knew there were problems with Westpoint as far back as April 2004. [Carey Document]. *ASIC has a* legislative duty to protect investors. Why didn't ASIC halt the sale of Westpoint products while they investigated? Lucy's statement is in direct contrast to West point's owner, Norm Carey. Carey claims ASIC initiated action against West point in 2003, and West point had given a presentation of West point's plans to ASIC in October of that year at the WA offices of Freehills.
	Mr Lucy admitted ASIC knew there were problems at Westpoint as far back as April 2004 when it took legal action to determine whether Westpoint's investment schemes fell into its jurisdiction, a case still afoot. However, it was not until late last year that it took action to wind up some Westpoint companies specifically to protect investors". [SMH 20_02_2006]. This is ASIC's admission it put the concerns of the company above that of the investing public. ASIC, with its conflict of interest, continued to ignore investor protection until Westpoint ran out of money.
10_05_2004	Bayshore Mezzanine commences action against ASIC seeking delaration that the PN's were debentures or interest in an MIS. [ 18 31 ]
12-05-2004	ASIC commences Supreme Court action against Emu Brewery seeking delaration that the PN's were debentures or interest in an MIS. [ 18 32 ]
25_05_2004	The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) requested the Supreme Court of Western Australia to rule on whether certain promissory notes offered by Emu Brewery Mezzanine Ltd should have been offered as debentures or financial products under the Corporations Act. [ MR-04_157. *Remember that ASIC issued a no action letter on these notes and they get it wrong again!*
xx_xx_2004	In its Court action of 2004, ASIC demanded Westpoint not issue PN's in future offerings [ MR_04-157 ]. This order was in contravention of their stated position on the matter in the "Freehills_letter_of_2000". Further, Hansard records Mark Steward as stating ASIC went to court with a very weak case. ASIC did not issue any document countermanding the "no action letter" of 2000, and took Westpoint to court using Emu Brewery and Bayshore Mezzanine as test cases. One of the claims of ASIC's action was the PNs were debentures. The court directed ASIC write to mezzanine investors and ask them did they want to co-join the case. Despite the two mezzanine companies were test cases for all of the mezzanine companies,ASIC wrote a letter to the 256 investors in Emu Brewery and Bayshore Mezzanine and ignored the other almost 4000 investors. Universally, the recipients didn't understand one word of the document, couched in the legal language of the court. The investors contacted Westpoint, which informed them it was only a minor technical matter, and not one investor contacted ASIC. ASIC had a clear duty to write to ALL Westpoint Mezzanine Investors and clearly explain to them the full implications of the test cases in simple English easily understood by all investors.
	SIC resolves to commence investigation into the solvency of the Westpoint Group despite external evidence of insolvency. These investigations commence shortly after the initiation of the court proceedings in 2004. [P32 77]
39_06_2004	PIR issued research on the Westpoint Income Fund - rated 3 stars. Lucy decried investors for not doing their homework. Where is ASIC condemnation of a company their thought highly enough of it to issue it with a special licence?
15_09_2004	Schiftan resigned as Westpoint Director. West point failed to notify investors of Chieftain's resignation, and did not appoint a new director to oversee investor interests.
xx_10_2004	At the Fifth Annual Conference of the Australian Independent Order of Financial Planners AIOFP. Two events significance occurred at that conference. a) Mr Richard Beck, posing as Director of the fictional Kebbel investment Bank gave a lecture to the group within three hours of Mr. Johnstone's lecture [Conference Book]. Mr. Beck was also the Director of several West point Mezzanine Companies, and ASIC had an ongoing court case against West point b). An official AIOFP summary of the meeting thanks Mr. Johnstone for his soft approach on regulation and his acceptance of a request to approach the Minister to have the onus of SOA's (Statement of Advice's) removed from planners to bring them into alignment with Stock Exchange requirements [Conference Overview]. Not exactly what one expects of someone heading an organisation charged with protecting financial consumers.
xx_11_2004	KPMG signed off the Westpoint books on unqualified basis [P32 77].
17_11_2004	Freehills wrote to ASIC’s Mr. Byrne pointing out KPMG’s had signed off the books without reservation, and did not express concern about solvency; Westpoint as a going concern; realisable value of the assets. Freehills warned of the damage to investors. ASIC did not reply to the letter [P33].
19_11_2004	J. Simmonds determines the Supreme Court proceedings [P18 33 ]. Note. Although not part of either party’s submission, the Judge stated at the end of the case the Mezzanine Model is an MIS. This is in direct contadiction to ASIC’s claim the PN’s were debentures.
22_11_2004	Emu Brewery appeals.
	ASIC resolves to commence investigation into the solvency of the Westpoint Group despite external evidence of insolvency. These investigations commence shortly after the initiation of the court proceedings in 2004.
	Westpoint lists a large number of complaints about the manner, and legality, of ASIC’s 2004 investigations [P32 78].
24_02_2005	Westpoint Corporation Audited Accounts for 30 June 2003 lodged [Rundle].
03_12_2005	CHIEF DEFENDS DISCLOSURE TO INVESTORS [2005_12_03_WAN ].
03_12_2005	Norm Carey told the press that all of his investors were sophisticated. 2005_12_03_WAN]. Norm Carey's comment, "all of my investors are sophisticated", shows he clearly understood the law on this matter. Where is the evidence ASIC ever bothered to ensure Westpoint did not sell its Mezzanine products to unsophisticated investors.
xx_04_2005	Hansard records Mr. J. Lucy, the ASIC Chairman, as claiming ASIC first became aware of Kebbel Investment Bank in April 2005 [2006_02_20_SMH], and passed the matter over to APRA. In July of that year ASIC visited Kebbel NSW, and on notfinding any signage deemed the matter trivial. APRA told Kebbel not to do it again. APRA took no punitive action against Kebbel. Kebbel Investment Bank did not have a licence. It did not even have a registered business name, yet operated under the noses of APRA and ASIC in full public view,with common Internet mention, flyers and stationery, for four years, without detection. Understandably, investors believed it was a genuine bank. It was a prime reason why people invested in Westpoint. The only reason someone falsely represents themselves as a director of bank is the gaining of advantage by pretence. Why did neither ASIC nor APRA not take punitive action when they first learned of Kebbel Bank's "existence"? Why someone have to make a complaint before ASIC found out it existed? Four years is a long time.
25_08_2005	Freehills writes to ASIC employees Cooper and Waldron setting out evidence in support of Westpoint solvency. [P33]
25_09_2005	Cooper rings CEO of KPMG and tells him in words to the effect, "give Westpoint an absolute workout when auditing the 2004-2005 accounts" . [P33]
04_11_2005	ASIC officers issued notices requiring the production of over 200 boxes of books and records within 5-8 days. [P33]
04_11_2005	ASIC officers issued notices requiring the production of over 200 boxes of books and records within 5-8 days. [P33]
05_11_2005	Senate Estimates Committee questions ASIC deputy Commissioner Jeremy Cooper on all the negative comments by in the press (over 150), and not one positive comment.
21_11_2005	Freehills write to Lucy complaining about the intervention of Cooper and the issuing of notices. ASIC never answers the letter. [P33].
xx_11_2005	The Judge in York Street Mezzanine hearing learned at least one Westpoint Company (Westpoint Constructions) failed to present signed accounts in 2003 and 2004. Given Mr. J. Lucy's admission ASIC became concerned about Westpoint in 2003,how could ASIC have not noticed that Westpoint Constructions had not presented audited accounts for two years?
02_12_2005	Westpoint pays KPMG $100,000 for audits on top of $274,167.50 already paid between July 06 and October 06 [ 2006_03_22_WAN ].
09_12_2005	Carey says ASIC tactics will hurt investors.
21-12-2005	Jeffrey Lucy, chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, said that investors may have between $3 billion and $5 billion in mezzanine funding vehicles similar to those operated by Westpoint [ 2005_12_21_INFOCHOICE_Investment ]. At that stage there were 24 companies at risk. Compare the 2005 figures with 2007 when ASIC admitted there were 83 companies and $8 billion at risk.
12_05_2006	ASIC to investigate unlicenced advice [ 2006_05_12_MoneyManagement ]
25_01_2006	The Auditor General criticised ASIC for its failure to implement an AFSL registration scheme. He went on to say that the extensive delays probably forced planners who would normally have become AFSL holders to become unregistered planners [ 2006_01_25_SMH ]. Registration systems are not rocket science in either computing or management skills. Why did the Treasurer not take action to ensure ASIC was better run?
25_02_2005	The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) requested the Supreme Court of Western Australia to rule on whether certain promissory notes offered by Emu Brewery Mezzanine Ltd should have been offered as debentures or financial products under the Corporations Act. [ MR-04_157. *Reemember that ASIC issued a no action letter on these notes and they get it wrong again!*
2006	ASIC employs Deloittes to carry out audit on Westpoint (presumaly using the information from theprevious entry [ [ 2006_06_01_SenateEstimatesCommittee ]. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT DELOITTES FOUND WESTPOINT TECHNICALY SOLVENT AT THE TIME OF THE AUDIT. THE NEGATIVE TO THE AUDIT WERE NUMBER OF CONTINGENCIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO OCUR FOR WESTPOINT TO REMAIN SOLVENT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MATTER OF TECHNICAL SOLVENCY IS VERY IMPORTANT AT LAW. THE LATTER POINT IS THAT ASIC WITHELD IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE COURT. THE COURT DECISION, WHETHER CORRECT OR NOT, WAS MADE ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. IT IS DIFFICULT TO NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASIC DLIBERATELY WITHELD THIS INFORMATION TO INCREASE ITS CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
	he WA Supreme Court ruled in November 2004 the now-collapsed scheme was a managed investment but found it was not covered by prospectus rules. Both Westpoint and ASIC have appealed against the judgment [ 2006_02_08_WestAustralian ].
17_02_2006	Jeremy Cooper withdraws from Westpoint investigation because of possible conflict of interest at Senate Committee of 16-02-2008. at Senate Committee of 16-02-2008. “Mr Cooper, formerly a partner with Blake Dawson Waldron, said a search of the firm's records after a query by a journalist found Blakes had advised Westpoint founder Norm Carey."
20_02_2006	Labor's criticism of the corporate regulator's inactivity over Westpoint stems from warnings about the corporation provided by the Western Australian Department of Consumer and Employment back in 2002. ASIC admitted to the committee that it had not acted on this information because investors themselves had not lodged any complaints about losing money. [2006_02_20_MoneyManagement]. Just another example of how ASIC views regulation: sleep while waiting for someone to come in to report something has happened.
23_02_2006	SIC_hosted_a_meeting_of_70_Westpoint_Investor_Group member, and the following took place. a. In reference to ASIC Medi Release 04-157 I asked how could ASIC demand Westpoint not issue PN's in future offerings when their had been no change in legislation. Jan Redfern replied, "So we could take them to court!" *My question went unanswered.* However, ASIC's Mark Steward admitted at a Senate Estimate's committee hearing in 2006 thatASIC did not have a strong case. b. At this juncture, we didn't know ASIC had written to the 256 investors of Emu Brewery AND Bayshore MezzanineS as directed by the WA Supreme Court. I asked Mr. Lucy had if ASIC had written to Westpoint as directed by the court. my question, he replied this was the second time in a week he had been asked that question. (Senator Sherry asked him at the Senate Estimates Committee on 16/02/2006 *Mr. Lucy said he knew nothing about it, and took the question on notice. Nor could he answer that question on the ABC's 7.30 Report that night*. A judge requesting ASIC write to ivestors is a most unusual occurrence. That Jeffrey Lucy did not know about it when asked by Senator Sherry is more than strange. Not kmowing about it a week later shows a decided lack of interest on what is happening in the organisation he controls.. c. In a question from a member, Ms. Jan Redfern told the meeting the first time she heard about Kebbel Bank was on 22/02/2006 when I told her in a telephone conversation. How could ASIC have not known about an illegal bank that operated in full public view for almost five years? Further, Hansard states ASIC knew about Kebbel Bank in 2005 and passed the matter over to APRA.
25_02_2006	We are trying to engage with investors to try to help them," Mr Lucy said [2006_02_25_AAP]. Not one example exists to date of how ASIC has helped a Westpoint investor.
27_02_2006	ASIC rejects claims on promissory notes [2006_02_27_TheAustralian]. *Even Norm Carey knew it was illegal to sell PN's to unsophisticated investors.*Why didn't ASIC?
27_02_2006	Consider the following two excerpts from the Australian of 27-02-2006. "I don't think that by itself would have been sufficient. In fairness to Westpoint, promissory notes continue to be a lawful and legitimate way of raising money. While we may not like them and while we may have concerns about them, that's the law ... which is what we appealed. You can't do more than that." If the PNs were not illegal, how then could ASIC ban Westpoint from issuing them? [ASIC MR 04 ].
27_02_2006	"A copy of ASIC's allegations regarding the Emu Brewery Mezzanine and Bayshore Mezzanine schemes was sent to each investor in June 2004, Lucy said". [ Investor Daily 27-02-2006]. Jeff Lucy failed to mention that it was the judge who ordered ASIC to write to the investors. ASIC complied by writing to Emu Brewery and Bayshore Mezzanine investors, despite the fact the proceedings were test cases for all Westpoint Mezzanine products.
27_02_2006	Consider the following excerpts from the Australian Of 27_02_2006 "I don't think that by itself, it would have been sufficient. In fairness to Westpoint, promissory notes continue to be a lawful and legitimate way of raising money. While we may not like them and while we may have concerns about them, that's the law ... which is what we appealed. You can't do more than that.” *Ifthe PNs were not illegal, how then could ASIC ban Westpoint from issuing them?[ASIC MR 04* ].\** With everything that had gone on before, why didn’t Lucy know the true nature of the PN.s What does this say about ASIC’s legal ability?
04_03_2006	Senator Watson said the Westpoint fiasco had revealed problems not only with the regulator detecting and acting on risky promotions but "with the law as it currently operates" [2006_04_03_SMH]. Prior to the Westpoint collapse, Senator Watson had been a strident critic of ASIC performance.
26_04_2006	Mark Steward ASIC Deputy Director Enforcement says "That would have needed evidence that Westpoint was insolvent" when asked about ASIC winding up Westpoint after the WA supreme Court decision, or that investors weren't able to redeem their funds" [ 2006_04_26_AFR_2 ].
26_04_2006	Where was ASIC?" says Lucy. "No one has shown anything to me to suggest we were given information we could reasonably have acted on." [ 2006_04_26_AFR_2 ]. The last three items reflect ASIC's attitude to regulation: if someone doesn't come innd make a complaint, we don't know about it.
	Jeffrey Lucy's claim ASIC could not take action against Westpoint because of the restrictions placed on it by existing legislation is at odds with legal opinion, including that of IMF's Hugh McLernon. Further, there is no evidence ASIC ever approached the Parliament to have the law changed.
08_05_2006	"Legal action in relation to Westpoint schemes has been assisted by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which has confirmed that the fund-raising by Westpoint for the Emu Brewery project was an offering of an interest in a managed investment scheme. Managed investment schemes are fully regulated with the Corporations Act both in regard to disclosure and financial advice" [ Hockey Letter]. The Hon Joe Hockey oversaw the first year of ASIC's existence, and has the distinction of being the only Minister for ASIC. In 2006 the WA Supreme Court found the Westpoint Managed Investment Scheme Model was a MIS as opposed to ASIC's claim it was a debenture. The clear implication is that every Westpoint Mezzanine investor put their money in an illegal Managed Investment Scheme. When Joe Hockey wrote to a constituent ten days after the Court's decision, he must have known its import. Given his background before becoming a politician, the contents f his letter to a constituent defies belief.
01_06_2006	Since the collapse of Westpoint, ex ASIC Commissioner, blamed "greedy investors"followed by "greedy planners", then suggested ASIC would sue the Westpoint Auditors, KPMG, if the liquidators didn't [ 2006_06_01_SMH ], then it was back to "greedy investors".
01_06_2006	ASIC Commissioner, Jeffrey Lucy, suggests ASIC will sue Westpoint Auditors, KPMG, if the liquidators don’].
04_06_2006	The WA Supreme Court handed down its decision on Westpoint promissory notes.The Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes were always illegal MIS's. This decision is clear proof ASIC for whatever reason misled investors by allowing Westpoint Mezzanine products to trade since 2000.The WA Supreme Court determines Westpoint promissory notes and unregistered investment schemes, which gave ASIC the power to act under the orporations Law - Lucy says "we weren't worried. We had audited accounts andsuggestions that everything was OK" [Note at that time, The most recent audited accounts ASIC held were those from 2002. "We didn't have complaints saying people weren't getting paid so what was there to cause us that level of anxiety? Nothing!" Jeff Lucy's statement is at odds with the fact ASIC was harrying Westpoint in2003, and Westpoint’s presentation at the Freehills Offices in 2003 outline the risk to investors if ASIC did not allow the use of the modified PN's.
05_06_2006	Westpoint adviser sent back by US. [ 2006_06_05_TheAustralian ] This is the same Neil Burnard of Kebbel Bank that both ASIC and APRA failed to bring to account in 2005.
	A journalist reported in 2006, Schiftan saying she did not go to ASIC about irregularities within Westpoint because it leaks like a sieve, and her action could enhance the chances of the likelihood of further loss of investor monies.
	ASIC MR_06 198 relating to the Appeal of the 2004 case, clearly indicates ASIC believed the PNs constituted a form of debenture in the Westpoint Mezzanine companies, which the court found to be MIS's.
13_06_2006	Senator Watson questions ASIC inaction over Westpoint [ 2006_06_23_MoneyMangement]. Even Senator Watson, a Liberal senator, has been highly critical of ASIC's performance over many years
15_06_2006	We don't have any concrete answer we can say at this stage." (Mark Steward). He said, generally, investors who invest via promissory notes are not covered by the protection of the Corporations Act. [ 2006_06_15_TheAge ] How did Mark Steward, a very senior lawyer with ASIC, not know the status of PN's despite the fact ASIC gave written approval to Westpoint in 2000 for their use
16_06_2006	ASIC says loopholes ties its hands [ 2006_06_16_AFR ]. Where is the evidence ASIC went to parliament to have these loopholes fixed by legislation?
23_06_2006	enator Watson questions ASIC inaction over Westpoint [ 2006_06_23_MoneyMangement]. Even Senator Watson, a Liberal senator, has been highly critical of ASIC's performance over many years.
30_06_2006	The corporate regulator has finally called for changes to legislation covering the promissory notes, which are at the centre of the $300 million Westpoint collapse. While the Federal Government has claimed current laws need not be changed, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission yesterday admitted the Corporations Law could be updated. The comments mark a change in thinking in ASIC. Earlier this year ASIC chairman Jeffrey Lucy said he did not think there was any legislative flaw that needed addressing. [ 2006_06_30_Courier Mail ]. Why then did PN's play such a large part in the Westpoint tragedy? Is Mr. Lucy admitting ASIC should have done something about the way Westpoint misused PN's over the years by selling them to unsophisticated investors?
07_07_2006	Carey says ASIC cleared Westpoint Financing [2006_07_07_ABC_News].
11_07_2006	EMU brewery sold for $49 million [ABC_News_2006_07_11].
14_07_2006	CAREY: INQUIRY INTO WESTPOINT [2006_07_24_TheAustralian]. Norm Carey wants a Royal Commission? Amazing!
	"Legal action in relation to Westpoint schemes has been assisted by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which has confirmed that the fund-raising by Westpoint for the Emu Brewery project was an offering of an interest in a managed investment scheme. Managed investment schemes are fully regulated with the Corporations Act both in regard to disclosure and financial advice" [ Hockey Letter]. The Hon Joe Hockey oversaw the first year of ASIC's existence, and has the distinction of being the only Minister for ASIC. In 2006 the WA Supreme Court found the Westpoint Managed Investment Scheme Model was a MIS as opposed to ASIC's claim it was a debenture. The clear implication is that every Westpoint Mezzanine investor put their money in an illegal Managed Investment Scheme. When Joe Hockey wrote to a constituent ten days after the Court's decision, he must have known its import. Given his background before becoming a politician, the contents f his letter to a constituent defies belief.
	Lynnette Schiftan told a reporter she did not go to ASIC about irregularities within Westpoint because it "leaks like a sieve", and in going to ASIC her action could enhance the chances of further loss of investor monies. Not only a strange statement from any director, let alone an ex judge, but it does give some idea of the regard in which ASIC is held by those with the task of running companies.
26_12_2006	Lynnette Schiftan told a reporter she did not go to ASIC about irregularities within Westpoint because it "leaks like a sieve", and in going to ASIC her action could enhance the chances of further loss of investor monies. Not only a strange statement from any director, let alone an ex judge, but it does give some idea of the regard in which ASIC is held by those with the task of running companies.
26_12_2006	A YEAR AFTER WESTPOINT COLLAPSED AND $300 MILLION WAS LOST, THE INDUSTRY IS STILL A MESS AND INVESTORS' LIVES REMAIN SHATTERED [ 2006_12_26_HeralSun]. True!
27_01_2007	The Auditor General again castigated ASIC. This time it was over their poor prosecution rate per complaint [2007_01_27_The_Australian]
30_01_2007	Westpoint spruiker's $18m payout. Neil Burnard received three times as much in commission as ASIC previously thought. [ 2007_01_30_theAustralian ].
30_03_2007	The abject failure of the Assistant Treasurer's Office to answer a single question in relation to ASIC performance. All Westpoint investor queries are automatically directed to Peter Dutton's Office. [See Dutton in Politicians]
30_03_2007	Westpoint spruiker tied to Fincorp. Online Super caught in Fincorp mess [ 2007_03_30_InvestorDaily ].
03_04_2007	Federal Court does not have power to freeze assets controlled by Carey's brother. [2007_04_03_TheAge]
05_07_2007	The WIG executive met with ASIC on 05/07/2007, and outlined many ASIC's past failings. At the end of the meting we left the new ASIC Chairman, Mr. Tony D'Aloisio, with a set of formal questions, which he promised to answer at the following meeting. At the following meeting he refused to provide the promisedanswers. Further, he refused to answer any question relating to ASIC before his appointment as Chairman. Why would the ASIC Chairman refuse to answer simple, straightforward, questions?
07_05_2007	Tony D'Aloisio reports on Westpoint at Senate Estimates [07/05/2007]
21_05_2007	Mr Price said another property investment company Westpoint collapsed in February last year owing $300 million to its 4,000 investors, while media reports said a further 10 companies were expected to go belly-up. Yet an Auditor-General's report found 99 per cent of complaints that ASIC received had been ignored and not investigated, he said [2007_05_21_9_NationalNews].
27_07_2007	here are indications the regulator contributed to the Westpoint collapse. [ 2007_07_27_AFR ]. By its failure to carry out its duties the The regulator has caused needless misery 4000+ investors, most of whom were of senior years.
30_07_2007	n a document dated 30-07-2007 Nick Sherry promised a Rudd Labor government would open an inquiry into the financial serices industry. Perrhaps it wasn't a "core" promise, or was it made with fingers crossed behind his back?
22_09_2007	The Australian Financial Review of 22_09_2007 reports Peter Costello's rejection of a call for a Royal Commission. How could he ignore the overwhelming evidence? Perhaps it's because he was one of the key rchitects in the creation of ASIC, or is it that ASIC is a "cash cow" returning in excess of $300 million p.a. to the Treasury, and he doesn't want to see that money compensate those ASIC has failed.
19_10_2007	While hundreds of Australian financial planners have marketed themselves as being "independent", only a handful actually fulfils the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) criteria. [ 2007_10_19_MoneyManagement].
08_11_2007	The Government refuses to answer the fundamental question: why is ASIC not responsible for the losses incurred by Westpoint investors because they failed to recognise the Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes were unregistered Managed Investment Schemes and not debentures. [ASIC/WIG meeting of 08/11/2007]. If true, the article paints a terrifying picture of how many AFSL holders fail to be brought to account by ASIC.
	ASIC has banned Mr Jason Lowth, of The Vines in Western Australia,from providing financial services for five years. Mr Lowth provided financial planning services through Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd (Brighton Hall) between 17 September 2001 and 14 June 2004. During this time he was a proper authority holder and then an authorised representative of Brighton Hall" [ASIC MR 07-288]. It is interesting to note Brighton Hall Winthrop Securities, which was owned by John Whitehead who was banned by ASIC. Brighton Hall, which sold Westpoint products, has now gone into liquidation and many of its members have formed a new company.
08_11_2007	ASIC, FICS, and the Australian Government refuse to answer the fundamental question: why is ASIC not responsible for the losses incurred by Westpoint investors because they failed to recognise the Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes were unregistered Managed Investment Schemes and not debentures. What a cosy little cosy menage a troi. For proof of my claims see the ASIC/WIG_meeting of 08/11/2007, the correspondence with FICS and the Assistant Treasurer,Peter Dutton on this Website.You decide the reason the Government refuses to admitthe proven problems with ASIC and FICS exist.
03_12_2007	ASIC charged Karen Carey (Norm Carey's sister) with not providing the reports they demanded. Karen Carey's claimed she had no way of providing the reports as ASIC had held the books of the company for two years, and ASIC had not supplied her with copies of the information that would allow her to do so. ASIC charged Karen Carey. The matter went to Court on 04/12/2007, where ASIC withdrew their case hearing, before proceedings commenced. ASIC refused to answer any questions of why they had done so (2007_12_03_TheWest, 2007_12_05_TheWest). I'm awaiting an answer from Tony D'Aloisi on on this matter. but in this case it is difficult to see any other reason than to hide another monumental mess of its own making. I intend to write to Tony D'Alosio as to why no reason was given for the withdrawal of the case, and to request how much public money was wasted on the exercise. However, it is not only the loss of money that is troubling. When there is so much to do in cleaning up the problems in the marketplace, caused by ASIC's woeful past performance, the wastage of valuable resources borders on the criminal.
12_01_2008	ASIC TOO SLOW TO SALVE VICTIMS and WESTPOINT: 2 YEARS ON INVESTORS STILL WAITING is the story banner from the AFR of 22-01-2008.
24_01_2008	CAREY CLAIMS EVIDENCE WAS FALSE [2008_01_24_AFR]. I find it strange that Norm Carey has consistently called for a Royal Commission involving ASIC behaviour. I have consistently called for a Royal Commission involving ASIC performance. I don't think we would present the same evidence, but does that make me Carey's fellow traveller?
41_08_2008	SMH of 31_01_2008 reads: 'But Justice Robert French rejected ASIC's application to extend the April 2006 restrictions in the Perth court on Thursday, saying it was "characterised by generality and uncertainty" about the precise state of investigations into Westpoint."In my opinion ASIC has failed to make a case." Justice French said.'Justice French is not the only one confused about where ASIC are up to in their investigation into Westpoint.
01_02_2008	2008_02_01_TheAge reports the decision to lift travel restrictions on the Carey's. Even the judge in the case has doubts about if ASIC has a case against Carey!
22-01_2008	ASIC TOO SLOW TO SALVE VICTIMS and WESTPOINT: 2 YEARS ON INVESTORS STILL WAITING is the story banner from the AFR of 22-01-2008.
24_01_2008	CAREY CLAIMS EVIDENCE WAS FALSE [2008_01_24_AFR]. I find it strange that Norm Carey has consistently called for a Royal Commission involving ASIC behaviour. I have consistently called for a Royal Commission involving ASIC performance. I don't think we would present the same evidence, but does that make me Carey's fellow traveller?
31_01_2008	SMH of 31_01_2008 reads: 'But Justice Robert French rejected ASIC's application to extend the April 2006 restrictions in the Perth court on Thursday, saying it was "characterised by generality and uncertainty" about the precise state of investigations into Westpoint."In my opinion ASIC has failed to make a case."
01_02_2008	TheAge reports the decision to lift travel restrictions on the Carey's. [2008_02_01_TheAge ]. Even the judge in the case has doubts about if ASIC has a case against Carey!
11_02_2008	2008_02_11_AFR says CAREY FIGHTS ASIC INTERVENTION. We now enter another phase in the continuing disaster. The word is that Carey says ASIC collapsed Westpoint when it might have got of trouble.
12_02_2008	2008_02_12_MacAulay_Daloisio. Basically, this is a document that asks ASIC a number of awkward questions. How many more property companies are to fail, taking investor monies. Where was ASIC while all of this has been going on, andwhy was it not reflected in the accounts of the failed business before they fell over? The letter remains unanswered.
13_02_2008	More words, no action, spruikers [2008_06_04_AFR].
12_03_2008	MARKET NEEDS A NEW RAE COMMITTEE AND A ROYAL COMMISSION! [2008_03_12_AFR_3]. That would be a step forward, but a Royal Commission into the Australian marketplace would be a better one.
08_04_2008	WESTPOINT REGULATOR TARGETS ADVISERS [2008_04_09_AFR]. ASIC stumbles into action long after the event.
12_94_2008	Watchdogs are a joke [The Age of 14-04-2008].
11_04_2006	ASIC'S WESTPOINT ACTION NO USE [2008_04_21_InvestorDaily]. It is my belief that ASIC's claim of the use of Section 50 is a smokescreen. ASIC must have known IMF scrutinised the money pots carefully, and they are not suing people like Glenhurst, etc. The longer the truth can be put off, the less will come of it.
26_04_2008	RIVALS FACE OFF OVER $10 MILLION CAREY KITTY 2008_04_26_WA_Business]. More litigation over investor funds, but no prosecution of the Westpoint Directors.
27-05_2008	2008_05_27_press is a copy of an email I sent to the media and members of the ASIC oversight committe. It refernce a document Ms. J. Redfern sent to me, and my reply to her. I am still await an an answer.
06_05_2008	On 06-05-2008 a jury found Neil Burnard guilty on all charges (Media Release 08-91). I attended every day of the trial which extended into 11 days including the jury verdict. I have included a set of short summary notes, and for those so inclined a more complete set, warts and all, that I took during the trial. There was been no attempt to turn the latter into an organised document. covering the trial. NOTE 1: A number of papers reported the conviction of Burnard. NOT ONE OF THEM WAS AT THE TRIAL. It's amazing how they can be so authoritative in their reporting of events. NOTE 2: On 07-05-2008 I sent a document ( 2008_05_07_Press) to a number of media members, but no on ever contacted me. I GUESS IT CAN'T HAVE CONTAINED ANY IMPORTANT INFORMATION WORTH REPORTING WORTH REPORTING. I found thmatter of great interest, and illustrative of the mysterious manner in which ASIC operates. It occurred with the trail over, and the judge finishing his legal conversation with the prosecution and defence. The judge stated he never looks at any material to do with those involved in a case he will preside over. However, in this case, the evidence showed that senior people, including directors of Kebbel companies, seemed to have used Kebbel Investment Bank in the same manner as Burnard. He asked the Crown prosecutor if this was the first of a series of court cases, and the Crown prosecutor said no.
13_05_2008	FORMER WESTPOINT ADVISER CHARGED [ 2008_05_13_WABusinessNews]. It was Keith Rowntree of Solutions 1. Amazing how it takes so long after the event to prosecute the "button men" of the operation. Burnard was one of the bigger fish, but where are the other big fish?
	Many Westpoint investors gained information from the ASIC licenced Norton Capital and PIS research houses. Despite ASIC's constant prattling about consumer education , the consumers gained confidence from the reports put out by these research houses on Westpoint. It now five year since they put out the research, and ASIC has now just completed an investigation the advice given by another ASIC licenced research house (PI) ASIC Media Release MR 08-107 thanks PIS for its help.
25_06_2008	My communication to Senator Sherry of 25-06-2008 raising questions arising out of the Burnard sentencing.
04_06_2008	More words, no action, spruikers [2008_06_04_AFR].
10_06_2008	ASIC BANS WESTPOINT PLANNER [2008_06_19_FinancialStandard]. Another seller of Westpoint products who desrved banning. However, other than Burnard we have not seen any major figures prosecuted.
26_06_2008	ASIC SETBACK IN $245M WESTPOINT CASE [2008_06_26_WABusinessNews]. ASIC loses again. Now they have to do it the legal way!
03_07_2008	IC BANS WA MAN OVER WESTPOINT COLLAPSE 2008_07_03_WABusinessNew
04_07_2008	FORMER PIS ADVISER BANNED [2008_07_04_InvestorDaily]. Amazing how ASIC can ban all of these minor players (as it should) but it can't do anything about any of the principals of Westpoint - even Then the judge in the Burnard case asks if it was the first of a series of cases aganst senior Kebbel Bank peronnel because of the evidence that came out in the Burnard trial.
09_07_2008	ASIC CONTINUES WESTPOINT CLAMPDOWN [ 2008_07_09_InvestorDaily ]. Another three minnows, who deserve to be outed, receive punishement - but why were they not included in the Section 50's? When is ASIC going to take action against Westpoint directors, and other high profile perople involved in the Westpoint disaster?
10-07_2008	ASIC ZEROES IN ON WESTPOINT BOSSES [ 2008_07_10_InvestorDaily_2].
113_07_2008	ASIC Media Release MR 08-2007 gives information on ASIC's forthcoming action against Westpoint Directors. The first court hearing will be 07-11-2008 in the Victorian Supreme court.
01_08_2008	The Age of 01-08-2008 reports the banning of a Brighton Hall AFSL holder who put clients into Westpoint between 2001 and 2003. Even after the death of Westpoint, it took the regulator two years to get around to banning the Westpoint adviser. That was two years extra to fleece unsuspecting clients. The time lapse says much about ASIC's current knowledge of those to whom it issues AFSL'S. The above ILLUSTRATES ASIC'S ATTITUDE OF SITTING ON ITS BACKSIDE WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN. IT IS NOT AN EFFICIENT METHOD OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
05_08_2008	WESTPOINT TRAIL IS WIDENING [2008_08_05_HeraldSun]. At last something might be happening. We will have to wait and see. It's the first time ASIC has mentioned Schiftan.
09_08_2008	WESTPOINT CASE TO BE TRIED TOGETHER [2008_08_09_HeraldSun]. Cheaper by the dozen. I liked the judges comment about the venue.
15_08_2008	URNARD PRESENTENCING COMPLETE. JUDGE WILL PASS SENTENCE ON 15-08-2008 [2008_06_20_Neil_Burnard ].
18_08_2008	ADVISER FAILS TO OUTRUN ASIC [ 2008_08_18_InvestorDaily]. Another Westpoint minor outlawed.
23_98_2008	WESTPOINT SALESMAN AVOIDS GOING TO JAIL [ 2008_08_23_AFR]. Rehabilitate the criminal - let the victims suffer a linering death.
25_08_2008	wESTPOINT SENTENCE TOO LENIENT: ASIC [ 2008_08_25_InvestorDaily]. Call that a sentence?
	Senator Sherry finally replies to my earlier communications on 25-09-2008.
28_08_2008	I sent the document 2008_08_28_BurnardSentence to the press, and to out members. It's contents are telling, and poses a number of unstated questions involving our regulators and the judicial system
03_09_2008	I write again to Senator Sherry on 03-09_2008 on the Burnard sentencing.
15_09_2008	ASIC REJECTS WHISTLEBLOWER'S BID TO JOIN WATCHDOG 2008_09_15_TheAustralian ]. We can't risk Denise Brailey whistleblowing on how useless we are from inside ASIC
	In the last few days I became aware of a Hansard document with a publishing date of August 2008 relating to the ASIC Oversight Commttee It is an astonishing document that indicates ASIC has not learned its lessons from its past. A hyperlink to the Hansard document appears in the one I sent today to the ASIC Oversight Committee.
26_09_2008	FORMER PIS ADVISER BANNED OVER WESTPOINT [2008_09_26_InvestorDaily]. You might remember the ASIC pproved PIS research house gave Westpoint a qualified buy.
30_09_2008	2008_09_30_CoonanMacAulay The only reply to date I have received from the email I sent each of the ASIC Oversight Committee Members.
10-10-2008
10_10_2008	WESTPOINT PROMOTER BANNED FOR LIFE [2008_10_10_InvestorDaily], BURNARD BANNED FOR LIFE [2008_10_10_The West]. But he is not serving time yet.
10)10_2008	BURNARD SENTENCE APPEALED [2008_10_03_MoneyManagement ].
13_10_2008	Here are a few of the many clippings on ASIC's action against KPMG. 2008_10_13_BusinessSpectator, 2008_10_13_SMH, 2008_10_13_WANews , 2008_10_14_InvestorDaily, 2008_10_14_SMH, 2008_10_14_TheAustralian, 2008_10_14_TheAustralian_2, 2008_10_14_AFR, all report ASIC taking legal action against KPMG over Westpoint. While I have no idea where KPMG failed in its audits (other than the scaps of information in the press), I still contend ASIC should never have alowed the Westpoint Mezzanine Schemes on the marketplace without meeting all of the stringent tests as required for Managed Investment Schemes. My own question is, WHY DOES ASIC BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER. FROM DAY ONE IT FAILED TO RECOGNISE THE WESTPOINT MEZZANINE SCHEMES AS MANAGED INVESTMENT SCHEMES?
16_10_2008	ASIC BANS ANOTHER WESTPOINT ADVISER [2008_10_16_MoneyManagement]. Another minnow, but it helps our statistics.
17_10_2008	CAREY CLAIM TARGETS FREEHILS [2008_10_17_AFR]. Westpoint investors will see a numbers of matters thrown into public view for the first time.
19_10_2008	2008_10_19_MacAulaySherry is my reply to Senator Sherry's communication of 25/09/2008.
13_11_2008	008_11_13_InvestorDaily KPMG CALLED TO FILE DEFENCE IN WESTPOINT CASE The opening salvos in the ASIC V KPMG case!
13_13_2008	2008_11_13_InvestorDaily KPMG CALLED TO FILE DEFENCE IN WESTPOINT CASE The opening salvos in the ASIC V KPMG case!
14_11_2008	ASIC BANS PERTH-BASED FINANCIAL ADVISER 2008_11_14_MoneyManagement The twentieth Westpoint adviser banned. Onl forty odd to go
17_11_2008	2008_11_17_InsuranceNews KPMG DEFENDS ITSELF OVER WESTPOINT CLAIMS Note the words: Will defend itself vigorously.
28_11_2008	2008_11_28_InvestorDaily.pdf MASU SETTLES WESTPOINT CLASS ACTION ASIC finally has a win - and we should all be glad to see it.
03_01_2009	2009_01_04_MacAulay_McNally raises questions to the packs sent out y ASIC on 16_12_2009. I feel ASIC has once again shown its lack of understanding of both systems, and the nature of the average Westpoint Investor.
04_01_2008	In the last few days many of us received an eleven-page double-sided document from ASIC offering to supply personal relevant information to Westpoint Investors. I cannot understand why ASIC does not already possess much of the information it requests. Nor can I understand why ASIC demands an investor agreeing to the terms and conditions that he/she indemnifies ASIC. I don't wish to advise anyone on a course of action that may cost them money. However, I have written an email to ASIC's Ms Helen McNally requesting answers to specific questions. I will post her reply when it arrives. My own response to ASIC's offer is dependent on her answers
08_01_2009	2009_01_09_McNally_MacAulay I found her document a typical ASIC reply: verbose and generalised. I stil fail to see what extra information ASIC can supply an investor that cannot be put on the ASIC website until such time ASIC wins the case.
15_01_2009	2009_01_15_MacAulay_McNally is my reply to Ms McNally's communication of 09_01_2009.
16_01_2009	2009_01_16_MacAulay_McNallyy It's about time ASIC answered these questions.
23_01_2009	2009_01_23_McNally_MacAulay A non reply
02_02_2009	2009_02_02_MacAulay_McNally A missive requesting truthful answers to my communication of 16/01/2009.
03-02-2009	2009_02_03_AFR WESTPOINT: GLOBAL MEDIATION FLAGGED ASIC fouls up badly, and now wants everone to pay for it. I respectfully point out Westpoint investors already have!
13_02_2009	FORMER WESTPOINT BOSS FACES COURT It's not ASIC prosecuting Carey.
14+02_2009	ASIC BANS BRANNELLYS FROM FINANCIAL ADVICE [ 14_02_2009_QueenslandBusinessReview ]. Only six years? The interesting question is will Brannellys apeal and win?
27_02_2009	PIS LOSES WESTPOINT APPEAL Some of our members will get their money back [ 27_02_2009_InvestorDaily ].
31_03_2009	WESTPOINT FOUNDER TARGETS JUDGE [ 2009_03_31_BrisbaneTimes ] Norm's at it again.
27_05_2009_theAge	WESTPOINT LINK TO DEBT [ 27_05_2009_TheAge ]. Richard Beck loses money?
25_06_2009	WESTPOINT MEDIATION HAS WAY TO GO [ 25_06_2009_AFR ] At this stage, I think the only conclusion one draw is that the meeting has been adjourned to 01/09/2009.
17_08_2009	17_08_2009_WAToday 18_08_2009_News 18_08_2009_TheAge 18_08_2009_TheAustralian_2 All of the articles refer to ASIC banning 3 KPMG partners for a couple of years. There are no formal charges, and KPMG says it is standing by them. Further, KPMG says it will defend it position fiercely. This throws into question how much money ASIC might obtain out of its Section 50 action. We will have to wait until after the nrxt mediation meeting on September 1 before we find out.
07_10_2009	ASIC STARTS ANOTHER WESTPOINT ACTION [ 07_10_2009_WABusiness }. Most believe Brighton Hall had a lot to answer for.
07_10_2009	ASIC COMMENCES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PERTH PERTH FINANCIAL SERVICES BUSINESS [ 07_10_2009_ASIC ]/
08_10_2009	BANK BENT ON MIS REPAYMENTS [ 08_10_2009_AFR ]. How many more people must lose their homes!
27_03_2010	SUSPENDED SENTENCE ON WESTPOINT CHARGe [ 2010_03_27_SkyNews see Also 2010_03_27_WABusiness_news ]. Another supended sentence involving Westpoint.He didn't hold an AFSL. A bit strange though, te charges related to a period between 2003 and 2005. Saya a lot about the ASIC monitoring system.
14_04_2010	WESTPOINT CHARGES DROPPED [ 2010_04_14_InvestorDaily ]. Could that public interest becuse ASIC knew in 2003 the Westpoint Mezzanine model was an unregistered MIS, but did nothing about it?
08_10_2009	ASIC CONTINUES WESTPOINT ACTION [ 08_10_2009 _InvestorDaily 08_10_2009 _InvestorDaily. Interesting reading.
2010_05_19	KPMG MOUNT HIGH COURT CHALLENGE TO ASIC'S POWERS This action only adds to the question of why ASIC failed recognise the Westpoint Mezzanine model from te outset, and why their has not been a Royal Commission into the financial marketplace and ASIC. Rember, Senator Sherry promised an OPEN inquiry. [ 010_05_19_ABCOnline ], [ 2010_05_19_MoneyManagement], [ 010_05_19_BIG4Blogspot ], [2010_05_20_SMH ] 2010_05_20_BusinessSpectator ] 2010_05_20_investorDaily ] [ 2010_05_20_AFR ].
20_05_2010	AUDITOR TO TEST WESTPOINT SOLVENCY [2010_05_20_SMH ]. Did ASIC have the legal power?
20_05_2010	KPMG FIGHTS BACK IN WESTPOINT STOUSH [ 2010_05_20_TheAustralian . The evidence, and the outcome of the claim, should be interesting reading. [
20_05_2010	ASIC ENDS WESTPOINT ACTION AGAINST A DIRECTOR No one is fully responsible for their actions - except the Westpoint investors.
09_06_2010	KPMG DENIES LIABILITY FOR WESTPOINT LOSS [ 2010_06_09_SMH ] A key point in the article is that ASIC knew the mezzanine model was a MIS
18_06_2010	$3.25 WESTPOINT SETTLEMENT [ 2010_06_18_WABusines ] MF got it back - not ASIC
22_06_2010	WESTPOINT DOCUMENTS IN ThE DARK [ 2010_06_22_SMH_2 ] Is keeping documents secret a breach of democracy?
28_06_2010	ASIC GAINS WESTPOINT SETTLEMENT APPROVAL $2.5 million from Glenhurst. [ 2010_06_28_InvestorDailiy ].
10_08_2010	IMF SETTLES QBE, QUANTUM ACTIONS [ 10_08_2010_InvestorDaily [. Undisclosed terms of course.
10_08_2919	MF COMPLETES ANOTHER WESTPOINT DEAL [ 10_08_2010_WABusinessNews ]. The last of the Westpoint cases involving IMF.
11_08_2010	WESTPOINT MANAGER FACES JAIL TIME [11_08_2010_WABusinessNews ]. But will ASIC put him in there?
17_08_2010	ASIC SET FOR ANOTHER COURT SAVAGING IF WESTPOINT WIND-UP DOCUMENT REVEALED [ 7_08_2010_TheAge ]. We live in hope that the document enters the public domain.
	DUMMY