Mayfair has labelled the appointment of receivers to one of its funds as a “serious error of judgement” and blasted claims it might be in financial strife.
Receivers were appointed to Mayfair 101’s IPO Wealth fund by trustee Vasco after it allegedly failed to make two repayments worth some $3 million. Now Mayfair has hit back, saying Vasco’s appointment of insolvency firm Dye & Co demonstrates “a lack of commercial aptitude”.
“It is complete madness to be appointing receivers in the COVID-19 environment,” said managing director James Mawhinney. “The only people that will win out of this is Dye & Co and Vasco, which is not in the best interests of IPO Wealth’s investors.
“The receiver appointed clearly has minimal understanding of the asset classes IPO Wealth Holdings has invested in and we hold grave concerns that their actions will now cause a loss of capital for the IPO Wealth Fund’s investors.”
Mr Mawhinney claimed that Dye & Co isn’t fit for the job, warning that its single office location and lack of international affiliates meant it wasn’t equipped to handle Mayfair’s “national and global portfolio”.
He also claims that Mayfair missed a loan repayment due to the liquidity challenges of COVID-19 and recent proceedings brought against it by ASIC.
“In this environment, a facility falling into arrears by a marginal factor is not uncommon and is no justification for calling in receivers,” Mayfair said in a statement in which it also said it had a “near-perfect track record” of meeting income distributions and redemptions.
“The harmful steps taken by ASIC with respect to the [group’s] advertising has evidently been a key driver for Vasco’s decision to appoint receivers, at a time when support for Australian businesses is needed most,” Mayfair said.
Mayfair has said it will “vigorously defend” the proceedings brought against it by ASIC.
APRA has issued directions and imposed a new license condition on Suncorp Portfolio Services after investigating a matter referred by the ro...
APRA has imposed a new licence condition on a big four bank’s superannuation business after a further investigation into a referral from t...
A major wealth management institution has defended its decision to place client money refunded as part of its “fee-for-no-service” remed...