Ann: Launch of Bentham IMF US Investment Vehicle, page-3

Indeed Warrigals

Too clever by half!

I hate "Special Purpose Vehicles". "Funding Vehicles" are no better.

I'm a Corporations Act sort of guy.

Mainly as I know that more than 2/3's of the Act and the extensive verbiage of the Common Law goes to the protection of shareholders. Not that Corporations are not "Special Purpose Funding Vehicles" either - I can think of there being any other purpose - but entities under a moniker "Special Purpose Vehicles - for Funding" usually ignore to contextualise all the myriad protections shareholders rightfully enjoy in corporations.

A naked "Special Purpose Vehicle" best have some pretty deft rationale, for me to want to compromise all those safeguards,

So they are to cleave off 1/6 of the company based on 2016 Total Assets Employed (the US$ 33.3 m to become $50.m) for a third share - of an entity that will now assume a half of the Case Investment Portfolio!

Our safeguards hinge on the COMPLEXITY of the A Class Stock (?) (IMF BENTHAM) & B Class Stock (?) (FORTRESS CREDIT ADVISORS).

And we now employ MERCURY CAPITAL ADVISORS to tell us (IMF-BENTHAM) how to give our case load away!

Theses class B stock are effectively a preferential scrip! ◄◄◄ The basis of this PREFERENCE is (vitally???) not specified.

That is OUR Case Investment Portfolio, and I am not sure WE retain the beneficial interests?

Especially since that outstanding IRR 83% in US Cases is to be "Outsourced"???

IS this what they are doing? IMF-Bentham is a Litigation Funding Operation - that err Outsources its Litigation Funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Bentham was a trucking company, this is like them saying we've partnered one of our six trucks, with HALF all our trucking contracts, and the partners take the first pick of profits!

This is a worry. As IMF-Bentham has only ever made AUD$ 13.5 funds from operations on AUD$ 299.9 Capital cumulatively over the past 7 years.

One can understand the sagacity & perspicacity of FORTRESS in these matters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Grabs a teaspoon!] Lets keep a hold on some of the family silver?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OKAY I understand the need.

i) There is a Loan Caveat on the Bonds IMF - Bentham has previously issued, and that expressly PROHIBITS more debt. I imagine that this deal has been forwarded for the approval of the perhaps duly peeved bond holders.

ii) It is stupid sourcing financing in Australia, an interest RETAIL country, when finance (loan (& capital)) is cheaper in the US the interest WHOLESALE country - IMF-Bentham is henceforth and American entity.

iii) IMF-Bentham is soon to have spent all its CASH in 'Matter Related Expenditure' (AUD$ 142.5 m (2016))

Again!