Hi Frugs, I just read this news release (6th June) on the...

Hi Frugs,

I just read this news release (6th June) on the investors challenge to the Federal Court ruling about the inhouse SMSF assets. I don't think any of this addresses the questions I raised on the 1st of June ( below). Do you or other forum members have the information about this third party challenge and why DCL is funding it. Seems like a waste of limited shareholders funds.

Just read the article by Rod Myer in the News Daily, published an hour ago and 6 hours after the ASX release.

He reports that Domacom is funding the legal fees of a domacom sub fund investor that put his daughter into a rented student flat owned by one of Domacoms funds. According to the article the investor lost the first round with the ATO on a non compliant SMSF and remarkably Domacom is footing the legal fees for the upcoming Federal Court battle. Any unrelated tenant who pays a commercial rent would negate the issue instantly, so why is Domacom footing the legal bill.

What is going on.

The object of Domacom's property sub funds was to get small interests for retail investors to acquire property holdings for their SMSF. I didn't read it was to get my children in to rent the unit. In any event which of the 100 investors gets first dibs at getting their child into the unit.

CLEARLY, the release provided to the ASX today gave none of this detail. In the interests of full and continuous disclosure Domacom should provide full statement to the market immediately. How much money is being spent on legal fees and which fund is paying. Who is the tenant and are they paying a market rent.

As a point of clarification Domacom should immediately retract the heading of todays ASX release which states
"Domacom seeks determination in Federal Court", which is in fact not correct as Domacom has no action on foot in the Federal Court.