Multiplex Prime Property Fund 03R

The Panel, Geoff Brunsdon, Norman O'Bryan AM SC (sitting President) and Jennifer Seabrook declined to conduct proceedings on an application from Australian Style for a review of the initial Panel's decision in Multiplex Prime Property Fund 03. The application concerned a 178:1 pro rata Entitlement Offer by Multiplex and a conditional 'cash-out' facility for unit holders who chose not to take up their entitlement. The review Panel agreed with the initial Panel's decision and did not think there was any reasonable likelihood that the review application would result in a different outcome.

Multiplex Prime Property Fund 03

The Panel, Stephen Creese, Sophie Mitchell and Ian Ramsay (sitting President) declined to make a declaration of unacceptable circumstances after accepting supplementary disclosure and an undertaking from BMCM to amend the terms of a dispersion strategy introduced into the Entitlement Offer. The Panel was however minded to make a declaration, but for the further disclosure and undertaking. The application concerned a 178:1 pro rata Entitlement Offer by Multiplex and a conditional 'cash-out' facility for unit holders who chose not to take up their entitlement.

Multiplex Prime Property Fund 03 – Panel Accepts Undertaking

The Panel has accepted supplementary disclosure and an undertaking from Brookfield Multiplex Capital Management Limited, the responsible entity of the Fund, and declined to make a declaration of unacceptable circumstances in respect of an application dated 9 October 2009 from Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd in relation to the affairs of the Multiplex Prime Property Fund.

Multiplex Prime Property Fund 04

The Panel, Stephen Creese, Sophie Mitchell and Ian Ramsay (sitting President) declined to conduct proceedings. The application concerned a 178:1 pro rata Entitlement Offer by Multiplex and a conditional 'cash-out' facility for unit holders. The applicant submitted that these amounted to a 'back door' takeover of Multiplex, that alternatives had not been explored and that the waiver of a loan to value ratio breach had not been negotiated forcefully enough with Multiplex's financiers so as to allow Grocon's alternative to be pursued. The Panel considered that the application was too late, overlapped another proceeding involving the parties and in any event it was unlikely to grant the orders sought by the applicant.