- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Because Scattini never looked at litigation against the Bank (CBA is all he is dealing with)...he wanted his name in lights and an easy $10mil to 'negotiate' a deal that is worse than the actual margin contract the Bank and clients agreed to. He was given mountains of evidence to launch a case but did not use it or decide to go down the letigious route. I heard testimony from Shaun McArdle about taped evidence he offered Scattini a number of times and he didn't want it.
Instead he decided to hold secret meetings with the people who were paying him (CBA), take no direction from his clients (ex-Stormers), and let the CBA set the rules on how the whole game would be played!!! He then let the Bank call his clients without legal representation and find out everything they could about them before coming to an agreement.
Solly, I am sure you have been around long enough to know who pays the piper calls the tune - S&G are totally compromised, took the easy way out and I believe clients are starting to realise it. What else could you expect from an Ambulance chaser?
Point is case...in the Goodridge case it was determined that 'may give a margin call' (written in contract) constitutes 'must give a margin call'. The lender (CGI) cannot obligate another to give the call (that is, Storm should have done it). It was also determined the margin call must be done in writing (phone call will not suffice). In the Storm case, none of this occurred as it should have as determined in the Goodridge case.
The argument that "many people didn't have the funds for a margin call anyway" does not hold water because there was no margin call given. If the investor was given a margin call in writing and the correct time to fix it and then couldn't, the Bank can sell secured assets to remedy the situation...but clients were not give the opportunity and that is where the contract has been breached by the Bank. "Didn't have the funds anyway" is fallacious...in my slang, 'too bad you're stuffed anyway take what you are given'.
I don't believe there has been precedent until the Goodridge case (could be wrong)...but this is all very pertinant to the Storm case.
pegasus, thanks for your views on this and putting a different angle on the events. This issue of the margin calls or lack thereof has always been a point that I would like more clarity.