Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
bunyip said:
The bank should have made the appropriate documentation available. And before going ahead with the loan, the client should have ensured that they had the necessary documentation to rule out fraudulent play. Obviously, this should have included a copy of the documents they signed.
And before anyone says "But these were unsophisticated investors - how were they supposed to know all this"?......In any business dealing, the onus is on you, the person involved in the deal, to have sufficient knowledge to conduct the deal properly and safely. Ignorance is no excuse for making wrong decisions in business or business borrowings. The immutable rule of business and investment is that you should know what you're doing, or get burnt.

Go after the banks and Storm Financial is you believe they've been negligent or have done anything illegal. But don't forget that borrowers have certain responsibilities too.
Click to expand...
For the record
I personally have no loans in any capacity, however, I do understand the Financial Services Industry.
 
specialed said:
Bunyip,

Not withstanding the fact that yes the borrower may need to take some responsibility. Some of these borrowers were not just retired but quite elderly. Had little or no financial knowledge hence seeing the advisor and may not have had any understanding of what to do with the documents, even if they were given to them, and they could understand them. If the lawyers and asic are now having trouble determining responsibility from these same documents what chance did many of those who received them. Particularly if they were then completed by someone else. Laws, codes of conducts, regulations etc are put in place in many enviroments, business and otherwise to protect the vunerable from exactly this type of behaviour. They are also put in place to protect people from themselves. Assuming you have or know someone who is close that is elderly, I would like you to think about at what age they may not be able to understand something they are doing, yet maybe pride will prevent them from seeking assistance. The driving licence age comes to my mind. Laws had to be put in place to protect people from themselves.....and to protect others....
Click to expand...

Specialed - I fly out of Brisbane at 6am tomorrow, headed for Alice Springs. That means getting up at 1.30am to be at the airport by 5am. So rather than answer you tonight, I'm off to bed for some sleep.
When I return home in a week or so, I'll re-read your post and see if I wish to comment.

While I've expressed forthright views about Stormers and their situation, I feel genuinely sorry for them. Many of them are in their situation simply because they lacked the knowledge to avoid the pitfalls.
 
"Franchisees add to BOQ’s woes"

"The number of disgruntled Bank of Queensland current and former owner-managers expected to join a legal action for compensation because of alleged misrepresentations made about branch profitability is expected to double."

Read more by Duncan Hughes in The Australian Financial Review, June 9, 2010.


Also From Trading Markets;
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/bkqnf_franchisees-add-to-boq-s-woes-972610.html

"Bank of Queensland (BOQ) is likely to face an increasing number of legal cases concerning its operations. Many of the actions will stem from the lending policies".....

"BOQ is also dealing with a January 2009 risk report that specifically warned about Storm Financial's practices. Franchisees in its owner-manager branches model are unhappy as well."
 
Solly said:

Also From Trading Markets;
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/bkqnf_franchisees-add-to-boq-s-woes-972610.html
Click to expand...

The following is from the above link:
Franchisees add to BOQ's woes
Jun 08, 2010 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) --

Bank
of Queensland (BOQ) is likely to face an increasing number of legal cases concerning its operations. Many of the actions will stem from the lending policies of its subsidiary, Storm Financial. BOQ is also dealing with a January 2009 risk report that specifically warned about Storm Financial's practices.
Click to expand...

Storm Financial - BOQ Subsidiary?????? Since when?
What sort of shoddy reporting is this!
 
specialed said:
Bunyip,

Not withstanding the fact that yes the borrower may need to take some responsibility. Some of these borrowers were not just retired but quite elderly. Had little or no financial knowledge hence seeing the advisor and may not have had any understanding of what to do with the documents, even if they were given to them, and they could understand them. If the lawyers and asic are now having trouble determining responsibility from these same documents what chance did many of those who received them. Particularly if they were then completed by someone else. Laws, codes of conducts, regulations etc are put in place in many enviroments, business and otherwise to protect the vunerable from exactly this type of behaviour. They are also put in place to protect people from themselves. Assuming you have or know someone who is close that is elderly, I would like you to think about at what age they may not be able to understand something they are doing, yet maybe pride will prevent them from seeking assistance. The driving licence age comes to my mind. Laws had to be put in place to protect people from themselves.....and to protect others....
Click to expand...

That is a very fair comment specialed.

As I have said before, Storm, the Cassimatis, their employees, the Banks and their employees should all be ashamed of themselves and brought to account for taking advantage of these investors. Now it seems the poor people are getting contrary advice from their legal advisers and suffering more angst. Again , unfortunately as I predicted.

The Regulators really need to step in now to protect these very vulnerable people.

gg
 
"CBA holds firm to Storm framework"

"Commomwealth Bank of Australia has taken the unusual step of writing to dozens of law firms advising them that it will not be negotiating any "variation to the framework" of the resolution scheme..."

Read more by Duncan Hughes in AFR of Friday, June 11 2010.
 
A friend of mine went to the Levitt (lawyer) meeting in Townsville and was stunned with what occurred and that people would buy into what was 'on offer' (read his notes):

- Levitt was introduced by former storm adviser jelich
- "storm was not such a bad model - you just drank too much of it" - Levitt
- he wants people to pay $5,000-$25,000 up front for a class action against various banks ("It won't be free but it won't be expensive"; pretty vague calculation in that he said, "people who lost least will pay $5,000 and those who lost most will pay $25,000")
- he has less than 2 dozen lawyers to handle the hoped for 100s of ex-storm clients
- also, claimed he will get 3X to 5X more than resolution scheme for people in 6-12 months

Friend said he waffled a lot and was had to follow except for the part of $ for his law firm

Those who still believe in Manny and his model will possibly be sold another fiction by this new saviour:2twocents
 
Smiley said:
A friend of mine went to the Levitt (lawyer) meeting in Townsville and was stunned with what occurred and that people would buy into what was 'on offer' (read his notes):

- Levitt was introduced by former storm adviser jelich
- "storm was not such a bad model - you just drank too much of it" - Levitt
- he wants people to pay $5,000-$25,000 up front for a class action against various banks ("It won't be free but it won't be expensive"; pretty vague calculation in that he said, "people who lost least will pay $5,000 and those who lost most will pay $25,000")
- he has less than 2 dozen lawyers to handle the hoped for 100s of ex-storm clients
- also, claimed he will get 3X to 5X more than resolution scheme for people in 6-12 months

Friend said he waffled a lot and was had to follow except for the part of $ for his law firm

Those who still believe in Manny and his model will possibly be sold another fiction by this new saviour:2twocents
Click to expand...

I can't shake the feeling that Manny & Julie are once again "using" their remaining loyal customer base for their own purposes. They obviously cannot be part of the Slater & Gordon resolution scheme, and their best chance of any compensation lies with a privately funded class action. The more people they can get to join in with them - the lower the cost to them personally along with a better chance for a favourable outcome for them, more publicity etc, etc. Of course, they would trumpet that they're working tirelessly for the good of their clients and their lawyers represent the best chance for decent compensation - but I'm not buying it. The bitter, twisted and cynical side of me thinks the poor deluded fools who still think Manny & Julie give a toss about anyone but themselves are going to get shafted, again. I hope I'm wrong - but I'd hate to see the elderly and vulnerable ex-clients turn their back on a resolution scheme that may be flawed, but in place and likely to provide at least some relief, in order to throw more money away chasing a Cassimatis-inspired miracle. I guess time will tell, and I'll be happy to have egg on my face if Levitt proves to be the saviour he purports to be, but I think his law firm may benefit more than those who dance to M & J's tune once more.
 
"Rival firm prepares Storm class action"

"VICTIMS of the Storm Financial crisis were likened to bunnies with myxomatosis last night by a Sydney solicitor preparing to act against the Commonwealth Bank on their behalf.

About 100 people affected by the failed investment company's collapse attended a meeting, which was held with solicitor Stewart Levitt from Levitt Robinson."

More by Rachel Toune in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/06/11/145545_news.html
 
"Castle quit ASIC's Storm investigation over lack of resources"

"THE former head of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission's 18-month investigation into the $3 billion collapse of Storm Financial resigned after complaining that he was given insufficient resources to pursue action through the courts.

ASIC insiders say that the investigation has been racked by indecision and has collected very little evidence that could be used in court. It is understood that Mr Castle wanted to pursue litigation whereas Mr D'Aloisio favoured a negotiated settlement."

More by Paul Cleary in The Australian here;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/castle-quit-asics-storm-investigation-over-lack-of-resources/story-e6frg8zx-1225878642411
 
"Parliament to examine BOQ testimony on Storm Financial"

"THE Bank of Queensland's testimony into collapsed advisory group Storm Financial is under scrutiny at a parliamentary level.

A parliamentary committee, which last year examined the events surrounding Storm's demise, is examining information about a draft investigation by BoQ that hit headlines last week."

More by Liam Walsh in the The Courier-Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/parliament-to-examine-boq-testimony-on-storm-financial/story-e6freqmx-1225879656311
 
ASIC's response to the report in the Weekend Australian on 12 June 2010.


"ASIC's investigation into the affairs of Storm has at all times been allocated the resources needed to pursue all appropriate inquiries in a timely and thorough manner and to make any necessary preparation for litigation and enforcement measures.

The change in leadership of the investigation team in March has not affected the progress of ASIC's investigation. The composition of the team working on the investigation is largely unchanged. The investigation team continues to be subject to the direction and oversight of the Commission."

The complete response is on the ASIC website here;

https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf/byheadline/Report%20in%20Weekend%20Australian%20on%2012%20June%202010?opendocument
 
I note with interest that Andrew O'Brien (former Storm adviser and son of SICAG co-chairman and Cassimatis supporter Noel O'Brien) has had his Authorised Representative status removed by Infocus.

Infocus is of course the mob who took on several ex-Storm advisers after it all fell into a heap. I wonder if they are disclosing to new clients their participation in the whole debacle?

Anyway, I understand Ron Jelich is actively sounding out local advisory businesses in attempt to find young O'Brien a new job, an interesting referee to be sure.
 
"BoQ claim inflammatory comments 'just to get attention of bosses' "

"BANK of Queensland argues its own senior risk manager wrote "inflammatory" comments alleging widespread disregard for bank policy to gain the attention of top executives.

The manager typed the comments in a draft risk review conducted early in 2009 as BoQ investigated loans to people devastated in the Storm Financial investment calamity."


More by Liam Walsh in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/boq-claim-inflammatory-comments-just-to-get-attention-of-bosses/story-e6freqmx-1225881056921
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
873
TiminOz
TiminOz
BossMan.
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Value Collector
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
sptrawler
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ducati916
Garpal Gumnut
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top