Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
"Woman suing bank over Storm Financial fails to get trial by jury

A WOMAN who is suing her bank for failing to warn her about the dangers of investing with the failed Storm Financial Services has been denied an application to have her case heard by a jury."
Click to expand...

More by Mark Oberhardt @ www.couriermail.com.au
 
It's hotting up at Harry's. Cue the Levitt's crew, charge the packs.

Mobilise the Stormers.

I believe it's going to be another huge turn out.

Date: 23 September 2011

What: ASIC unregistered managed investment scheme proceedings

Where:
Federal Court, Brisbane
Justice Reeves
Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
119 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000


Court room TBA :)
 
Solly said:
It's hotting up at Harry's. Cue the Levitt's crew, charge the packs.

Mobilise the Stormers.

I believe it's going to be another huge turn out.

Date: 23 September 2011

What: ASIC unregistered managed investment scheme proceedings

Where:
Federal Court, Brisbane
Justice Reeves
Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
119 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000


Court room TBA :)
Click to expand...


Justice Reeves Court No. 1, Level 7

10:15 AM Directions

2 NSD811/2010 LESLIE JAMES SHERWOOD & ORS v COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR

3 QUD577/2010 ASIC v STORM FINANCIAL LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS

4 QUD590/2010 TRACEY RICHARDS v MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
 
A great turn out at Harry's today.

Frank, what's your view on today's progress ?



"Storm investors told their case will not come before court until September 2012
DISGRUNTLED former Storm Financial investors still seeking compensation after the financial adviser's multi-million dollar collapse will have to wait until late next year to get their day in court.
Click to expand...

More by Anthony Grant-Taylor @ www.couriermail.com.au
 
Solly said:
A great turn out at Harry's today.

Frank, what's your view on today's progress ?





More by Anthony Grant-Taylor @ www.couriermail.com.au
Click to expand...



If this article is right it would seem that scenario (no court hearing for another year) will play into the banks hands as they obviously have much deeper pockets than the poor stormies. :(

I would be interested to hear their reaction to this latest development.
 
Obviously the banks have deeper pockets than the stormies, no matter how long it takes, it doesn't make the banks any less guilty than we know they've been.
 
Harleyquin said:
Obviously the banks have deeper pockets than the stormies, no matter how long it takes, it doesn't make the banks any less guilty than we know they've been.
Click to expand...

I agree Harlequin but what concerns me is that it could cost a considerable amount of money to prove it through the legal system.
I am concerned that the banks will deliberately drag this process out so as to increase the costs involved for the stormies to such an extent that they find it difficult to continue funding their legals costs.
The banks have form for this sort of thing, one notable example being the foreign currency loans debacle back in the 80's.
I just hope the stormies can afford to see this thing through.
:(
 
We're well aware of the "dragging out" issue, however, even in the overseas loan debacle they got the banks who were guilty in the end. There is one thing we all know for sure and that is storm were guilty of rotten advice and the banks were guilty of funding it, knowing full well what and who they were funding. I'm happy for it to all to come out in court.

We didn't go to storm to become wealthy and if we have to spend whatever we have left to fund a legal team against those who destroyed us then so be it. Being financially independent was once a hope, now it's no longer possible or important. We're broke, in debt and have nothing left to lose. When you're backed into a corner you only have one option and that's to fight and to fight to win. Bring on the ant army.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Solly,

Are there any criminal charges pending over Storm?

gg
Click to expand...

GG

None that I am aware of at the moment. I wonder what evidence ASIC still has or is still gathering.

On another note in my opinion there was definitely a crime committed against fashion with that noteworthy Pirates of Penzance garb.

Cue the Pirate King...

"Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part,
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I’ll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.

For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!"
 
Harleyquin said:
We're well aware of the "dragging out" issue, however, even in the overseas loan debacle they got the banks who were guilty in the end. There is one thing we all know for sure and that is storm were guilty of rotten advice and the banks were guilty of funding it, knowing full well what and who they were funding. I'm happy for it to all to come out in court.

We didn't go to storm to become wealthy and if we have to spend whatever we have left to fund a legal team against those who destroyed us then so be it. Being financially independent was once a hope, now it's no longer possible or important. We're broke, in debt and have nothing left to lose. When you're backed into a corner you only have one option and that's to fight and to fight to win. Bring on the ant army.
Click to expand...

This is a matter I don't quite understand. If someone takes litigation against an organisation, why wouldn't that organisation defend it? It is the right of that organisation as much as it is that of those who initiate the litigation. It's not about morals or ethics or "we is right", it's a question of law and now the legal system comes into play. When that happens, do not expect justice as the layman may view it, simply expect that the judgement will apply the law and that no matter what the initial outcome there are avenues of appeal against that decision. I do not expect it to end after a mere four years.

Watching with interest.
 
Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could explain why this issue will not now go to court for another 12 months ? Is this just the normal timeframe that it is possible to actually use the courts, or would some of the parties to the matter (banks or others) have requested this length of time.

I can't find anything written to explain the timeframe .
 
Gonzo1975 said:
Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could explain why this issue will not now go to court for another 12 months ? Is this just the normal timeframe that it is possible to actually use the courts, or would some of the parties to the matter (banks or others) have requested this length of time.

I can't find anything written to explain the timeframe .
Click to expand...

Hi Gonzo,

My understanding is that the timeframe is needed to allow for discovery of the millions of pages of documents that need to be read as part of the discovery process.

Don't forget that His Honour also ordered that mediation occur before the end of Feb 2012. So maybe it won't even get to court.

Personally I feel torn by all of this - on the one hand the time is critical to pick up the evidence that is needed to support the case against the banks in the clearest manner possible - on the other I worry about whether the Stormers can keep on keeping on for another year. The toll on Stormers is far too high already and I desperately hope and pray that no more succumb to stress related illness or suicide.

cheers
Maccka
 
...on the one hand the time is critical to pick up the evidence that is needed to support the case against the banks in the clearest manner possible - on the other I worry about whether the Stormers can keep on keeping on for another year. The toll on Stormers is far too high already and I desperately hope and pray that no more succumb to stress related illness or suicide.
Click to expand...

This something that has been at the back of my mind for sometime. Even if decisions go the way of former Storm clients, in a way they still lose due to the stress and strain involved. Some may never get over it.
 
Thanks Anastasia and you're right I can't imagine seeing in on Australias got talent. .

When Bill Shorten announced recently that more people need to seek financial advice and contact the Financial Planning Association for a referral to a licensed financial planner. This bothers me no end. Storm Financial were licensed by ASIC and the company and some of the advisors members of the FPA.

It doesn't matter what new rules they put in place, 'bad' financial advisors will still be bad, and 'good' advisors with integrity will still be good. But unfortunately, because of the onorous new compliance rules put in place, a lot of the good advisors will leave and all that will be left will be the 'big' advisor firms and the banks who cover themselves to be able to operate exactly as they did before.

I believe that if anything the financial planning industry is now more 'dodgy' than it was prior to the Storm collapse. Some contributors to this thread have suggested that the storm financial scenario can and will happen again and I couldn't agree more.
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
867
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
61
Views
6K
ducati916
ducati916
Garpal Gumnut
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top