Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
Julia said:
Perhaps my expectations were unrealistic, but I found the fairly brief interview with Bernie Ripoll a bit of a non-event. He didn't really say much about anything.
Click to expand...

I agree Julia. He spoke mainly on the financial services industry generally with only a brief reference to storm. Hopefully he will have a lot more to say on storm in particular when he hands down his report later this month.

Garpal Gumnut said:
Thanks Julia, I haven't viewed it yet. I may wait for Rupert to report it to me tomorrow on my front lawn.

gg
Click to expand...

GG as Julia said this was a bit of a non-event. I don't even know if uncle rupert will bother to report on it. Anyway you won't have missed much.
 
Bernie was obviously being as non-committal as possible, not wishing to pre-empt the enquiry's findings - but I did feel a bit let down by the lack of an opinion on most points put to him. I did notice that he mentioned the importance of "quality advice tailored to individual needs" a few times, so assume the findings will be very scathing of the "one size fits all" approach adopted by storm. Thank you Grey Ghost for posting the details of the programme - it's not one I had previously watched, but probably will in future.

As far as manny & jules suing CBA for their lost 17mill - I note the write up in the Sunday Mail mentions that they are the first of 60 cases to sue on this basis of inadequate information/data being made available. There were media reports some weeks ago about secret meetings with solicitors (was it Levitts?) with a select group of ex-storm clients - I daresay this is what was afoot. No doubt this will be manny's attempt to put things right for all - by attempting to prove that it was all Colonial's problem, and the only reason he failed to pull his clients out of the market was due to delayed data! (as if!!) I guess he figures if he wins his test case then it will be "open slather" for all other Colonial margin loan clients. I'm not in that category so am not affected one way or the other, but can't help wondering if the 60 ex-clients who have followed him down this road, and opted out of the Slater & Gordon/CBA Resolution Scheme in order to do so, may rue their misguided loyalty if his court case fails and they have missed the boat with S&G. I guess they'll possibly receive a lot more compensation if they prevail in court though - just one more gamble I suppose. It's obviously the best option for manny & jules, but I question the wisdom/gullibility of those that have lent their weight to his cause and burnt their bridges in the process.

It also occurred to me that if manny & jules can sue the CBA due to them failing to meet an "implied obligation" - could not most ex-storm clients sue manny & jules for the very same thing! If I were them I wouldn't count on hanging on to any compensation awarded to them for very long....
 
DocK said:
Bernie was obviously being as non-committal as possible, not wishing to pre-empt the enquiry's findings - but I did feel a bit let down by the lack of an opinion on most points put to him. I did notice that he mentioned the importance of "quality advice tailored to individual needs" a few times, so assume the findings will be very scathing of the "one size fits all" approach adopted by storm. Thank you Grey Ghost for posting the details of the programme - it's not one I had previously watched, but probably will in future.

As far as manny & jules suing CBA for their lost 17mill - I note the write up in the Sunday Mail mentions that they are the first of 60 cases to sue on this basis of inadequate information/data being made available. There were media reports some weeks ago about secret meetings with solicitors (was it Levitts?) with a select group of ex-storm clients - I daresay this is what was afoot. No doubt this will be manny's attempt to put things right for all - by attempting to prove that it was all Colonial's problem, and the only reason he failed to pull his clients out of the market was due to delayed data! (as if!!) I guess he figures if he wins his test case then it will be "open slather" for all other Colonial margin loan clients. I'm not in that category so am not affected one way or the other, but can't help wondering if the 60 ex-clients who have followed him down this road, and opted out of the Slater & Gordon/CBA Resolution Scheme in order to do so, may rue their misguided loyalty if his court case fails and they have missed the boat with S&G. I guess they'll possibly receive a lot more compensation if they prevail in court though - just one more gamble I suppose. It's obviously the best option for manny & jules, but I question the wisdom/gullibility of those that have lent their weight to his cause and burnt their bridges in the process.

It also occurred to me that if manny & jules can sue the CBA due to them failing to meet an "implied obligation" - could not most ex-storm clients sue manny & jules for the very same thing! If I were them I wouldn't count on hanging on to any compensation awarded to them for very long....
Click to expand...


This is only my take on this, and my opinion only, but weren't the Cassimatis barred from the S&G/CBA resolution scheme? I seem to remember that the scheme would not include 'former directors of Storm'. I may be wrong.

So, the Cassimatis are not burning their bridges, as per usual, just the bridges of those clients who choose to go down the same Cassimatis' road.

Remember too, that the lawyers' fees for those in the S&G/CBA scheme are being paid by CBA, (in the main), where these 60 clients will have to foot their own lawyers' bill.

I suppose, if like E&J C, you have lost millions, then this may well be a better route, but for the thousands of 'small fry' like me, we can't afford to take on the banks with independent lawyers and then give them a great proportion of our 'win'.

There are many former Storm clients who have just taken their losses onboard and walked away. In the main they are younger clients who have the time left to make another start. They are in the minority.

I myself am banking, (excuse the pun), on the S&G/CBA scheme. We can't afford to take CBA to court on our own, or as part of an independent group. It just wouldn't be worth our while, the angst, the stress, the waiting, the lawyers' fees.

We, like many former Storm clients, just want to draw a line under this awful business. We have tried to fund our own retirement, we have had our fingers burnt, we have learned our lesson. We have gone from having 80% equity in our home in February 2007 to owing $500K to CBA in October 2008. All those years that we worked to pay off our mortgage have been wasted.

We have never taken anything back from our 'investment' via Storm. We have never, like some others, had any priviledge/favour/holiday. We have never been 'rich' enough to mix with the 'hoy palloy' of Storm clients. We were just, like the majority of storm clients, cannon fodder.

We would just like the banks to admit that in our case they have done wrong, and to put it right.

This is what Mr Norris said on 17 June 2009. Well, the CBA did do wrong by my family. I have proof that they did. I am hoping that Mr Norris was being totally honest when he made that statement.

Mindstorm
 
DocK said:
It also occurred to me that if manny & jules can sue the CBA due to them failing to meet an "implied obligation" - could not most ex-storm clients sue manny & jules for the very same thing! If I were them I wouldn't count on hanging on to any compensation awarded to them for very long....
Click to expand...
In the case of Storm clients wanting to sue Manny and Julie, it wouldn't even be "implied" obligation, would it? Wasn't it clearly stated to clients that their investments would be actively monitored and prevented from going into margin call?

The term "implied obligation" used by the Cassimatis's seems very vague.
However, I suppose their lawyers have used this term advisedly.

I'd suspect Manny and Julie might be pursuing the option of going after the CBA in part to create an image in the public's and investors' minds that they themselves have been severely disadvantaged, and thus cannot be held to blame for similar levels of disadvantage experienced by investors, thus hopefully warding off ideas from investors of sueing Manny and Julie.

Perhaps they have already wrought such a conviction on the part of the "60 investors" who are also reportedly going to sue CBA.


Mindstorm said:
I myself am banking, (excuse the pun), on the S&G/CBA scheme. We can't afford to take CBA to court on our own, or as part of an independent group. It just wouldn't be worth our while, the angst, the stress, the waiting, the lawyers' fees.
Click to expand...
Mindstorm, that's a really sensible attitude imo. Having been through a similar situation with a crooked lawyer where I lost money many years ago, the stress of waiting for decision after decision by ASIC, the courts etc was absolutely not worth the angst.
 
Julia said:
In the case of Storm clients wanting to sue Manny and Julie, it wouldn't even be "implied" obligation, would it? Wasn't it clearly stated to clients that their investments would be actively monitored and prevented from going into margin call?
Click to expand...

I was considering that very point when typing my post. Although their website and all personal discussions promised that portfolios would be actively monitored, no need for you to worry about a thing, we do all the work for you etc, etc - I seem to recall being unable to pin down the same clear wording last time I read my 140+ page SOA - I feel they may be able to skate by on that one legally, if not ethically or morally. Depends upon the wording in SOAs vs promises on websites (now defunct) and whether verbal promises count for anything when it comes to legal battles?

Julia said:
I'd suspect Manny and Julie might be pursuing the option of going after the CBA in part to create an image in the public's and investors' minds that they themselves have been severely disadvantaged, and thus cannot be held to blame for similar levels of disadvantage experienced by investors, thus hopefully warding off ideas from investors of sueing Manny and Julie.

Perhaps they have already wrought such a conviction on the part of the "60 investors" who are also reportedly going to sue CBA. .
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Poor, poor manny & jules. They've lost as much as anyone. We must all feel their pain. Why should I be sticking pins in my manny voodoo doll when he doesn't even have a jet to fly around in any more, poor impoverished manny? Yes, they did try to take a rather large divvie, and prepay legal and PR costs from an insolvent business rather than pay tax, or employees entitlements, or creditors -but hey! What alternative did they have? They'd lost just as much as anyone, poor loves. Perfectly understandable....


Julia said:
Mindstorm, that's a really sensible attitude imo. Having been through a similar situation with a crooked lawyer where I lost money many years ago, the stress of waiting for decision after decision by ASIC, the courts etc was absolutely not worth the angst.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there as well Mindstorm. The waiting is a killer. I also find it very frustrating to have to put so many decisions or plans "on hold" until matters are finalised one way or the other. I couldn't prepay interest before 30 June as usual, as the "hardship team" were acting like headless chooks at that time and I wasn't allowed to deal with my own bank relationship manager locally. I was then unable to fix my interest rate 6 months ago as it was temporarily nil as it was related to storm. Of course it's not nil now, and I just have to cop the standard variable rate sweet. It will be so good to have the whole issue "sorted" one way or the other won't it?, so we can all move on. I just want to know where I stand so I can take back control of my finances. Living in limbo doesn't suit me at all.
 
"Financial services committee looks to quality standards of financial advice"

"The Federal Parliament's Joint Committee on Financial Services chair and Labor MP, Bernie Ripoll says a range of changes will be proposed to ensure the future quality of financial advice and planning, when the committee hands down its recommendations later this month."

More here on Business Spectator;

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Financial-services-committee-looks-to-quality-stan-pd20091115-XSV6D
 
From SMH.com.au - By EVAN SCHWARTEN, November 16, 2009 - 4:34PM

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ts-support-cassimatis-suit-20091116-ihwk.html

Storm clients support Cassimatis suit


Financially devastated clients of failed investment firm Storm Financial are supporting a lawsuit by the company's owners against the Commonwealth Bank.

Storm principals Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis last week launched a $17 million claim against the bank for losses in their personal investment portfolio.

They have accused CBA of negligence and breach of its contract for failing to provide accurate account statements regarding the value of their portfolio.

Storm Investors Consumer Action Group (SICAG) co-chairman Noel O'Brien said if the couple were successful it would set a precedent for future legal action by affected clients.

"It will set a precedent for the rest of the members," he told AAP.

"If the principals of Storm couldn't understand the information they were being given on a daily basis what chance did the rest of the advisers and clients have?

"We wish them all the luck in the world."

However, he said support for the legal action didn't amount to support for the Cassimatises themselves.

The couple have faced intense criticism over their handling of clients' accounts and spending in the wake of the global financial crisis last year, including paying themselves a $2 million dividend days before the company folded.

Storm Financial went into voluntary administration early this year after major banks called in margin loans by thousands of clients and withdrew their support for the company following massive sharemarket losses.
Click to expand...
 
Let us hope that this is the beginning of Manny's ascendence to running another Financial Services Firm, SICAG will certainly have a big list of potential clients for Manny and Julie Cassimatis.

The Cassimatis were unable to understand a margin loan due to alleged misinformation from their banks.

It seems reasonable that they should sue.

It is not admirable for SICAG to let Manny pursue this alone.

SICAG should endorse the Cassimatis, not just their actions against the banks.

Leaving Manny to pursue this alone when he is a victim like SICAG members seems unfair.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Let us hope that this is the beginning of Manny's ascendence to running another Financial Services Firm, SICAG will certainly have a big list of potential clients for Manny and Julie Cassimatis.

The Cassimatis were unable to understand a margin loan due to alleged misinformation from their banks.

It seems reasonable that they should sue.

It is not admirable for SICAG to let Manny pursue this alone.

SICAG should endorse the Cassimatis, not just their actions against the banks.

Leaving Manny to pursue this alone when he is a victim like SICAG members seems unfair.

gg
Click to expand...

gg, I sent the link regarding the "Secret 60" to my Stormer mate. I'm sure he's not one of the chosen. I can't wait to see what he says. I'm sure he didn't get a call and I've asked him to check his messagebank 101 just in case.

I wonder who the chosen are ? I believe my mate is still struggling, although he's holding his head high, I sense the weight he is carrying. I sometimes wish there was more I could do to fix what has happened. But rest assured I will be here until this is all remedied ;)
 
Call me cynical, but I'd suggest those clients that were the recipients of interest-free, unsecured loans from the "war chest" would be the "secret 60" who are now being given the opportunity to show their undivided loyalty.....
 
"Victims welcome Cassimatis suit"

"Clients of the collapsed advisory firm believe the case could establish a legal precedent for their long-held allegation that the bank provided inaccurate data to Storm late last year."

a bank spokesmen says "The Commonwealth Bank looks forward to defending these allegations . . . The bank will defend its position about the reliability and accuracy of data,"

"Damian Scattini....warned yesterday that any funds flowing back to the Cassimatises would be claimed on behalf of victims."

More by Anthony Marx here;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26359085-3122,00.html
 
Solly said:
"Victims welcome Cassimatis suit"

"Damian Scattini....warned yesterday that any funds flowing back to the Cassimatises would be claimed on behalf of victims."

More by Anthony Marx here;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26359085-3122,00.html
Click to expand...

From the above linked article (thanks Solly)

Lawyer Damian Scattini, whose firm Slater & Gordon has embarked on a resolution scheme with the bank to settle Storm cases, warned yesterday that any funds flowing back to the Cassimatises would be claimed on behalf of victims.

"The only reason he's not being sued now is that he's not worth chasing," he said.

Mr Scattini said that despite any problems with bank data, Storm charged high fees to monitor client portfolios. "His lawsuit shows just how much of a sham Storm Financial was."
Click to expand...

Scattini sums it up fairly well I think.
 
DocK said:
Call me cynical, but I'd suggest those clients that were the recipients of interest-free, unsecured loans from the "war chest" would be the "secret 60" who are now being given the opportunity to show their undivided loyalty.....
Click to expand...

Does anyone know the identity of the 'secret 60'.

It is time for SICAG to disclose who they are.

The SICAG model has played into Manny's hands, so it is only fair that the rest of the victims know who they are.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Does anyone know the identity of the 'secret 60'.

It is time for SICAG to disclose who they are.

The SICAG model has played into Manny's hands, so it is only fair that the rest of the victims know who they are.

gg
Click to expand...

GG, I'm pretty sure it has been reported that the 60 are not alligned with SICAG or participating in the resolution process. Have I missed something ? Why is SICAG responsible for disclosing the names of the 60 if they have nothing to do with them and may not even no who they all are ?
 
QUOTE
"Lawyer Damian Scattini, whose firm Slater & Gordon has embarked on a resolution scheme with the bank to settle Storm cases, warned yesterday that any funds flowing back to the Cassimatises would be claimed on behalf of victims.

"The only reason he's not being sued now is that he's not worth chasing," he said."

This statement comes as something of a surprise to me. I had assumed no one was going after manny because all his assets were either hidden or off shore.
I don't know why he wouldn't be worth chasing because of:

1. His substantial digs at belmont would be worth a significant amount.
2. This lawsuit he has just launched will be very expensive to run and I am assuming he is not getting legal aid and must have significant resources to fund it.
3. Over the last few years he and jc have pulled millions of dollars out of storm and although he probably did lose plenty in the share market I am sure he would have kept significant cash reserves somewhere.

This is only the obvious that I can see. I am sure a court ordered forensic examination of his financial affairs would reveal much more.
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
865
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