This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
CQ, CQ, CQ, GG.
I'm interested to hear your views on the current reported developments.
 

DocK, I too find it interesting that Storm's client email address list is still in the possession of the former principals.
Who actually owns this data ?

I checked out http://cassimatis.com.au/ to see if there was a public update. It appears to still be unchanged.
 
Solly said:
CQ, CQ, CQ, GG.
I'm interested to hear your views on the current reported developments.
Click to expand...

Sierra Oscar Lima Lima Yankee, do you copy?

Golf Golf is undercover on this one.

Will report when beginning of end begins. This is the end of the beginning. A new drama unfolds.

Golf Golf.
 
Hi everyone,

My father in law has just sent me an email. The same content as Ironhalo's. He is amazed how he had the gall to send it and wants to know how he got his email address, there are only a few who know it and he will think about it over the weekend. We should be able to work out who gave it out....Watch this space. There is an email address in it for Mr Cassimatis.

ps If anyone would like the email of Mr Cassimatis please PM me.

Cheers

Jifromoz
 
Ironhalo: well worded response. Can't see any reason why you would not send it.

Good suggestion to forward a copy to ASIC and anyone else who should be kept informed as to Mr Cassimatis's actions, including the reference to his apparent recovery of memory.

My concern would be that there may still be ex Storm clients whose vulnerability and naivete is unchanged from when they were sucked into Storm in the first place, and that these people will similarly be sucked into whatever plan Manny has going at present.

I don't know whether he's allowed to contact ex clients when his company is in liquidation, but think it would be good to ensure the authorities know he is emailing people in this way.
 

The only comments I will make at this moment in the debacle that is Storm are as follows.

People in the Finance Industry when undone have no shame. They are as my Auntie Gertie says "common". They value money and goods above decency and respect.

Bunnies and muppets will continue to be shonked by Financial Planners, on the way up, and on the way down. There are at this moment people of limited assets lining up to be again fleeced.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The only comments I will make at this moment in the debacle that is Storm are as follows.

People in the Finance Industry when undone have no shame. They are as my Auntie Gertie says "common".
gg
Click to expand...


My Nan and your Aunt Gertie would be of the same minds. My grandmother and her siblings have never borrowed on any of their real estate assets. Now they are rich.

WHY??

Zero leverage since the 1950's. Total rental profits in Sydney and Melbourne.
 
Julia said:
Ironhalo: well worded response. Can't see any reason why you would not send it.
Click to expand...

First of all, it sickens me that the sleazy worm has surfaced again, and that as we all know it is for more personal gain, perhaps CEREBRUS could clarify?. I just hope that the ex-brainwashed have come to their senses and do not follow the pied piper again.

Ironhalo, I wouldn't send it as it would break your anonymity on ASF.

You never know the effects of something like that in the future.

You didn't have a PR team and lawyers peruse your letter before it was sent. EC did.

If you want to decline, I think there are better ways, with the kind of shonkster EC is, he may be able to use anything in the future.
 
Good advice, I might hold off on my hate-filled rant

Will be interesting to see what unravels out of all this. I think it's amusing thta we haven't heard anything from him, and now finally once it seems his clients are going to be compensated (and he isn't), he feels the need to get us all 'on-side' and rallying to his cause; as he knows full well that once the Storm clients are sated, he won't have any left to assist him.

He can rot.
 
My husband and I had a two day interview with a barrister from ASIC. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.
 
stung said:
My husband and I had a two day interview with a barrister from ASIC. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.
Click to expand...
Are you able to say what sense you got from the two days about where ASIC is likely to go with this?
 

Jifromoz, I believe as well as the emails that were sent , physical letters have also been posted out.
I find this interesting and I wonder if an attempt was made to contact all ex-clients.
I wonder what database is being used.
 
DocK said:
I wonder if there's any way he could be fined or prevented from sending unsolicited emails to people who are no longer his clients in the future?
Click to expand...



Privacy Act

The intended effect of the Privacy Act in its current form is to preclude spammers from harvesting email addresses without the consent of their owners. There must in general be consent for the sender to use the subject E-mail address.

Definitions of "spam" usually include the aspects that email is unsolicited and sent in bulk.

Even if a person has consented to the use of his/her email address for a particular purpose, that does not in itself provide consent for it to be used for other purposes.
 
It's heartening to see that you Stormers still have a 'concerned friend' in Manny!

I can fully understand you being livid at the oily tone of his letter, and the fact that as usual he's putting all the blame on someone else while admitting none himself.

Once you get over your initial outrage though, I wonder how many of you will follow up on his suggestion and look into getting a different law firm to take on your case.
The outcome in the Goodridge case must surely tempt some of you into at least looking into it?

One nice thought is that if Manny wins a substantial amount of compensation for himself, a Storm client or three will likely sue him with a view to taking most of his compensation money, due to his failure to deliver the promises he made on his website about monitoring and managing his clients' investments.
 

Whilst on the face of it that idea has some merit bunyip if you are suggesting stormers should go to this legal firm manny is recommending what I think would really put peoples noses out of joint is that manny (who has only ever looked after his own interests at the expense of everybody else's) has almost certainly got an arrangement in place where he would get a kickback/spotters fee call it what you like for every person who signed up with this crowd. Naturally that fee would have to be paid from somwhere ie. any payout the person MAY eventually recieve (naturally it would be well disguised as some sort of legal fee/expense). Thus he would continue to line his pockets at his victims expense whilst pretending to be helping them.



I think anyone who sued him would be throwing good money after bad. I am sure any compensation he happened to get would either be sent off shore immediately or put into some trust or similar entity well out of reach of any Storm client or government regulator.

Naturally everyone will make their own minds up its just my two cents worth.

G Ghst
 
Solly said:
Jifromoz, I believe as well as the emails that were sent , physical letters have also been posted out.
I find this interesting and I wonder if an attempt was made to contact all ex-clients.
I wonder what database is being used.
Click to expand...

The IT Manager at ex-Storm (Allan MacDonald) made a submission to the Senate Enquiry saying EC ordered a complete working copy of the Storm database system called 'phormula'...I assume that would have everyone's financial and contact details in it.

Also, the email EC sent is to do with the legal team Goodridge used and NOT Goodridge himself. Goodridge is helping the Levitt Robinson group with their case against all the lenders - I have heard from good sources there is a strong case against the Banks (margin lenders in particular) and some precedence set in the Goodridge case.
 


pegasus, if a strong case against the banks does exist, I question why aren't S&G pursuing this course? Although I believe that the circumstances of Mr Goodridge’s case does not exactly mirror the circumstances of the Stormers, I question why are there now two legal firms appearing to support the possibility of a better remedy for the Stormers than following the current S&G Proposal Framework.
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
869
TiminOz
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...