Storm Financial Group

[specialed]

Thank you, Mash. I don't believe you or anyone else has previously posted such a direct quote before. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could direct me to the appropriate previous post.

It is indeed clear. It was that wording Bunyip and I were looking for and which as far as I'm aware has not been posted before.

Why then has there been all this long period of confusion about whether it was the CBA or Storm who were responsible for the margin calls?
Are CBA alleging the responsibility was transferred to Storm at some stage?

Hi Julia,

I too am sure this has been placed on the forum before, however, am not going to waste anyone’s time by trying to locate it through some 240 pages of blogs.

I suppose we have to realise that there are only of handful of storm investors who contribute to this forum and therefore not every request for information by contributors is read, let alone acted upon. Whether you realise (or agree) or not, this forum has been perceived has having a very NEGATIVE attitude towards the storm clients personally, that borders on malicious sometimes. This observation is not directed at anyone in particular and is just MY belief. I know it is held by storm investors, who do not wish to put themselves up for more critisism by contributors to this forum who claim to fiancial wizards but actully offer very little up as proof of their financial success. This is not however to say that there havent been many valuable contributions to this debate, in this forum. But may also add to the reluctance of those few storm clients to risk the further consternation by some in this forum by bothering to contribute here. Again, this is just my personal observation.

However, as recently as approx. two pages ago I again made mention of the CBA’s response to the issue of Margin call at the senate inquiry. Whilst it is my abridged version, it basically sums up the CBA’s response to the inquiry. This failure to deal with the Margin loan issue effectively is at the heart of many storm clients perception of the failure of the resolution scheme, and in particular the feeling that the law firm responsible for it initial design and implementation has left many out in the cold.


That firm is happy to spruik the wonders of it, yet will in a recent article in the Townsville bulletin I believe there was only one person quoted who actually felt it had served them well. Of those that have settled, how many have been forced to do so as time has simply run out ? I understand there are many who are VERY dissatisfied with the representation made of them by a certain law firm. But they just could not afford, either financially or mentally to continue the fight against the CBA, and certainly not against that particular law firm. I do however feel very sorry for those involved i nthe floods in western QLD who now appear to be being chased by this mob. I trully hope their experience turns out to be better than may of the storm investors who have dealt with them.

It may turn out that the CBA has nothing to answer with respect to the margin call, however, it appears they are doing all they can to avoid letting it as issue get to court. As far back as December 08, a judge in Brisbane ruled that this needed to be decided upon, however the CBA made sure that a court case involving Storm itself would not get to trial…..

Given what a failure the senate inquiry was for storm investors, I can only sit and dreamed that Norris, and in particular those NOW ex cba employee's who made sush a timely exit will get to sit in the witness box. Obviously ASIC doesnt have the courage to do anything about it, prefering a "commercial resolution"........

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Julia and Bunyip
I am sure you have been told this answer many times ...... Our original margin loan docs signed in 2002 States:
2.MARGIN CALLS ( I'm not shouting that's how it is typed in the contract)
If the margin loan equals or exceeds a certain percentage of the overall security value (see page 7) you will receive a margin call. You cannot just wait out any downturns in the market. You will have limited time to deal with any margin call, by either repaying to us enough of your facility or giving us more securities on our list. If you fail to act within the time periods specified in the terms and conditions then some of your securities may be sold so as to reduce the amount owing to an amount that does not exceed the base security value..


Note it does not say we will contact your financial planner it says "you" and that is the crux of the whole matter... I was not given a margin call.... they have not met the conditions of their contract... I did not get a margin call...... I don't know how that can be made any clearer to you all. They have failed to uphold their legal responsiblilty to issue a Margin Call to me!!!!!Everything else hinges on that fact.... simple contract law.....
Note: it also says "some of your securities MAY be sold" not WILL be sold without your knowledge!

I also believe the lawfulness of the scheme which was allegedly operated by CBA with Storm is the basis of the lawsuit which is ready to be filed by Levitts.

I wish you the best of luck with this angle of attack Mash.
Beware though that if Manny or any of his minions are convicted of criminal conduct in relation to the moiety or timeliness of communication of portfolio valuations to CBA, that the latter may have a rock solid defence.

Thank you, Mash. I don't believe you or anyone else has previously posted such a direct quote before. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could direct me to the appropriate previous post.
It is indeed clear. It was that wording Bunyip and I were looking for and which as far as I'm aware has not been posted before.
Why then has there been all this long period of confusion about whether it was the CBA or Storm who were responsible for the margin calls?
Are CBA alleging the responsibility was transferred to Storm at some stage?

It would be interesting to have all the margin loan document scanned and posted to this thread, as I cannot imagine any lender leaving the onus of knowledge of being in a margin call to the lender, rather than the holder of the security or their agent, in this case ole Manny.

Mash this now appears to be gaining a new momentum.

• A new legal approach and treatment
• New actions in the wind
• Evidence given to ASIC which could be detrimental to one the Four Pillars
• And a Bank willing to talk

I wonder if GG should check to see if there are any spare beds at "The Creek"?

Solly as I predicted in the first few pages of this thread, many entities will sup at the table of a diminishing Storm dinner, Levitts & Co. are close to being the penultimate.

My contacts at the Ross Island Hotel, recently out of the "Creek", tell me that accommodation is at a premium, and it is often first in least dressed. Some doubling up occurs and there has been of late an unfortunate mixing of white collar criminals with the dangerous. The latter's complaints about this have fallen on deaf ears and they often have to, in their frustration, resort to their habitual forms of response.

gg

 

[Solly]

"Class action pending in Storm loans fiasco"

"SYDNEY law firm Levitt Robinson says it is ready to launch a class action against the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of ''hundreds'' of victims of failed investment company Storm Financial."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/05/29/142401_news.html

On re-reading Tony Raggatt's article the quote,

''The statement of claim impeaches the lawfulness of the scheme which was allegedly operated by CBA with Storm and to which the class members contributed their equity'',

has caught my interest.

What 'scheme' is Stewart Levitt referring to in this statement ?

 

[Julia]

Specialed, your post above is very reasonable. Pity all the exchanges throughout this thread could not have been conducted in a similar vein.

 

[Solly]

"Storm victims face a difficult decision"

"Two recent events may make the path forward clearer for those Commonwealth Bank customers left practically penniless in the collapse of Storm Financial.

First, a damning report by Storm Financial's liquidators released last week tears up any remaining credibility the founder of Storm, Emmanuel Cassimatis, may have had."

More by Stuart Washington on Business Day from the SMH here;

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/storm-victims-face-a-difficult-decision-20100530-wnfz.html

 

[Solly]

"Storm Financial consumer action group hit by infighting"

"THE common purpose which once united Storm Financial victims has fractured.

About 3000 devastated investors in the failed Townsville advisory firm still want justice and compensation for losses estimated at $3 billion when the share- market crashed in late 2008."

More by Anthony Marx in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/storm-financial-consumer-action-group-hit-by-infighting/story-e6freqmx-1225873234080

 

[Quincy]

"Storm Financial consumer action group hit by infighting"

Indeed, many believe that any judge will order mediation before setting a court date for Levitt's case, taking the process back to where it is now with Slater & Gordon.

Even if the Levitt action gets to court, there's no guarantee it will be slam-dunk, not least because proportionate liability laws will surely lay a good part of the blame on Storm's own incompetence.

More by Anthony Marx in The Courier Mail here;
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...it-by-infighting/story-e6freqmx-1225873234080

I raised this issue on 24th-June-2009.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=451123#post451123

 

[Ironhalo]

Good to see this topic still going strong ladies and gents.

I noted this with much pleasure in the article: 'Disagreements over the direction of the group have seen the recent departure of co-founder Graham Anderson and publicist Max Tomlinson.'

Ho ho ho! Turns out our old friend Big Max who used to claim on this forum (after admitting to doing 'work' for them) that SICAG were a paradigm of virtue may have swung to our way of thinking afterall!

This whole SICAG disgrace was picked up early on in the piece by a lot of people, and it's testament to the posters here that we stuck to our guns in light of being called tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. So Weir admits that he has been in contact with Cassimatis on many occasions, and also admits to 'dining with the devil', which although he is being metaphorical, is something that we also stated early on in the piece.

SICAG may have been great for letting people get things off their chest and for the odd BBQ, but we all knew they were rotten from the start.

 

[Solly]

Good to see this topic still going strong ladies and gents.

I noted this with much pleasure in the article: 'Disagreements over the direction of the group have seen the recent departure of co-founder Graham Anderson and publicist Max Tomlinson.'

Ho ho ho! Turns out our old friend Big Max who used to claim on this forum (after admitting to doing 'work' for them) that SICAG were a paradigm of virtue may have swung to our way of thinking afterall!

This whole SICAG disgrace was picked up early on in the piece by a lot of people, and it's testament to the posters here that we stuck to our guns in light of being called tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. So Weir admits that he has been in contact with Cassimatis on many occasions, and also admits to 'dining with the devil', which although he is being metaphorical, is something that we also stated early on in the piece.

SICAG may have been great for letting people get things off their chest and for the odd BBQ, but we all knew they were rotten from the start.

Ironhalo, I wonder if Big Max ever drops in from the ether to peruse ASF. I believe it would be very interesting to hear his views and comments on Anthony Marx's report about his departure.

But I suppose he has new interests now....

Are you sure 'rotten' is a good description for SICAG ?
I believe that there would be mixed views held by the SICAG membership regarding the blame and culpability of the participants in this collapse. I only base this on my past experience of similar groups that I have previously observed, as I've never been to a SICAG meeting or event.

I do agree that the group would be beneficial and supportive for those who have been through some very dark days.

 

[Mindstorm]

Good to see this topic still going strong ladies and gents.

I noted this with much pleasure in the article: 'Disagreements over the direction of the group have seen the recent departure of co-founder Graham Anderson and publicist Max Tomlinson.'

Ho ho ho! Turns out our old friend Big Max who used to claim on this forum (after admitting to doing 'work' for them) that SICAG were a paradigm of virtue may have swung to our way of thinking afterall!

This whole SICAG disgrace was picked up early on in the piece by a lot of people, and it's testament to the posters here that we stuck to our guns in light of being called tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. So Weir admits that he has been in contact with Cassimatis on many occasions, and also admits to 'dining with the devil', which although he is being metaphorical, is something that we also stated early on in the piece.

SICAG may have been great for letting people get things off their chest and for the odd BBQ, but we all knew they were rotten from the start.

Ironhalo,

I'd be interested in who 'we' are in your post.

I'd also be interested to know who you see as SICAG, the men on the committee, or the membership of SICAG?

Maybe I read the article wrong, but I thought that Mark Weir said that he WOULD dine with the devil, not that he had dined with the devil.

MS

 

[Ironhalo]

Mindstorm, back a few months ago (and certainly when SICAG began to pick up momentum) a number of posters here smelled a rat and posted accordingly.

SICAG has always been compromised by ex-Storm advisers, and when a relative of mine approached Weir at the time this all blew up with evidence that Manny was culpable, he got told 'that's not the line we want to take'.

The SICAG members were a great support unit for each other and the Storm victims, but there were evidently (and continue to be) fingers pulling the puppet strings at the top. The fact that Andrew O'Brien's father was on the committee, with Ron Jelich throwing in his 2c all the time turned many people off....not to mention the fact that Emmanuel (and let's not forget his equally culpable wife, no one ever mentions her) and Julie are both made of Teflon according to SICAG as well.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Specialed, thank you for your informative and well thought out contribution to the discussion.

I honestly feel for anyone who had the capacity to ride out the market crash but was sold up without prior consent or warning. I would like to see these true victims compensated by the ones legally responsible. Unfortunately I feel that there are many people who could never have survived the market crash due to poor investment decisions who are now claiming victim status and demanding compensation along with those who honestly deserve it. I can only hope that in the end everyone will get what they deserve, but life is seldom fair. The recent petition caused me to focus on the leeches looking for money they don't deserve, you however are focused on the main issue of compensation for those who deserve it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

2.MARGIN CALLS ( I'm not shouting that's how it is typed in the contract)
If the margin loan equals or exceeds a certain percentage of the overall security value (see page 7) you will receive a margin call.

That statement is just vague enough to give the banks room to fight it. It says "you will receive a margin call". It doesn't actually specify that they are the ones who will contact you. Of course anyone reading that document would probably assume that they mean the bank will issue the call directly to you. But by missing out the details on how you will receive the call they can now argue that they had arranged for Storm to handle it. I'm not saying this is right, just that I can see why they have room to argue. Thank you for sharing the information Mash.

 

[maccka]

The SICAG members were a great support unit for each other and the Storm victims, but there were evidently (and continue to be) fingers pulling the puppet strings at the top.

Firstly thank you for recognising the great support that SICAG members offer each other AND other Stormers.

Secondly - Sorry Ironhalo - where is the evidence of the fingers pulling puppet strings at the top? Not the heresay - the evidence?

The fact that Andrew O'Brien's father was on the committee, with Ron Jelich throwing in his 2c all the time turned many people off..

Now I suspect I know how you are likely to respond to this, but do you have any idea (I mean real first hand knowledge) of what Andrew O'Brien and Ron Jelich have spent the last year or so doing? Isn't it just possible that they are working to hard to help people find justice? Isn't it also possible that these guys are willingly providing very valuable information to various legal bodies (courts, ASIC, inquiries etc) that could be used to unravel the truths behind what actually happened?

I suspect that if the court cases Levitt promised on Saturday eventuate (and I strongly suspect that they will) people will come to see what Andrew O'Brien and Jelich have been doing over the last little while and might actually see why people have let them speak from time to time. I believe that both of these men probably have some very important stories to tell. I also believe that their information is probably backed up with a considerable amount of evidence!

And on another related note - A quick question for you Ironhalo - if you witnessed a terrible wrong and felt you could do something to help people, would you stop yourself from helping just because your child worked for one of the companies involved in that terrible wrong?

..not to mention the fact that Emmanuel (and let's not forget his equally culpable wife, no one ever mentions her) and Julie are both made of Teflon according to SICAG as well.

SICAG have never claimed that EC or JC are made of Teflon.

Please don't flame SICAG for my words. I am proud to be a member of this group but that is all I am - a member. I do not represent the organisation. I am writing here representing my views only. If you take issue with what I said - have a crack at me not at them.

Maccka

 

[Julia]

First, a damning report by Storm Financial's liquidators released last week tears up any remaining credibility the founder of Storm, Emmanuel Cassimatis, may have had."

More by Stuart Washington on Business Day from the SMH here;

From that very balanced article by Stuart Washington:

In at least one important respect many Storm victims are not in the same category as Goodridge. In Goodridge's case, the judge was convinced he was willing and able to make good margin calls if they had been made. Most Storm investors did not have the wherewithal to meet the margin calls as the market fell in 2008.

This is perhaps where some Storm investors will be disappointed if they go with the class action.

I honestly feel for anyone who had the capacity to ride out the market crash but was sold up without prior consent or warning. I would like to see these true victims compensated by the ones legally responsible. Unfortunately I feel that there are many people who could never have survived the market crash due to poor investment decisions who are now claiming victim status and demanding compensation along with those who honestly deserve it. I can only hope that in the end everyone will get what they deserve, but life is seldom fair.

You're further endorsing the remarks by Stuart Washington.

One has to wonder what on earth ASIC are actually doing amongst all this!

 

[Ironhalo]

Secondly - Sorry Ironhalo - where is the evidence of the fingers pulling puppet strings at the top? Not the heresay - the evidence?

I'm from Redcliffe mate (but live in Sydney), and witnessed as Ron Jelich and Andrew O'Brien (two of the Redcliffe Storm employees) sat back and despite pleas and phone calls from 3 members of my family tied up in Storm, did nothing to take action when it all hit the fan, despite being told to do so.

So when SICAG first formed, it raised eyebrows in my family to see O'Brien's father join the committee (it's a little convenient) and Jelich start appearing in the Redcliffe Herald demanding 'justice' for his former clients....and himself of course.

Now while I have some modicum of respect (fleeting at best) for Ron Jelich's apparent guilty conscience in all of this, it still galls me to see him now signing a petition asking the govt to compensate ex-Stormers for their loss. If you want the truth about what happened, ask Ron Jelich. Ask Andrew O'Brien. They know because they were there, and they were the ones racking up bonuses as they advised and took out step installments to margin loans on behalf of people who were going down the drain as they did so.

And on another related note - A quick question for you Ironhalo - if you witnessed a terrible wrong and felt you could do something to help people, would you stop yourself from helping just because your child worked for one of the companies involved in that terrible wrong?

Nope, but I couldn't claim surprise when a lot of people wanted nothing to do with the organisation I was forming for 'justice' either.

I'll never have a go at the people in SICAG mate, my family are in their same boat. I have no doubt that SICAG have helped people morally and via BBQs/events etc, but from my point of view, and has been repeated in this thread for a while now, you would have to be very naive to think that all of the committee members have purely altruistic reasons for pushing the 'let's not blame EC/JC and let's hit the banks' dogma that they have been running with.

One of the strengths in being a cynical bastard is that I am rarely disappointed in life!

 

[chrisgee]

i have'nt been posting for a while but i do drop in and read occasionally-i really dont know where this will all end up but i really really hope that the crims in all of this end up in jail-this has been a rough trot for the family-i cant say what the family is doing with the legal stuff but im sure you can tell we aint happy with whats going on- theres more to this than what is being said-come on asic show some guts and get to the bottom of why this was allowed to happen like it did-some of you guys on this thread are a lot smarter than me with money stuff but when you see what this has done to ordinary people who just thhought they were doing the right thing going to reputible people-it makes me sick- I dont understand why the banks behaved the way they did and i dont understand why storm behaved the way it did- but i cant ubderstand why the stormies are the ones carry the can-I can rant and rave all day but it doesnt help-asic cops and guts are the way that the truth about all of this will come out- i may not post for a while again- it really makes me so angry talking about this fiasco!!!!! my break is finished I got to go back to work now unlike some others involved in all of this

 

[bunyip]

specialed, assuming that Storm investors had been able to hang in there, how would they now be sitting on an investment worth more than when the market crashed?
The market hasn't yet recovered its losses, has it?

specialed - Did you miss seeing the question above? Or did I miss seeing your answer?

 

[specialed]

specialed - Did you miss seeing the question above? Or did I miss seeing your answer?

Sorry, forgot about that question. No you are right and I was not clear.

I meant to say that they would now be sitting on an investment worth significantly more than the margin loan trigger point, and also significantly more than any further margin calls if they were made. They would infact be far off margin call territory, which for many was the basis behind the margin call- That is , a last resort, fail safe...Whilst anyone can rightly argue the use of a margin call to protect what little value you have left may be inadvisable, the reality is that many of the investors understood that if things got this bad, then at least they had this in place. How wrong it would seem they were to believe that the CBA would act in an ethical, and possibly contract bound way, and actually complete their obligation to make a margin call directly to the client.

By the way, if you would mind going back and answering the number of questions I have asked you that you have declined to answer I would be most appreciative....I think I remember you stating however that you had no interest in responding to my questions, or something of that ilk. I'm could be mistaken however.

 

[bunyip]

Sorry, forgot about that question. No you are right and I was not clear.

I meant to say that they would now be sitting on an investment worth significantly more than the margin loan trigger point, and also significantly more than any further margin calls if they were made. They would infact be far off margin call territory, which for many was the basis behind the margin call- That is , a last resort, fail safe...Whilst anyone can rightly argue the use of a margin call to protect what little value you have left may be inadvisable, the reality is that many of the investors understood that if things got this bad, then at least they had this in place. How wrong it would seem they were to believe that the CBA would act in an ethical, and possibly contract bound way, and actually complete their obligation to make a margin call directly to the client.

By the way, if you would mind going back and answering the number of questions I have asked you that you have declined to answer I would be most appreciative....I think I remember you stating however that you had no interest in responding to my questions, or something of that ilk. I'm could be mistaken however.

What questions would they be?

Given the aggressive tone of some of your early posts on this thread, it would hardly be surprising if I or anyone else treated your questions with disdain and chose to ignore them.
More recently, to your credit, you've moderated your tone and have adopted a more reasonable attitude. Perhaps your warning or two from the moderator, and having one of your posts deleted, may have tempered your approach.

If you can give me a list of the questions, I'll see if I think they're worth answering.