Hi Solly,
Interesting!
Here's an extract that caught my eye!
"Slater & Gordon lawyer Ben Hardwick denied there were substantial issues not covered by that law firm in negotiating settlement for "over 1000" victims of the Storm collapse.
Mr Hardwick said there were very low numbers of low-doc loans among those victims. But he said loose lending practices by lenders to Storm investors was a key issue, regardless of how the lending product was branded.
"All of those issues were examined at the time," Mr Hardwick said
Sufficient doubt lingers in my mind as to whether Slater and Gordon’s approach to their clients' legal positions was ever fully considered or for that matter whether the 'Panel' of Judges set up to oversee the process considered the facts in their entirety. Further, the whole of the CBA's legal argument rested on the CBA's contention that Storm was an authorised agent for its clients. This notion was supported rather than challenged by S & G even though it is an assumption rather than a fact. In fact the CBA controlled the whole of the CBA 'Resolution Scheme' process, and S & G stood by content to let the Bank dictate the terms. They got $5,000 a pot for each client so S & G weren't too worried anyway.
It seems to me that S & G were only interested in an easy and quick settlement, quite content to accept the CBA carrot of some $250 million as an equitable outcome.. Whilst this may seem a lot to the uninitiated, it is about one tenth of what the CBA may be up for if it loses! The web these banks weave to deceive!
Can anyone out there ever recall any Bank being compassionate or magnanimous? The definition of an 'oxymoron' these days must surely be
"An honest bank!'
When I tried to point out to Slater & Gordon the error of their ways back in 2009, Helen and I were promptly shown the door. I raised what I considered were some relevant legal questions which they as my lawyers should have addressed. Instead, it was "If you are not satisfied you basically know what you can do!" Indeed, it was the only time they acted with any haste dispatching my file back to me by express post in 24 hrs like a hot potato.
Frankly, I believe that questions must be raised about the CBA resolution scheme and the way it was handled by Slater & Gordon if legal wrongs are established during this trial that were not considered by that law firm at the time, but should have been evident to any law firm that gave its Storm CBA clients legal advice that they then duly acted on? For that matter, just how sound legally are any agreements reached between CBA’s customers and that Bank under the resolution scheme particularly if an UMIS is found to have existed? Can a contract or agreement be considered legal if it is based on a previous agreement that is subsequently declared to be illegal?
Perhaps S & G will come up with the
“Sergeant Schultz Defence?” “I know nothing! I see nothing!”
Time for a lawyer joke, I think!
“What’s the difference between a prostitute and a lawyer? A prostitute screws you while you are alive! A lawyer continues to screw you even after you are dead!”
Sorry about that but dealing with various dirt bags for the last four years has tended to make me a little cynical about the Law profession as a whole. Let’s hope our justice system, an honest law firm who is putting itself "on the line", and the collective will of those strong enough to fight back can overcome an apathetic Government in the form of Ministers that stand by and do nothing, and the Regulator that does not have the inclination or will to prosecute the CBA for anything other than UMIS. Perhaps a Royal Commission to investigate ASIC’s part in all this is called for because something certainly needs to be done to get this moribund institution to show some fight where the CBA is concerned. But then the PM only earns $350,000 or so whereas Ralph Norris got 16.2 million. Why would anyone take notice of the maid when the Master earns a fortune and she only gets ‘petty cash”?
What a way to run a country! The Banks do indeed rule!
Incidentally, for anyone that is interested, Directions Hearings at Brisbane, before His Honour, Justice Reeves, are fixed for Monday, 16 July, 2012, Tuesday, 17 July, 2012 and Wednesday, 18 July 2012.