Please name the person or post/s you're referring to.
Yes, Storm investors are no doubt a diverse lot. But one thing they all appear to have in common is that they risked borrowed money in an investment which they were clearly told was risky.
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Yes, Storm investors are no doubt a diverse lot. But one thing they all appear to have in common is that they risked borrowed money in an investment which they were clearly told was risky.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
- Joined
- 8 February 2009
- Posts
- 27
- Reactions
- 0
This will be a test of the justice system.
The fact that the judge didn't throw out the application straight away is a concern.
The fact that the judge didn't throw out the application straight away is a concern.
This will be a test of the justice system.
The fact that the judge didn't throw out the application straight away is a concern.
Not sure why it is considered to be a test of the justice system. The judiciary tend to decide on matters according to law and not perceptions of what the outcome should be.
- Joined
- 8 February 2009
- Posts
- 27
- Reactions
- 0
What I meant was that ASIC should be entitled to have their case against the cassimatis' heard.
ASIC obviously think they have some things to answer for.
I'm not trying to pre-empt what the outcome may or should be I just feel that the matter should be heard.
I also think there will be quite a few other people with a relevant interest in these proceedings should they go ahead although I realise the court can't take that into account in deciding what to do.
Just my two cents worth.
ASIC obviously think they have some things to answer for.
I'm not trying to pre-empt what the outcome may or should be I just feel that the matter should be heard.
I also think there will be quite a few other people with a relevant interest in these proceedings should they go ahead although I realise the court can't take that into account in deciding what to do.
Just my two cents worth.
Dock
Last I heard they were still looking at it. I spoke with the general line at ASIC and they could give me no more than the ASIC Storm Website information. I emailed a couple of months ago asking if it would be applied across all clients after the doyle decision and have received nothing back at this stage.
I also spoke with a contact at Macquarie and he was unaware of any new information regarding a payout at this point in time.
I think investors won't see anything for a little while yet mostly because each situation is so different.
Thank you Doobsy
What I meant was that ASIC should be entitled to have their case against the cassimatis' heard.
ASIC obviously think they have some things to answer for.
I'm not trying to pre-empt what the outcome may or should be I just feel that the matter should be heard.
I also think there will be quite a few other people with a relevant interest in these proceedings should they go ahead although I realise the court can't take that into account in deciding what to do.
Just my two cents worth.
Apologies. I completely misinterpreted your previous post.
Yeah, probably a lot would like to see the ASIC case proceed. However, as you are likely to know, the law allows the other [aka dark] side to take alternative action. It's the best we got.
It is a weird thing with litigation and stuff like that. When looking at the outcomes of case law, I noticed that it was almost a 50/50 split for those who commenced the legal challenges. One of the reasons why I become a tad surprised that the apparent enthusiasm displayed by participants in class actions. Oh well, at least I am only involved in watching events unfold.
- Joined
- 20 January 2009
- Posts
- 151
- Reactions
- 0
I might be wrong here, but if you are inferring I am lying, I can assure you you'd be wrong.
My family got smashed by Storm, and my mother is still working now to repay the $140k she lost. I can assure you I'm not making anything up.
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
I have no interest in referring specifically to anyone in my previous comments Ironhalo.
You say you were a Stormie and I have no reason not to believe you.
I do believe though that anyone can claim to be storm affected on a forum such as this and we have no way of knowing whether it's true or not. It's a generic statement and one which is quite true in my humble opinion.
You say you were a Stormie and I have no reason not to believe you.
I do believe though that anyone can claim to be storm affected on a forum such as this and we have no way of knowing whether it's true or not. It's a generic statement and one which is quite true in my humble opinion.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,361
- Reactions
- 9,515
As it is now 5 years less just over 2 weeks since I started this thread, may I ask someone to bring us up to speed with where Investors, Storm identities, the Banks, ASIC and Judicial Proceedings, now sit.
The investigation and proceedings of this rampant destruction of people's savings, as I indicated years ago would drag on, and on and on.
Has there been any justice or finality for the Investors, or any decisions made as to where the fault or faults lay.
How much money have the lawyers and accountants made out of the distress cause as opposed to monies returned to Investors?
gg
The investigation and proceedings of this rampant destruction of people's savings, as I indicated years ago would drag on, and on and on.
Has there been any justice or finality for the Investors, or any decisions made as to where the fault or faults lay.
How much money have the lawyers and accountants made out of the distress cause as opposed to monies returned to Investors?
gg
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
I know a number of Stormies and don't know of anyone who has received any financial compensation.
After 5 years of discussion / argument etc on this thread and in the media generally we are all still waiting.
There is one thing however which I now believe:
ASIC could and should have prevented this occurring
All of the Banks were aware of Storms agenda and 'created' the problem by financing it to the level they did
Then there's Storm!!!!???
Then there's us, the suckers, who believed that we could trust ASIC, the major banks and a FPA approved financial planner.
The majority of legal eagles and politicians have contributed to the problems by ignoring them.
So much for seeking financial security with the help of a 'professional'
We are now on a pension as our health has suffered far too much to work and you my fellow Aussies are paying, and will continue to pay our living expenses for the rest of our life...and we haven't as yet reached retirement age.
Thank you ASIC, The Banks, Storm, FPA ... For nothing.
:1zhelp:
After 5 years of discussion / argument etc on this thread and in the media generally we are all still waiting.
There is one thing however which I now believe:
ASIC could and should have prevented this occurring
All of the Banks were aware of Storms agenda and 'created' the problem by financing it to the level they did
Then there's Storm!!!!???
Then there's us, the suckers, who believed that we could trust ASIC, the major banks and a FPA approved financial planner.
The majority of legal eagles and politicians have contributed to the problems by ignoring them.
So much for seeking financial security with the help of a 'professional'
We are now on a pension as our health has suffered far too much to work and you my fellow Aussies are paying, and will continue to pay our living expenses for the rest of our life...and we haven't as yet reached retirement age.
Thank you ASIC, The Banks, Storm, FPA ... For nothing.
:1zhelp:
Once again the lawyers walk away with the money, the suckers who lost on this one was sucked in by the lawyers again.
It does appear that way, pilots. It is only a gut feeling I have that most of these cases are settled out of court because the lawyers:
- have in the back of their mind that the costs are going up the longer it goes on and so their proportion of their profit from the 30% success fee is reducing; while at the same time they,
- are never too sure whether or not they will have a judgement handed down in their favour.
Whatever, but the clients never appear to be the winners. Just look at the outcome for Great Southern. Those clients still owe the banks some $450m I understand.
Why would anyone claim to be 'Storm affected' if in fact they were not?
As usual usual you’re blaming the banks and ASIC and the FPA but taking no responsibility for your own actions. Certainly ASIC failed Storm investors – nothing new there – their publicly documented record of failing people dates back to long before the Storm debacle.
Ironhalo has told us that his Storm paperwork details very clearly that investing in shares is a risky practice. Yet Storm reportedly sold their strategy as ‘safe and conservative’.
So on the one hand they’re warning you that share market investment is risky, and on the other hand they’re telling you it’s safe and conservative to mortgage your home to raise substantial loans to add to your personal savings, and then sink the whole lot into an investment that they’ve already described as risky. Not only that, but the next part of their advice was to use double gearing to load up even further in this risky investment.
Didn’t the obvious contradiction give you cause to doubt that Storm were on the level? How could it possibly have been safe and conservative to invest a lot of money, much of it borrowed, in an investment that Storm described as risky?
Most people would have run a mile if someone tried to ‘put one over them’ like that. In fact most people who approached Storm did ‘run a mile’ after hearing Storm’s proposal.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
An update re : Civil penalty proceedings against the Cassimatises
4 October 2013
The Federal Court today ruled on a strike out application of ASIC’s statement of claim in its civil penalty proceedings against Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, following the hearing of the application by Justice Reeves on 10 September 2013.
The Cassimatises were unsuccessful in their application to have the statement of claim struck out. However, the court did make orders that ASIC either re-plead some parts and provide further particulars of some parts of its statement of claim.
Source: https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/sto...simatis civil penalty proceeding?opendocument
These orders are of interest.
4 October 2013
The Federal Court today ruled on a strike out application of ASIC’s statement of claim in its civil penalty proceedings against Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, following the hearing of the application by Justice Reeves on 10 September 2013.
The Cassimatises were unsuccessful in their application to have the statement of claim struck out. However, the court did make orders that ASIC either re-plead some parts and provide further particulars of some parts of its statement of claim.
Source: https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/sto...simatis civil penalty proceeding?opendocument
These orders are of interest.
- Joined
- 5 January 2009
- Posts
- 408
- Reactions
- 1
It's interesting that you state that you know no person that has received financial compensation ? Can I ask what about the couple of hundred people plus that have received some compensation from the Commonwealth bank and other banks that have followed the Commonwealth's lead ? As far as I know only one bank the Bank of Qld has not offered some sort of compensation to the Storm clients.
Of course there are still a hand full of Storm clients out there that think they will get 100 % of their losses back and refuse to accept any less and move on in their lives to a more happy place. Look I still know people that can't get their head around the compensation deal , they still think they should get all the money they borrowed as well as their initial investment dollars all back. I guess that's the choice of those people to fight this to the bitter end regardless of the price they are paying on their health.
I know it is probably my warped thinking, but sometimes I get the impression that a view developed in a few of Storm's former client base that when investing in the share market you cannot lose but you are not allowed to lose.
Never was the situation, is not the situation and never will be the situation in my opinion.
As an aside, investing is an exercise in self-interest. We do it to improve or at least maintain our financial position either on an individual basis or with regard to our families. It is not undertaken to improve the financial position of other investors. So when some come a cropper, the will be a general view of "That's not good, hope things work out" and those of us still in the game move on.
Never was the situation, is not the situation and never will be the situation in my opinion.
As an aside, investing is an exercise in self-interest. We do it to improve or at least maintain our financial position either on an individual basis or with regard to our families. It is not undertaken to improve the financial position of other investors. So when some come a cropper, the will be a general view of "That's not good, hope things work out" and those of us still in the game move on.
Yes, that appears to have been the case with some Storm investors who apparently believed quite seriously that they were immune from losses when investing through Storm. And having lost, that they should be entitled to recoup 100% of their losses.
Their view seems to be based on nothing more binding than word of mouth from Storm salespeople who told them the strategy was safe and conservative, that there’s no way they could lose their houses, etc etc. I’m certain that the Storm paperwork gave no such assurances.
A dangerous precedent would be set if a court ruled that Storm investors were entitled to recoup 100% of their losses – it could become difficult or near impossible to get loans or advice from anyone for investment purposes.
Banks would be most reluctant to lend money for a business venture if they knew they could be liable for the full amount of their client’s losses in the event of the business failing. No stockbroker would be game to give clients advice if they knew they could be legally bound to make good any losses the client incurred from the stock going down instead of up. No financial advisory firm would be too keen on handing out advice either.
Any lending institution that has financed investments that failed could be sent broke by having to refund any losses made by those investments.
In short, the view of a handful of Stormers on entitlement to recover 100% of their losses is completely unrealistic, and is never going to happen. As Ijustnewit suggests, they’d be better off to forget such fanciful notions and simply move on to a happier place in their lives.
