Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Statutory declaration

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Statutory declaration - 2 lawyers

I have arranged with two lawyers to assist investors to write a statutory declaration (a statement made under oath) regarding the investment in the structured product.

This declaratoin can be used to support your complaint to the financial institution that sold the structured product to you, and also to take up your complaint to the next stage with the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Center. As it is a statement made under oath, it is likely to have a stronger impact.

This declaration can be used at a later date, if the investors decide to take legal action against the financial institution.

To prepare this declaration, you have to provide the answers to the following questions:

1. Your name, NRIC, address, telephone
2. How did you get involved in the investment?
3. Which financial institution, branch, amount invested, date
4. What happened when you purchased the investment?
5. Were you alone or accompanied by another person? Who?
6. What did the representative (who sold the investment to you) tell you about investment?
7. Did the representative tell you about any guarantee on your investment?
8. Did they make you sign any form regarding the investment? Did you understand the content of the form? Was it given to you before or after you agreed to make the investment? Did you read the form? Did you understand the content?
9. Did you rely on the advice of the representative in making the investment? Which were the important aspects of the advice?
10. Do you have any other statements to make regarding this matter?

The lawyer fees include the fee payable to the Commissioner of Oath.

Fee $120 plus GST
Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
50 Robinson Road #08-00
VTB Building
Singapore 068882

Call Mr. Glenn Knight or his secretary, Ms Ivy Goh (Tel: 68999888)

Fee $150 plus GST plus disbursement (total $201.55)
Assomull & Partners
111 North Bridge Road
#22-04/05/06 Peninsula Plaza
Singapore 179098
Contact Person: Ms. Lauereth Loh, Tel: 63394466

Note: Previously, I called it an affidavit. A lawyer advised me that an affidavit is a sworn statement made after legal proceeding has commenced. Before that, it is called a "statutory declaration".

16 comments:

symmetrix said...: Mr Tan Kin Lian,

2 questions:-

1. Pls confirm that an affidavit is optional, and not a mandatory requirement though it carries more weight.

2. Will the affidavit be considered as a "Without Prejudice" statement? That is, if later I wish to change some info in the affidavit and make a second affidavit, will any info I declare be used as evidence against me? As the affidavit is made under oath, will I unknowingly incriminate myself?; October 10, 2008 9:14 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: 1. The affidavit is optional - of course. We have survived without the affidavit up to now.

2. You should make a true statement. It is important for you to check the facts before you make an affidavit. If there is a honest mistake, you can make a new affidavit to correct it.; October 10, 2008 9:19 PM
senmc said...: Dear Mr Tan,

In US, there is a class action lawsuit against banks that misled retail investor to purchase Lehman Brothers Preferred Stock, Series J.

I think all affected investors must demonstrate the perservence and will power to want to go to this stage if necessary. Those FI / banks who misled / misrepresent must be taken to task. This is also for the benefit of the next generation of Singaporeans. If not, the young ones will come to the conclusion that it is ok to misled / misrepresent as long as there is legal loophole to take cover in! Also, to others not affected in this saga, do not be too happy or count yourself lucky that you are not invoved. You NEVER know when these FI / banks will outsmart you and you fall victim to it. Just look how they engineered the entire package (names) / coupled with young RM with quotas / approval from MAS / Legal paper and etc. We all become wiser after this eposide but they will also evolve even more...especially when the regulator say " ...no power..."

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/081009/0441470.html

"The class action lawsuit alleges that the statements made in the Offering Circular by the underwriting syndication were materially false and misleading. Many investors were advised by their financial advisors that the Lehman Brothers Preferred Stock, Series J was a suitable investment for risk adverse investors. Brokerage firms are obligated to give and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rules and Regulations. Sales practice violations by financial advisors, such as the recommendation of unsuitable investments and concentration in a particular security or sector, are both violations which may qualify an investor for an individual arbitration claim with FINRA."; October 10, 2008 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I am all for a Class action legal suit as a combined fire power will be more effective than a lone shotgun. I will join if it is started as the legal cost comapred to my vested amount is still worth my losing the legal cost. Mr Tan thanks for a good start to find a lawyer who will the affadivit and perhaps we will move towards something bigger down the road.

Ben; October 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: I am no lawyer but if you make a false declaration under oath, doesn't that constitute to perjury?; October 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Go for class action. Went to Hong Lim Square today. Very sad to see so many old folks. Where is the justice? With the latest news that Lehman CDO swap is on 9 cent out of a Dollar, who would want to take over the as swap guarrantor?
Don't waste time, FIDeC or class action.; October 11, 2008 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: It's so sad to see so many old folks who have been contributing to the profits to the FIs to such big companies for so many years and yet cheated of their money.

ARE THE MANAGEMENT SO MERCILESS?; October 11, 2008 11:14 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: A reader pointed out that Glenn Knight had a past bad record. Mr Knight has already paid the price for that incident and has now been approved for legal practice.

He is a top lawyer, and was once in charge of Commercial Crimes. He will be a good lawyer to act for the investors.

Many other lawyers are not able to act for the investors, as they have existing relationship with the banks.

If you are able to find other lawyers who are willing to act for the affidavit and later to take the case to court, I will publish their details here.; October 12, 2008 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Glenn Knight is a good lawyer, very expereinced in commercial crime.; October 12, 2008 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you Mr Tan for so much of your time and efforts to take up the cause of small investors who were deceived into buying CDOs as low-risk bonds by FIs.

In a news article on Minibonds, CNA reported that an investor lost US$160,000 and sued Citigroup under the Financial Advisers' Act in 2005 locally. The case was settled out of court.

With your extensive network, perhaps you could find out the lawyer and his firm which had taken up the case. Hopefully, the law firm may want to act for all of us.; October 12, 2008 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: I have full confidence in Glenn Knight; October 12, 2008 2:15 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Hi 11:59 AM
How about searching for the case of Citigroup through the internet?; October 12, 2008 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Tan,
For those contemplating taking legal action against the FI, does it make sense for investors to take class action on just one FI as a test case? I assume this will save legal cost? Please advice.; October 12, 2008 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: I have full confidence in Glenn Knight. Very well known lawyer in the '80.; October 15, 2008 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: I am puzzled and confused by the treatment between tainted milk and Minibonds.

If someone suffered from drinking the tainted milk he bought it voluntarily without the hardsell tactics from the saleman, does he has the same rights to claim for compensation just the same as those who were misled into buying the tainted milk?
If the answer is 'yes', why then the investors who bought the Minibonds which have proved to be something like 'tainted milk' have to proved (e.g. produce evidences) that they were misled by bank officers?

The faults lie with the product or the buyers/investors?

Will Mr Tan Kin Lian or someone acknowledgable please enlighten us, please.

Jimmy; October 16, 2008 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I am for class action. Unity is strength. One voice, one action and one objective.

Our heart should goes to the old folks who were 100% misled not to mention the complexity of product like Minibond.

I sincerely hope that our Ministers can sincerely and fairly look into this matter.; October 18, 2008 4:07 PM