Dear Mr Tan,
I have received some updates from HLF regarding the Minibonds.
Both of my elderly aunts (one is mid 70s, the other is 59) have both received the calls from HLF last week regarding the "compensation" regarding to their MiniBonds investment. The total sum invested was $90,000, and HLF actually proposed to return them $250 each to compensate for their losses. This is outright ridiculous! HLF had clearly taken their money thru mis-selling, and now they are offering $250 each as good-will! Both of my aunts rejected this compensation and seeks to bring this case up to FIReC.
Thank u for everything u hv done for us!
Anne
theres a reason for the offer
ReplyDeleteits possibly that as high as they would go, legally or otherwise
going to court would mean the 'sue-er' has to cough out more, a lot more upfront, and at a greater risk he might get nothing back in the end
theres a chinese saying, a general who failed utterly has lost not only his army, but also his wife.
think carefully
MR TAN KIN LIAN
ReplyDeleteI am not convinced beyond doubt that the mis-selling is systematic and across the board. I am really saddened by this saga.
Please continue the good work.
RUN the bank, dry out their FDs...
ReplyDeleteWhere else would you place your CASH?
Sc, HKBank?
Govt should set up 20 years CDO-TOXIC-Bond (as a reminder) by all banks and they contribute part of their yearly partial contribution.
ReplyDeleteBond is issue by MAS and for depositor, the bond is transferable and allow them to withdraw the invested capital on yearly basis before chinese new year.
Win win for all. 350 mil / 20 years / number of banks... peanut vs the REPUTATION and RUN on these banks
Use the power of "word of mouth" to tell everybody about this compensation.
ReplyDeletePlease write to the press since you aunts rejected the offer about this rediculous compensation.
Let the anger run through the public and build the energy to shout louder for justice!
I am shocked to read the post !!!
ReplyDelete( $250 X 2 ) divided by $90,000 =
0.556%
(round up to 3 decimal places)
Aren't the old ladies in the "vulnerable" group ????
Somebody please tell me how they work out the math !!!
I have Pinnacle Notes Series 2 (HLF).
Is it a waste of time to send in my complaint to them, as they are going to :
1) say : "you DON'T have a case." or
2) "we will return you : 0.556%"
3) you may go to Fidrec. (maybe they would even say that)
Where is Justice Bao ?? !!!!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRUN the bank, dry out their FDs...
Where else would you place your CASH?
Sc, HKBank
At least in my knowledge, many that I know are considering or have already done something similar to what you have said.
Really disappointed and sad to do that, but that is one of the few defensive strategies we have.
A kind of silent protest ?
Notice the "tense" atmosphere in most or all the branches you visit these few days/weeks ?
Kind of strange and quiet "smell" in the air.
The counter girls don't seem to smile as often or as naturally.
I feel very sorry for Anne and her aunties. $250 is like adding salt to the injuries. Perhaps it could be a way for the bank to express no-case and to give a "transport allowance" for the time taken to attend its interview.
ReplyDeleteFIReC only entertains claims of not more than $50,000, less the bank authorizes an increase in the claim amount. Go or no-go is a pain.....
Hi, 10:09AM
ReplyDelete"Counter girls don't seem to smile as often or as naturally". In the past, counter girls look at your bank account and if there is surplus cash, they will refer you to a RM, who will in turn recommend you to buy structured products. Both counter girls and the RM has a cut on completion of sale. Now, no sales, so no commission. So, why smile!!!!.
RUN the bank, dry out their FDs...
ReplyDeleteI support this move. If this is the way that the customer is treated, then there is no reason why I should transact with this FI anymore.
HLF pays vulnerables group miserable $250 for goodwill.
ReplyDeleteDBS even worse, did not even pay anything to vulnerable group.
Looks like lip services from FIs again.
Don't Bull Sh1t -DBS.
This is outrageous! It is not a compensation!
ReplyDeleteI think your aunts did the right thing to reject the ridiculous offer. Be aware that FIDReC handles dispute claims of up to SGD 50K unless FI agrees for FIDReC to higher claims or your aunts are willing to settle for no more than that amount.
heard Citi bank in Malaysia already q to withdraw FD...
ReplyDeleteWHy you wait
many branches across Malaysia -citibank already run dry on FD...inside info.
ReplyDeleteAs many depositors are not sure and rumuour ran wild among ah soh, uncle...
What a said ending for CITIBANK.
The end of American banking taiKor... Mr. Bush n Paulson sins..
Toxic CDOS, exporter
this may help you/us.
ReplyDelete"Misrepresentation and Omissions"
http://www.stockbroker-fraud.com/lawyer-attorney-1133453.html
A brokerage firm or broker can be held liable if that firm or broker misrepresents material facts or omits to disclose material facts to the investor regarding an investment, and that client subsequently loses money on that investment. Often the misrepresentations or omissions disguise the risk associated with a particular investment. A broker has a duty to fairly disclose all of the risks associated with an investment.
Here is some key points from the Filing in (US) Class Action on UBS for Lehman Principal Production Notes. It may give us ideas about how to identify the "Misrepresent and Omission"
ReplyDeleteYou can find the original filing document in internet by google.
=========================
FACTUAL ALLEGATION
38. .... Principal protection notes are designed for investors seeking to protect their entire investment while having the potential to obtain a return on their investment based on an anticipated increase of decrease in value of the underlying drivative during the re of the notes. ....
44. Investors who purchaeed Lehman Principal Protection Notes did not invest in the underlying instruments, but rather made unsecured loans to LHB1. LHB1 used the proceeds .......
49. The Offering Documents identify several risks associated with Lehman Principal Protection Notes including:
........ (15-ish points here)
50. The Offering Documents fail to identify the risk that, upon maturity, LBH1 would be unable to repay the guaranteed return of principal on Lehman Princiapl Protection Notes.
51. The Offering Documents also fail to identify the risk that Lehman Pricinpal Protection Notes' guarantee of 100% principal protection was subject to LBHI's undisclosed exposure to losses from its real estate and mortgage portfolio and other material undisclosed risks associated with LBHI's business and accounting practices.
53. Following the bankruptcy petition, UBS notified holders of Lehman Principal .... "As a holder of a senior unsecured debt instrument of LBHI, you have a claim as a senior unsecured creditor against LBHI's bankruptcy estate."....
NO SAFE HARBOR
56. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statement pleaded in this Complaint.
58. .... There were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements.
59. ....Defendents are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the particular speaker knew that the particular forward-looking statement was false, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by a director or an executive officer of LBHI who knew that those statements were false when made.
COUNT1
Violation Of Section 11 Of The Securities Act Against All Defendants
60.....
65. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class did not know or in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, of the untruths and omissions contained in the Shelf Registration Statement and all incorporated documents.
COUNT2
Violation Of Section 12(a)(2) Of The Securities Act Against UBS
69.....
71. UBS was a seller, offeror, and/or solicitor of sales of Lehman Principal Protection Notes .....
72. UBS is a seller within the meaning of the Securities Act because it: ....
73. UBS owed to Plaintiffs and all other purchasers of Lehman Principal Protection Notes the duty to make a reasonable and diligent investigation of the statements contained in the 2006 Prospectus, MTN Prospectus, prospectus supplement, pricing supplements and the free writing prospectuses, to ensure that such statements were true and that there was no omission of material fact necessary to prevent the statemetns contained therein from being misleading.
UBS failed to make a reasonable investigation and failed to possess reasonable grounds to believe that the statements contained and incorporated by reference in the 2006 Prospectus, MTN ... at the time of the offering were true and that there were no omissions of material fact which rendered the statements therein materially untrue and misleading.
Accordingly, UBS is liable to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class who purchased ...
74. Plaintiff and otehr members of the Class purchased ...in the offerings pursuant to the materially untrue and misleading 2006 Prospectus, ....., and did not know, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, of the untruths and omissions contained in those documents.
COUNT3
Violation Of Section 15 Of The Securities Act Against The Individual Defendants
77.....81.
I get better info on structured deposits from youtube.com than our local media.
ReplyDeleteI am refering to the news in Hong Kong.
They are getting more response from FI's as compared to here.
I think if they get a more fair/favourable outcome, then we here got better chance.
That is why I am tracking the progress over there.
They have more frequent updates.
As for here ... ... ... ... :o(
11.43pm
ReplyDeleteThanks but no thanks
Becos they are US, they are not entirely relevant.
And becos they not entirely relevant in the local law context, that means they are entirely NOT relevant.
11.55pm
"I get better info on structured deposits from youtube.com than our local media. "
"I think if they get a more fair/favourable outcome, then we here got better chance."
I agreed wholeheartedly with ONE of your above statements. I worry you might not be too happy which one it is.
$250!!! WHAT A JOKE
ReplyDeleteSomeone should just commit suicide in front of HongLeong office,how long can $250 last?
please write to the press forum , let the public know how kind is our FI.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, as what Mr. Tan Kin Lian mentioned in previous rally at Hong Lim Park that the teachers in his primary school thougt that our government has done the right thing to compensate the investors.
Only the investors know the actual outcome, other public having the thinking that the matter is settled and we are reasonably compensated.
See, nowadays, the news on this issue is totally banned.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteplease write to the press forum , let the public know how kind is our FI.
Otherwise, as what Mr. Tan Kin Lian mentioned in previous rally at Hong Lim Park that the teachers in his primary school thougt that our government has done the right thing to compensate the investors.
Only the investors know the actual outcome, other public having the thinking that the matter is settled and we are reasonably compensated.
See, nowadays, the news on this issue is totally banned.
5:47 PM"
We mustnt think of FIs as evil
Its just they dont want to hurt the Investors' feelings
They are so kind they will probably NEVER want to tell them whats their investments are actually worth now.
And They make sure to take FOREVER to review their complaint forms.
like as in EVER.
Hi Anne,
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to ask both your elderly aunts to go to the Speakers' Corner this Saturday to tell the fellow investors. Also the press will be more than happy to sensationalize this piece of news. That's about the best way we can fix up the FIs. This way more people will lost confident in them and in no time they will have to fold up.
I feel everytime we visit the banks we should tell the people around us what the banks has done to us.ie.mis-selling and cheat our money. If we are the victims then the banks cannot sue us of making harmful scandals.
ReplyDelete