If the noteholders take legal action against the issuers and/or distributors of the credit linked notes and win the case, it is possible to get the contracts rescinded and the noteholders will receive a full refund of the invested money.
I heve spoken to several lawyers. They advised that the noteholders have a good case against the issuers and/or distributors on the following grounds:
1) There are possible misrepresentations, omissions and inconsistencies in the prospectus and pricing documents. Under the principle of "contract of adhesion", these inconsistencies will be interpreted against the financial institutions as they provided the legal wordings to the contracts.
2) The documents require more than 1 day to read and understand, even for an educated and financially savvy person. How is it possible for the securities to be sold over the counter to an ordinary layman withon one hour?
3) The actual risks of these securities clearly do not fit the risk profile of the people that are marketed to. This is sufficient grounds for the contracts to be rescinded.
I will be talking to two or three senior lawyers to go through the legal documents and the above arguments. If we find sufficient evidence, we can get the written opionion from a Queens Counsel or other suitable experts. This will strengthen the case and help to get the noteholders to join a class action.
I will find someone to fund the cost of the expert legal opinion, so that the noteholders do not need to wrry about this matter now. If the case proceed, those joining the class action can reimburse this cost.
I am still keen to avoid a costly legal battle and have a negotiated settlement with the financial institutions. I hope that they will come forward to offer a fair compensation to the notebolders, so that this matter does not need to be taken to the courts.
Dear Mr. Tan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for putting so much effort in helping the investors, I look forward to the final recommendation.
Mr. Tan
ReplyDeleteI really lost my words to thank you for your great effort and leadership to help all the victims including myself of the toxic products.
Please let us know what we need to do and we shall unite for it.
Costs is one thing
ReplyDeleteDid the Legal Experts advise on how long drawn out this Legal Battle might be
And is the case actually taken against the Issuers OR the Distributors
Did they advise, because of this funny system of Issuer then Distributor, would be it anyway 'mean to be tricky' for a legal sue to actually go thru without much hurdles
At the end of the day, even having coughed out 5 million blood money, then having to wait out 5-10years, and a lot of ding and dongs in between could be too much of a psychological drain as is
Mr. Tan,
ReplyDeleteThank You.
Sincerely,
LSK
Yes, go ahead, and sue them. It is pleasantly surprising that we don't need to pay up now.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind paying 1 to 5 thousand to be part of the lawsuit.
You have my support.
Thanks.
Am impressed of all the hardworks that Mr.Tan done!
ReplyDeletemany thanks.
LPC
Hi Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteIf the bank offer a fair compensation to the invester, they got more to explain compare to they totally say no refund to all invester. From my case, i notice even you got evidence that you were mis-lead, is useless! They still say NO REFUND but the fact is they have done the investigation which is require by MAS. There are still many people thinking by doing a complain, they will get some compensation. Invester out there, please wake up and think about this, this is not a story telling competition, whoever have a better story gets compensation. I myself given black and white evidence to the FI and I was still told NO REFUND. How about those investers who invest 50k above after getting reject?FIDReC normally deals with claims not exceeding S$50,000, FIs have agreed for FIDReC to hear all deserving cases above this amount. Who decide if the case is deserving? What happen if your case is not deserving?
fight fight where got end, finally all bruised and banks got no FD, no trust investors, and worst..ppl walk pass FI and pui pui...
ReplyDeleteissue 20 years bond to cover lossess.
Hong Kong Miniboond Updates :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=74949&sid=21648126&con_type=1
"Setback on minibonds
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Scent
Thursday, November 27, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
Local banks have just notified the Hong Kong government they are now facing a devastating legal hurdle that, if unresolved, will halt their plans to buy back Lehman Brothers-linked minibonds from their weary customers, sources told Sing Tao Daily, sister paper of The Standard.
The buyback program was originally scheduled to kick off at the beginning of next month. However, banks have received legal advice that buyback plans may come into conflict with US bankruptcy laws, sources said.
Hong Kong lenders' buyback plans for the controversial investment products will likely be postponed or abandoned outright because of the discovery of this legal hurdle, the sources said.
Banks had planned to buy back the minibonds at their current market value and then resell their underlying assets. Their legal advisers have now told them that plans to sell off those Lehman- linked assets will violate US bankruptcy laws, meaning that it would be zero market value for the derivative product, the sources said.
Hong Kong retail investors who poured their money into minibonds, some of them elderly people who had invested their life savings, had expected to get the remaining value of their investments back in early January.
New York-based Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest Wall Street investment bank, filed for Chapter 11 protection in September in what became the largest bankruptcy in world history. The firm's bankruptcy filing left many Hong Kong investors who had bought Lehman-linked products wondering if they could recover their money.
The Hong Kong Association of Banks set up a special task force to handle the issue, vowing to buy back the minibonds at their current value.
Almost 45,000 Hongkongers put their money into Lehman-linked derivatives, mostly minibonds, with a total value of about HK$15.7 billion, according to government figures. "
Mr Tan.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to thank you for helping all the helpless victims to voice up.
Till now, no MPs have really initiated to try to help. I believe majority of the MPs also knew that this is a clear cut misled case but dare not bring up in the parliament because they afraid that their rice bowl may get broken. “Yes” man is “Safe” man. Do we want to have such leaders?
I was at the Speakers corner yesterday. I spoke to some of the victims who had seen their MPs. They told me that they were again lectured by their MPs “you went in with your eyes open”.
My dear MPs and Minister, you are leaders with high profile. Please go through the brochure and prospectus and honestly tell the public whether you understand such complicated product with hidden toxic ingredients for every item. Oh! Sorry, maybe, you don’t have to read it since you are rich enough to get your lawyer to go through for you.
Please also do a survey. Get the graduates who have never invested to look at the brochure and prospectus whether they understand every single item. I suggest that our government should also get the RC members to go through and get them to feedback whether if they understand.
All the while, I have full faith in our Singapore government. Just like the China milk products case where it contains melamine that killed many lives, immediate action was taken.
However, for such case, our government may think that immediate action is not required because it will not cause live and death and can take their time to resolve the issue.
They have oversight the consequences and seriousness. Many Singaporeans were already suffering from depression and mental illnesses due to sleepless night as all their life (coffin) saving is already gone. Mind them, waiting to die is worse then immediate death.
Even the financial experts already said the products are too complicated and it should not be sold. The toxins are all hidden in the ingredients. I believe MAS should also agree with it now.
To my conclusion, I believe MAS is also under pressure and have not guts to admit their overlooking and allowing of such complicated toxic product to be sold in by the FIs in Singapore.
Lots of more of the same - coments and comments and more commentsbut no action. Lets get on with it - organise the class action. It will take maybe 3-4 years - the system here is efficient -but we must start ow and get it organised.
ReplyDeleteMr Tan, pls get a small committee going to work on it. Tks
"To my conclusion, I believe MAS is also under pressure and have not guts to admit their overlooking and allowing of such complicated toxic product to be sold in by the FIs in Singapore."
ReplyDeleteThats YOUR conclusion.
It doesnt mean we agreed by it.
It doesnt mean we disgreed by it.
"Mr Tan, pls get a small committee going to work on it. Tks"
ReplyDeletePlease note extract from HK News article:
"Banks had planned to buy back the minibonds at their current market value and then resell their underlying assets. Their legal advisers have now told them that plans to sell off those Lehman- linked assets will violate US bankruptcy laws, meaning that it would be zero market value for the derivative product, the sources said."
If HK side is anyway accurate, that BECAUSE they are now in bankrupt proceedings, nothing will be valued, nothing CAN be valued
then i can safely say
Investors walked into a huge giant trap Day One.
I totally agree with Wayangnologist who said "To my conclusion, I believe MAS is also under pressure and have not guts to admit their overlooking and allowing of such complicated toxic product to be sold in by the FIs in Singapore."
ReplyDeleteA few financial experts I spoke to told me that if MAS has done their homework right, they would not have allowed such a horrible product to be sold to the ordinary man in the street. Period.
The minibond group has a committee that is meeting with a few lawyers.
ReplyDeleteMy committee is also meeting three lawyers to discuss this issue.
Both grous are exploring different approaches and coordinating our efforts. We will be able to come up with some recommendations after a few more weeks.
So buy back also no value, FIs don't want to compensate, MAS & MPs attitude is "you die your business". That leaves us no choice but to sue !!
ReplyDeleteGo ahead Mr. Tan to get us the legal help !
From the HK case red, it looks to me, no matter how much legal documentation or evidence we can prepare on our side, there would always be new headways they be throwing up, from surprising angles
ReplyDeleteTheir latest being Distributors claiming, sure they are happy to compensate, BUT at ZERO value if the Issuers are in trouble of their own.
I think the legal background checkup on this whole darn thing is critical BEFORE heading in. No point forking out 5mil to find out you might be eventually awarded by the Courts of a refund at 0 dollars. Dont surprised by that, these things happen.
I suggest looking for legal eagles or even roping in professionals, with the expertise and experienced knowhow in international finance and financial instruments operations.
Increasingly, this does not look just like a simple submit-to-lawyer, pray-for-the-best casetype
Yes, let's go ahead and sue the banks and bokerages. I'm fed up with them.
ReplyDeleteIf possible let sue MAS as well for their negligence as the regulator.
To 3.09pm
ReplyDeleteI am sure you are right to say that MAS has done their homework right, and that is why they are NOT able to swifty announce that there is NOTHING WRONG with the structure products (i.e. Minibond, Pinnacle, High Note, etc).
Please think twice of what these 'financial experts" has said.
MAS didn't check the products and if they had they misjudged and that is why they are not shy to own up. They drag and beat round the bush hoping to wear the investors out.
ReplyDeleteInvestors should prepare to sue the banks and don't wait for MAS to act.
MAS bochap and they don't want to be the bad guy.
Its not nice to say anyone is bochap.
ReplyDeleteForeigners might not understand thats the local slang for THEY DONT GIVE A CRAP.
The reason why many ppl did not approach Fidrec or any government bodies after their complains with the respective FIs is because they do not trust the Singapore system anymore. They know that they wont get an impartial investigations and these organisations will be taking sides of the FIs. However, I think it is impt we should have a systematic approach for this matter, complains should still be launch with Fidrecs and legal/class option should also work hand in hand. Credit to Mr Tan for taking this initiative now as the man in the street would really be left helpless and confuse on how to further pursue this matter through legal means. We should let the public know(including MAS and FIs) that we are seriously considering and checking upon bringing this matter to court. This will not allow MAS and FIs to drag their feet, we should never let them do that. Based on the prospectus, noteholders will not be able to claim (the principal)from the issuer after 10 years and 5 years ( for the interest). Just like what Mr Tan has said, this matter will not rest until a reasonable settlement is reached. I am also willing to contribute if a class action is viable regardless it is successful or not. As I believe, we have the right to know how this whole fiasco came about and how responsible our authorities are in approving this product.
ReplyDeleteIn a city state like spore, we hv no choic but to trust big org. If we don't trust them, if we don't sign docs according to their terms, nothings can be done.
ReplyDeleteThey may say "buyer beware", If u don't trsut me, goes elsewhere. But there is nowhere to go. There is a tacit understanding that we trust u, we are expected to be treated fairly. Now it is not the case. Now even principal also gone. This may hv serious implications in time to come.
I for one would really like to hear whats the courts would like to comment on FIs AND Investors responsiblities
ReplyDeleteSo far we havent had outright judgement on such balance, so it will be a landmark
This is encouraging. What I believe seems to be quite true: mis-selling and misrepresentation and non-disclosure of vital information. I am very willing to cough out my share of up to S$5k to support this legal action if feassible. Could Mr Tan clarify whether the legal action is relating to High Notes or Minibond or Pinnacle, or is it a test case that if successful can be used to apply to any of the products mentioned above?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, it is balantly clear that there is outright mis-selling of toxic products... Believe me, "they" know that they are wrong... What are we afraid of?? We will go ahead and sue them...
ReplyDelete"Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, it is balantly clear that there is outright mis-selling of toxic products... Believe me, "they" know that they are wrong... What are we afraid of?? We will go ahead and sue them...
10:11 PM"
Unfortunately NOTHING is clear until the Judge says so.
Even then NOTHING is confirmed until the other side's appeals all failed.
Be it $10K or $20K, we WILL sue them, if no reasonable resolution is made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think the posting attached below by Mr Tan (2.13PM) deserved to be posted in the blog's main page.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it summarized accurately most of the hypothetical thoughts going thro' many's minds ...
********
Tan said...
Mr Tan.
First of all, I would like to thank you for helping all the helpless victims to voice up.
Till now, no MPs have really initiated to try to help. I believe majority of the MPs also knew that this is a clear cut misled case but dare not bring up in the parliament because they afraid that their rice bowl may get broken. “Yes” man is “Safe” man. Do we want to have such leaders?
I was at the Speakers corner yesterday. I spoke to some of the victims who had seen their MPs. They told me that they were again lectured by their MPs “you went in with your eyes open”.
My dear MPs and Minister, you are leaders with high profile. Please go through the brochure and prospectus and honestly tell the public whether you understand such complicated product with hidden toxic ingredients for every item. Oh! Sorry, maybe, you don’t have to read it since you are rich enough to get your lawyer to go through for you.
Please also do a survey. Get the graduates who have never invested to look at the brochure and prospectus whether they understand every single item. I suggest that our government should also get the RC members to go through and get them to feedback whether if they understand.
All the while, I have full faith in our Singapore government. Just like the China milk products case where it contains melamine that killed many lives, immediate action was taken.
However, for such case, our government may think that immediate action is not required because it will not cause live and death and can take their time to resolve the issue.
They have oversight the consequences and seriousness. Many Singaporeans were already suffering from depression and mental illnesses due to sleepless night as all their life (coffin) saving is already gone. Mind them, waiting to die is worse then immediate death.
Even the financial experts already said the products are too complicated and it should not be sold. The toxins are all hidden in the ingredients. I believe MAS should also agree with it now.
To my conclusion, I believe MAS is also under pressure and have not guts to admit their overlooking and allowing of such complicated toxic product to be sold in by the FIs in Singapore.
2:13 PM
MPs have to toe the line and sing the same tune..they cannot suka express their views. They can only express the official views.
ReplyDeleteThis is the fault of the people for voting them in.
In my opinion,to win or lose the legal action is not so much of a concern. What we need to do is to fight it out. Organize a class action against one of the FIs that sold the most of these toxic products. Sue it, and if necessary, drag it for 2 or 3 years, if we can cap the legal fees to manageable level with the support of committed investors and continued guidance from Mr TKL. If we win, good for all investors as this may set a precedence for similar cases. If we lose, we want to make a mark in the history of our financial sector. We must let the FIs feel the anger and determination of the people who have been unfairly treated. Let Mr Tan and his legal team lead us. Ignore those sitting on the fence.
ReplyDeleteYes!fight it out.
ReplyDeleteLPC
I agreed with everything
ReplyDeleteEXCEPT dragging the case
Its not a good thing for the suing party, because the returns, IF there are returns, from the costs of investing in the sue, will get proportionally less favourable over time.
We have no choice if the case cannot be settled within a year so we have to fight it out with perseverance, 2 or 3 years. The recovery rate, even if we win, may not be high after all the costs. But the point is to make the FIs feels the pain. Some may say this is throwing good money over bad, but nobody can really predict how long it may drag. Only those who are prepared to fight may commit a certain amount of money to support this action! If we don't try, then we should ask mr tan not to waste his precious time talking at the speaker's corner. Afrer so many months, can anyone think of a better way besides petition to MAS, complaining to FIs and going to FIDREC?
ReplyDeleteI'm not going down without a fight.
ReplyDeleteI want justice.
My so-called "friend" owes me $5K that's 2 years overdue. I was prepared to spend $20K to get justice from him.
For this mis-selling, I'm willing spend more & fight longer. Getting back my investment is secondary. Nailing those ppl is more important!
人活着就是为了一口气！
"Anonymous Ed said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not going down without a fight.
I want justice.
My so-called "friend" owes me $5K that's 2 years overdue. I was prepared to spend $20K to get justice from him.
For this mis-selling, I'm willing spend more & fight longer. Getting back my investment is secondary. Nailing those ppl is more important!
人活着就是为了一口气！
10:38 PM"
Justice is a tricky thing
People actually learn out more about that Concept when it is CAST ASIDE!!
That said, believe most pple hearing your story will probably advise you open your eyes bigger when selecting friends
My personal feel is your lesson learnt should be open your eyes bigger when you are considering what bad debts to WRITE OFF IMMEDIATELY
...if you get what i mean
I am in the process or organising a class-action for Pinnacle and have briefed 3 law firms. Waiting for firm opinion as to our case.
ReplyDeletePinnacle is different from Minibonds because we can sue Morgan Stanley. When ready, will send make Press Release about the plan and will then ask for support from those willing to join in for a flat fee of perhaps not more than $1000/- per head. and if we get 500 to join in the budget will be enough for us to sue. the case is actually simple - simple case of being misled and misrepresented. It is for the court to decide whether we went in "with our eyes open" or we went in "with our eyes blinded - after we went in and parted with our money".
So, please be on the look out in another month or so for news as to how to sign up for the class-action inthe first instance for those who are willing to see JUSTICE done.
The song goes like this:
ReplyDeleteWho started the joke....... and the joke is on me..... to believe that all about minbonds amd structured deposits are safe ........oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yah, complained to Philips Securities. 2 weeks later went for interview. 4 weeks later received a standard letter that says basically "sorry, you took the risk, we are not responsible. If not satisfied with the response, go FIDReC" Go FIDReC? What's the point, MAS/FI/FIDReC are all the same. Class action is the only alternative...
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous at 10.10pm
ReplyDeleteYou said that you are organising a class-action for Pinnacle.
Could you kinldy contact Mr. Tan Kin Lian as he is also in the midst of planning the class-action?
I have a group a Pinnacle victims may be interested in the class-action too.
Regards
JC
Refer to: ".......Pinnacle is different from Minibonds because we can sue Morgan Stanley....."
ReplyDeletePoints to note:
(1)MS arranged for two different types of Pinnacles Notes. Series 1,2,3,5,6,7,9 & 10 are CLN (Credit-linked Notes) whereas Series 8,11,12,15 & 16 are ELN (Equity-linked Notes).
(2)LB's Minibond all series are 'Mininbonds' in their marketing materials, Base Prospetus & Pricing Statement etc whereas Pinnacles Notes Series 1,2,3,5,6,7,9 & 10 are offered as 'Secured Credit-linked Notes'.
ie, MS sold the note holders CLN for PS Series 1,2,3,5,6,7,9 &10.
(3)The Based Prospetus & Pricing Statement were checked by MAS and it was answered by Dy Chairman of MAS in the 1st response to the CLN debacle brought up in the parliament meeting.
ie, MAS approved the sale of PS CLN.
(4)MS found willing distributors to sell its PS CLNs. Under the FFA & FAA the FIs & their RMs are responsible to provide the investors all the marketing materials, Base Prospetus & Pricing Statement for them to understand the risk involved with the product. The investors are also advised to seek financial advice if they don't understand the product. ie, the investors should be given time to study and understand the product in order to make an 'Informed decision'. LKH said that in his answer to the MP's query.
(5)'SUITABILITY' is fundamental to the whole fiasco and it is stressed by Mr Tan Kin Lian from DAY 1. CLN embeded the First-to-Default CDS & Synthetic CDO CDS as underlying assets is a complex structured product and basically SUITABLE only for sophisticated investors and we know that the CLN is used for speculation, hedging & to a lesser extent arbitrage and it should not target 'UNSUITABLE PEOPLE' like us THE MAN IN THE STREET.
(6)FIs have their Fact Finding Analysis/RM Recommedation to ascertain the 'SUITABILIIY' of the ordinary people to the complex structured product. Only RMs of the respective FIs are qualified to the jobs and they are under the relevant acts to exercise the skills they profess to have.
SAD to say for (5) & (6), not only the Fact Finding Analysis/RM Recommedation is not properly structured to reflect the complexity of many sturctured products but it too fails to provide the much needed assessment to 'SUITABILITY' of an average investor to the product.
The largest setback is that the Base Prospetus and the Pricing Statement were given to the investors after the Sale was closed (Hmmmm...btw, it shall now provide a strong gound for the victims to sue on not able to arrive an 'Informed Decision')
(7)In the absence of the Prospetus & Pricing Statement the Brochure of the CLN becomes the mere source of infomation for an investor to make an 'Informed Decision'. However, the nightmare began as the RMs misrepresentation started. The risk of First-to-Default in respect of REs was so distorted that an entirely different understanding of the role of REs arrived. The lethal Synthetic CDO reference portfolio in CDS transaction as a second layer of protection was never revealed.
SO, to sue MS, MAS or FIs?
Whatever it is,
人活着就是为了一口气！
Sue, but identify the right target!
"sorry, you took the risk, we are not responsible. If not satisfied with the response, go FIDReC"
ReplyDeleteI am respoding to Chan JC -I am in contact with Mr Tan and have told him of my efforts. Right now the lawyers I am talking with say it is neater case on a Series by series basis - because each series has different reference entities.
ReplyDeleteThe most promising law firm is still studying it - year end - on leave etc - so a little slow.
But we have to be patient in these things.
"'SUITABILITY' is fundamental to the whole fiasco"
ReplyDeleteYou want to hear the FIs' interpretation of SUITABILITY?
We asked you, you said you have the cash, you paid.
Refer to:
ReplyDelete".....Wayangnologist said...
"'SUITABILITY' is fundamental to the whole fiasco"
You want to hear the FIs' interpretation of SUITABILITY?
We asked you, you said you have the cash, you paid........."
SINCE WHEN the FIs become the men in the street?
Btw, there is an appointed investigator in the committee and I wouldn't mind to hear the "...We asked you, you said you have the cash, you paid..." and what I understand is that the Base Prospectus & Pricing Statement as well as the Fact Find Analysis/RM recommedation are fundamental in their fact establishment of the Sale.
I wouldn't want to speculate that it is Wanyang once more and it is an endurance battle I am ready for it.
人活着就是为了一口气！
Hi Anonymous at 3:29 PM
ReplyDeleteCould you kindly write to me at joo_chong@yahoo.com please?
I would like to contact you regarding this class-action.
Regards
JC
Dear Mr Tan, I want to thank you for your effort in representing, educating and helping all of us.
ReplyDeleteMr Tan, Anonymous and Chan JC,
My friend and I (both impacted) have also been doing a lot of facts finding about the Pinnacle CLN especially its technical working, specifically series 9 & 10. We have some information based on our facts finding as well as responses to our questions which seems to point to a certain degree of intention to deceive from the onset rather than just misrepresentation. I am also seeing a consistent trend which seem to suggest that many of the distributors are probably misled by MS too, and many are left in a lurch right now to face the heat from their customers.
We are certainly very keen in class action, and for that to have teeth, all of us should band together.
Lastly, for this class action to have muscle, we need enough participants, but more importantly the right law firm & lawyers to represent us.
Anonymous and Chan JC,
Could you please email us at cy_b@ymail.com so that we can link up, and we can also provide you with the information that we have secured. Let's work together to get what is rightfully ours back.
Mr Tan,
Would you like us to email what we have found out to you too? Thanks
Hi Anonymous at 10:10PM
ReplyDeleteReferring to you previous posting, could you kindly email me at joo_chong@yahoo.com
We are a group of Pinnacle investors and we would like to link up with you for further discussion on the subject of class action.
Regards.
Please keep us updated and I am keen to understand how we plan to proceed.
ReplyDeleteI have read some postings that FIDREC is pro-FI. Does that mean that it is a waste of time to go through that route?
Pl include me if there is going to be class action. I feel that fidrec is just a rubber stamp body that endorses fi rejection. I shall lend you 100% support.
ReplyDeleteWhere can we register our names for class action?. United we shall prevail!
ReplyDeleteplease help a number of people were sold the platinum all weather fund we bought it thru united overseas bank other banks might have sold it too, it was a total fraud from day one linked to maddof!!! how can we start a class action to get our funds back please how do we get the investors together and get a lawyer to get started please help us thanks!!!
ReplyDelete