Saturday, February 07, 2009

Class action on credit linked notes

It is important for the investors to contact their group leaders and get ready for the class action. You should register with the group leaders now on a "in-principle" basis. This allows the group leaders to know your contact details. As this is "in-principle", it does not commit you to make any payment now. You can also withdraw later.

After registering for the "in-printiple" basis, you can still wait for the offer from the financial institution or lodge the complaint with FIDREC. In case, FIDREC rejects your complaint or offer an inadequate sum, you can proceed with the class action.

You must register now. If you wait until a later date, you may miss the boat. I will not be able to help you at the last minute.  The contact persons are found here.

9 comments:

Nick said...

Dear Mr. Tan

Thank you for continue the effort to help CLN victims. It has been a new year but same problem and same effort from you.

Big THANKS!

I encourage all CLN victims to write in to the respective action group now.

Anonymous said...

Is there any news from the QC or senior counsels about their opinion on mis-selling?

Anonymous said...

How abt those buy from IFA via OSPL or PSPL?
These are the people who would not get any compensation at all.
But will they have any fighting chances at all?
Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

To encourage more investors to join the respective investment group, is it better to provide some basic information on these groups, such as:
1. Size of each group
2. Main persons leading the group
3. The intended actions to be taken by each group
4. Are these group in touch with each other to discuss matters relating to legal actions
5. More importantly, what are members of each group supposed to do and whether they are being updated from time to time by each group leaders

I think many investors' claims have already been rejected by the FIs and they are pondering what to do next. So it is time that each investment group can be more proactive now to raise their awareness of such self-help groups and encourage these investors to come together and look for a best possible way to help themselves.

Anonymous said...

I bought from UOBKH and received a standard rejection. I will fight this out in court once the class action is ready to go.

Anonymous said...

Me too! I am pissed off with them . I put in 2 letters 1. Minibond 2. Pinnacle Notes and they lumped them together with a flat NO answer. Even suggested that I go to FIDREC for redress!!!

A Minibond Fraud Victim. said...

This is a FYI for legal action, Please bring this to the lawyers.
The collateral information of the credit-linked notes (e.g. minibond) is an important material information.
Distributors did not discuss such informations with clients and did not provide clients with such informations. Therefore, distributors (banks) provided clients with INCOMPLETE Information. -- this was told by a CDS/CDO professional.
-------(Quote from HK Minibond)----------
banks provided clients with incomplete material information.

The CDO collateral information held the most important material information on the Minibond. The diminished collateral value also proved the criticalness of such collateral information. The prospectuses were only part of minibond information. Detailed Information about the collateral, including evidence of the rating and the terms and conditions of the collateral, would have provided Minibond buyers with a 2nd chance to know what the Minibond was really comprised of.

Such collateral information was not available to minibond purchaser when they signed the purchase agreement. However, such collateral information usually would be made available prior to the issue date. Banks should have requested such information after offer closed. Banks should have sent such CDO collateral information documents /or notice of such documents’ availability to minibond purchasers. Banks are required to provide clients with relevant material information for derivative products, according to SFC’s Code of Conduct. But Banks failed to do so. Why was this not mentioned in the SFC Report?
--------------------------
details can be found in http://minibondvictim.blogspot.com/2009/01/sfc-lehman-minibond-report-wrong-on.html.

contact: minibondvictim@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

The non-disclosure of critical info or provision of incomplete critial info by the FIs, particularly relating to the CDO, is the same in all the toxic structured products be it minibond or pinnacle or HN etc. The senior counsels or QC must be able to detect and take notice of such issues easily, unless they think this is not an issue and not helpful in fighting the case. But I agree with fraud victim that many of us did not even know that there were 100 over entitles in the CDO and we need to bear the risk of all these entities and even worse, our investment would evaporate if only 5 or 6 entities go bust. If the non-disclosure of such important info is not a strong ground to fight the FIs for misrepresentation, then I think we all should forget the whole thing about class action. A class action must be based on common groud/issue that affects a group of investors and not based on the special circumstances under which each investor parted with his money.

A Minibond Fraud Victim. said...

The "Open Letter to Legco Lehman Incidence Investigation Committee and HKMA" may be of reference to everyone.
http://www.lbv.org.hk/content/pages/posts/open-letter-to-legco-lehman-incidence-investigation-committee-and-hkma1134.php
(or email to: minibondvictim@gmail.com to get a soft copy in word).

The INCOMPLETE INFORMATION and DUE DILIGENCE are common among all institutions that sold minibond or minibond like credit linked notes in hk or singapore.

Blog Archive