SVS Securities - shut down?

Sheris

masonic said:

Sheris said:

masonic said:

Sheris said:

rnf11 said:

Dividends. More fuel to the fire...

Message from LC yesterday re "missing" VOD divi; LC stated it was received on the 7th and subsequently passed on to ITIC (and also stating an awareness of ITIC's "problems").

So it should be there - somewhere.

Looking forward - if and when the a/c transfers out do actually happen, I foresee a tedious long haul chasing up "missing" dividends during and just after that process.

L&C should pay back our costs, have been given very good advice on my Pets at Home and waiting with self - restraint. 

You keep saying that, but thanks to the FSCS you haven't incurred any costs, and LC are immune under insolvency law from such a claim. Nothing would make me happier than for the FSCS to be refunded, as ultimately that money is coming out of the pockets of people like me, but first you will need to get the law changed. The only problem is, next time a broker goes bust, no insolvency firm will touch the case with a bargepole, so investors will never be reunited with their assets, as opposed to the situation we have now where they have to wait a long time but eventually do get them back.

Rubbish in your statement, I would have paid for my own cost and claimed back from the FSCS

Either you paid or you didn't. If you "claimed back from the FSCS" then you didn't pay. Any money refunded belongs to the FSCS, not you. You will have entered into a legal agreement to that effect.

Sheris said:

L&C hourly rate is a joke for a poor service, take the blinkers off and look at the situation, that many are still suffering and no end in sight.

I don't disagree that insolvency work is overpriced and that the legal process is painfully slow.

I feel sorry for you, I really do, but you need to try and calm down and think about the situation rationally. Accusing people who are trying to help you understand the situation of posting rubbish and being blinkered is not going to help you. Neither is directing your rage towards LC, who have done what is required of them by law, charged what was agreed by the Creditors' Committee and the court, and moved you to an FCA approved broker according to a plan that was agreed by the Creditors' Committee, court and FCA. Their involvement and influence is drawing to a close, while those who are responsible for the current situation and those who could influence it don't seem to be attracting your attention at all.

ITI is responsible for providing their service offering with reasonable skill and care. They must treat their customers fairly and in line with the terms they have agreed with you. If they do not then they are liable. The FOS is there to impartially adjudicate complaints brought against financial firms if they cannot be resolved within a reasonable time. The FCA is responsible for protecting consumers and keeping the industry stable. These are the organisations that can sort out this mess.

Sheris said:

 L&C are not immune under insolvency law, as you do not no the full facts.     

Schedule B1, paragraph 43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 states:

"No legal process (including legal proceedings, execution, distress and diligence) may be instituted or continued against the company or property of the company except—
(a)with the consent of the administrator, or
(b)with the permission of the court."

Paragraph 69 states:

"In exercising his functions under this Schedule the administrator of a company acts as its agent."

Of course if LC had committed fraud or another unlawful act, then they could be prosecuted for that. But there is no evidence said fraud or other unlawful act has been committed, and you would not have posted what you posted in this thread if you had taken legal advice regarding such prosecution.

You no nothing, so leave me alone. 

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED

masonic said:
Either you paid or you didn't. If you "claimed back from the FSCS" then you didn't pay. Any money refunded belongs to the FSCS, not you. You will have entered into a legal agreement to that effect.
This is legally and morally wrong.  The FSCS acts as agent of the claimant.  The claimant legally and morally is payer of the costs. The fact that the claimant is legally entitled to reclaim his costs from the FSCS is a separate issue and an additional entitlement the claimant has.

Sheris

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

masonic said:
"No legal process (including legal proceedings, execution, distress and diligence) may be instituted or continued against the company or property of the company except—
(a)with the consent of the administrator, or
(b)with the permission of the court."
This is a vacuous point you have made.  The administrators are agents of the court, and any of their decisions or actions are subject to appeal just as any court decision is subject to appeal and the appeal must be allowed by the court if the decision or action is wrong.  In other words the court is legally obliged to give permission if the decision or action of the administrator is wrong.

Very true.   

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

This is a vacuous point you have made.  The administrators are agents of the court, and any of their decisions or actions are subject to appeal just as any court decision is subject to appeal and the appeal must be allowed by the court if the decision or action is wrong.  In other words the court is legally obliged to give permission if the decision or action of the administrator is wrong.

It is not a vacuous point, and I have not made it - it is a quote from the Insolvency Act. The administrators are not agents of the court. They are agents of the company as per Schedule B1 paragraph 69, which states: "In exercising his functions under this Schedule the administrator of a company acts as its agent." The administrators are appointed by the court, and they are officers of the court, like solicitors and bailiffs.

The appointment of an administrator can itself be appealed, because that is a court decision, as is the court approval of the distribution plan, but the actions of an officer of the court are clearly not court decisions.

You are also wrong that all court decisions have the right to be appealed or that permission must always be granted in cases where you have the right to ask permission to appeal.

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

masonic said:
Either you paid or you didn't. If you "claimed back from the FSCS" then you didn't pay. Any money refunded belongs to the FSCS, not you. You will have entered into a legal agreement to that effect.
This is legally and morally wrong.  The FSCS acts as agent of the claimant.  The claimant legally and morally is payer of the costs. The fact that the claimant is legally entitled to reclaim his costs from the FSCS is a separate issue and an additional entitlement the claimant has.

Legally and morally, eh? I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it. Pay attention to the legally enforceable agreements you enter into when receiving such compensation. Those will be my parting words to you. It's pointless continuing to engage you in discussion.

masonic

Sheris said:

masonic said:

Sheris said:

masonic said:

Sheris said:

rnf11 said:

Dividends. More fuel to the fire...

Message from LC yesterday re "missing" VOD divi; LC stated it was received on the 7th and subsequently passed on to ITIC (and also stating an awareness of ITIC's "problems").

So it should be there - somewhere.

Looking forward - if and when the a/c transfers out do actually happen, I foresee a tedious long haul chasing up "missing" dividends during and just after that process.

L&C should pay back our costs, have been given very good advice on my Pets at Home and waiting with self - restraint. 

You keep saying that, but thanks to the FSCS you haven't incurred any costs, and LC are immune under insolvency law from such a claim. Nothing would make me happier than for the FSCS to be refunded, as ultimately that money is coming out of the pockets of people like me, but first you will need to get the law changed. The only problem is, next time a broker goes bust, no insolvency firm will touch the case with a bargepole, so investors will never be reunited with their assets, as opposed to the situation we have now where they have to wait a long time but eventually do get them back.

Rubbish in your statement, I would have paid for my own cost and claimed back from the FSCS

Either you paid or you didn't. If you "claimed back from the FSCS" then you didn't pay. Any money refunded belongs to the FSCS, not you. You will have entered into a legal agreement to that effect.

Sheris said:

L&C hourly rate is a joke for a poor service, take the blinkers off and look at the situation, that many are still suffering and no end in sight.

I don't disagree that insolvency work is overpriced and that the legal process is painfully slow.

I feel sorry for you, I really do, but you need to try and calm down and think about the situation rationally. Accusing people who are trying to help you understand the situation of posting rubbish and being blinkered is not going to help you. Neither is directing your rage towards LC, who have done what is required of them by law, charged what was agreed by the Creditors' Committee and the court, and moved you to an FCA approved broker according to a plan that was agreed by the Creditors' Committee, court and FCA. Their involvement and influence is drawing to a close, while those who are responsible for the current situation and those who could influence it don't seem to be attracting your attention at all.

ITI is responsible for providing their service offering with reasonable skill and care. They must treat their customers fairly and in line with the terms they have agreed with you. If they do not then they are liable. The FOS is there to impartially adjudicate complaints brought against financial firms if they cannot be resolved within a reasonable time. The FCA is responsible for protecting consumers and keeping the industry stable. These are the organisations that can sort out this mess.

Sheris said:

 L&C are not immune under insolvency law, as you do not no the full facts.     

Schedule B1, paragraph 43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 states:

"No legal process (including legal proceedings, execution, distress and diligence) may be instituted or continued against the company or property of the company except—
(a)with the consent of the administrator, or
(b)with the permission of the court."

Paragraph 69 states:

"In exercising his functions under this Schedule the administrator of a company acts as its agent."

Of course if LC had committed fraud or another unlawful act, then they could be prosecuted for that. But there is no evidence said fraud or other unlawful act has been committed, and you would not have posted what you posted in this thread if you had taken legal advice regarding such prosecution.

You no nothing, so leave me alone. 

As you wish.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED

In reply to masonic:
an officer of the court is an agent of the court.
Again your point is vacuous and misleading.  An application may be made to the court to direct the administrators to do what the court directs.  The administrators are therefore to all intents and purposes agents of the court.  Their decisions and actions can therefore be appealed.  Permission MUST legally be given to appeal where the decision or action being appealed is wrong.

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

In reply to masonic:
an officer of the court is an agent of the court.
Again you point is vacuous and misleading.  An application may be made to the court to direct the administrators to do what the court directs.  The administrators are therefore to all intents and purposes agents of the court.  Their decisions and actions can therefore be appealed.  Permission MUST legally be given to appeal where the decision or action being appealed is wrong.

Ok, I'll bite one last time. That is neither legal action nor an appeal. Creditors may during an administration apply to the court for the court to review the conduct of the administrators, and the court may take whatever action it sees fit. But if it has already approved the actions taken by the administrators (by way of a written distribution plan), then said application will almost certainly be dismissed.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED

In reply to masonic:
The legal criterion for decision on an appeal is whether the original decision was wrong, not who made what decision.
The court is legally obliged to make a decision that is not wrong. If it makes a wrong decision then it is legally obliged to give permission to appeal.

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

In reply to masonic:
The legal criterion for decision on an appeal is whether the original decision was wrong, not who made what decision.
The court is legally obliged to make a decision that is not wrong. If it makes a wrong decision then it is legally obliged to give permission to appeal.

If the court itself believes it has made a wrong decision, then yes I'm sure it would invite an appeal. But it is not legally obliged to give permission to appeal on the basis of a third party's opinion that it made a wrong decision.

Supposing the court did come to the conclusion one of its decisions was wrong, that is going to be bad for investors.

If the court's decision to appoint LC as administrators was wrong, then when appealed the administration would be ruled null and void. The process would need to start with new administrators being appointed and the whole process repeated.

If the court's decision to approve the distribution plan was wrong, then when appealed the transfer to ITI would need to be reversed and a new distribution plan formulated and nominated broker selected. Any investor who wishes this for themselves can make it so without court intervention as all investors have the option to reject the transfer of their assets to ITI and have LC reunite them with their assets by other means. Wishing to impose such an outcome on all investors is unthinkably cruel.

Before investors get worried about such potential setbacks, I should point out this is all hypothetical. The correct legal processes were followed and there are no material grounds for these decisions to be challenged.