SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

Of course you are right. But in the case of XO clients the assets should be segregated. And it's not SVS or LC assets but they belong to the XO clients. Could I respectfully point out that this is a Special Administration.. it is not an ordinarily liquidation. (which I accept may make matters more complex not less...,)

englishmas

Hi Johnburman,
Do we know that if the XO clients funds were segregated? if so you are right it should be straightforward process for XO account holder to get excess to their accounts.
But I fear this not the case, this may be one reason that SVS under investigation.

Monsieur_Bourse

Thank you all for your replies to my question.

As suggested I have e-mailed LC giving account details and address for both of our accounts.I received an electronically generated reply, saying they will get back to me as quickly as possible, but due to the heavy demand for information it could take some time.

No letters showed up in the post this morning, so the stress continues.

manorhouse

Try not to stress.
At the moment we can only assume shares were segregated and you will just suffer a lock in there .
Some have suggested no residents treated differently , that would be disappointing and i would be writing to my MP if i find that is the case .
Maybe you could ring the FCA to ease your mind there.
Interestingly Tom Winnifrith a journalist who has his own web site suggested he knows the "real reason " SVS was shut down .
He charges for readers to listen to his broadcasts so i have not.
( I do not think hes a good person so will not support him , i do think he gets inside information from city workers , placings ect a lot of this turns out to be the case )
He claims to have revealed this yesterday, so if anyone does know the rummer he claims is all around the city please let us all know.

englishmas

Would live to know if any body had any in site to the reason why SVS was taken to administration, some say it was their carbon traded and not paying the vat, other saying it was mishandling the clients assets.

any one there knows reason for certainty.

My2penneth

Just received an email from LC.


We have been made aware of a fraudulent letter that claims to come from the Special Administrators Leonard Curtis. Please ignore the letter. For more details visit the SVS page on the Leonard Curtis website.

If you haven’t already, you can sign up to receive email updates on the SVS Securities situation on our website. Whenever we have an update, we’ll send you an email to let you know the latest news.

manted

"My2penneth"
Did you actually receive an email from LC or was it from FSCS ?
If so, is there a way to subscribe to any updates ?
So far i haven't received any emails sent to me from LC, only the paper letter that others have received too.

masonic

johnburman wrote: »

I fear that you forget that this is a Special Administration not just Ann ordinary commercial insolvency. The Special Administrators have different duties and obligations as set out and recognised.

Would you care to elaborate on the specifics of these additional duties and obligations, with regard to customer service activities?

As far as I'm aware, the Special Administration Regime merely adds the obligation to keep critical or systemically important payment and securities settlement services running (to prevent disruption to financial markets). It also outlines the process by which properly segregated client assets are returned to investors, and how costs are dealt with. In other respects it closely mirrors the standard insolvency legislation, but extends rights afforded to creditors to cover investors as well.

The point I was trying to make was for XO clients who should have segregated funds the information provided is poor. I wonder how many Specials have LC carried out.

Making an assumption that funds are segregated, and then acting on that assumption by providing unverified information to investors, would be poor. It would probably see them replaced as Special Administrators.

Happy for you to point to legislation to the contrary, but my understanding is that LC is under absolutely no obligation to provide any information to investors or creditors regarding their activities, the company's affairs, or the details of investors accounts in the first 8 weeks following their appointment, whether it is a Special or ordinary administration.

masonic

englishmas wrote: »

Would live to know if any body had any in site to the reason why SVS was taken to administration, some say it was their carbon traded and not paying the vat, other saying it was mishandling the clients assets.

any one there knows reason for certainty.

The FCA has given some heavy hints: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/first-supervisory-svs-securities-plc-2019.pdf

- lack of financial resources (the "soft" default of their 5 year mini-bond)
- conflicts of interests
- possible misconduct of directors
- lack of governance
- promotion of unsuitable investments
- misreporting of assets in their custody

I think the VAT issue around carbon credit trading was a red herring, that had been going on for some time and was being challenged in court. But other than that, pretty much everything people have been saying seems to have played a role.

englishmas

Hi Masonic

Thanks for your very useful information, it is interesting to note that in my complaint to the FCA, I sighted , conflicts of interest, lack of supervision of their advisors and hard sell of unsuitable stocks. in hindsight it was stupid of me to invest with them. I was just trying to save platform fee. let's I will some my pension money back.