SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

I do wonder why ITI confirmed on their website that -

Assets and cash held with ITI Capital continue to be protected under CASS rules.
As a firm, ITI remains well capitalised.

RasputinB

Jamesram said:

As to LC's position, I feel that it has already blown up in their faces. The question is how, at what level, how speedily, and with what remedy (if any) they can be brought to book officially. I was interested in the suggestion a few days ago that a complaint could be made to LC's governing body. I might look into that.

Try these links 1. “Quality of Service” at http://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/legals/ 2. The Insolvency Practitioner Complaints Gateway at https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner

shiznit76

has anyone traded on Phoenix yet? If my holdings there aren't included with the valuation that has been sent to Iweb i think i will bite the bullet and sell up and hope i can get my cash out to my bank

manted

shiznit76 said:

has anyone traded on Phoenix yet? If my holdings there aren't included with the valuation that has been sent to Iweb i think i will bite the bullet and sell up and hope i can get my cash out to my bank

yeah, I did a trade with my ISA cash. None of my holdings are on phoenix, just the cash that i had not withdrawn. It might be worth doing if you are not worried about your ISA protection, which in my view is overrated. What's the point of having an ISA when we cant access it. I anyways havent been skilled / lucky enough to generate profits over the Income tax threshold (12k) I think, in the years i have held an ISA.

shiznit76

update form email i sent to LC:

I’m sorry to hear that your experience of dealing with ITI Capital to date has not been a happy one.  However, I’m pleased to note that your onward transfer request is now progressing – following initial delays.  We understand that ITI have been inundated with a large volume of broker to broker requests (as you would expect from an audience of clients who have not had access to their portfolios for over 12 months), but are now in dialogue with all the brokers they are dealing with in order to execute these transfers.

 

I can confirm that if you have instructed iWeb that you wish to carry out a transfer of your whole portfolio with ITI Capital to them, it shouldn’t matter that some of your holdings have now started so appear in your Phoenix account with ITI rather than the “Qort” account your assets all initially appeared on when you first completed your onboarding with them.

Jamesram

To answer Michael_ Reynolds point about rights to have consent to share transfers, I think the Regulations automatically remove such rights, presumably so that the Administrator does not have to obtain approval from al 18,000  SVS clients in this case.

The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“the Regulations”) refered to in the judgment of Miles J are amended by the  The Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (which were bloody hard to track down online so here is the relevant bit:-

 After regulation 10A(1) insert—“Objective 1—transfer of client assets
10B.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a)the administrator, in pursuit of Objective 1 (whether or not also in pursuit of Objective 3) enters into a binding arrangement with another financial institution for the transfer to that institution (“the transferee”) of all or some of the property, rights and liabilities of the investment bank [.....}
(3) The transfer of client assets which the investment bank has undertaken to hold under a client contract and of relevant rights and liabilities is to have effect in spite of any—
(a)....
(b) requirement to give notice to, or obtain the consent (however referred to) of, any person who is party to the client contract; or
(c) entitlement of any person to the return of the assets otherwise than by transfer under the arrangement.

There is a difference with client monies .Transfer of cash still requires client consent under CASS7 unless the FCA grants a Waiver. Which in this case they did.

Of interest, given that all our rights of objection are removed by legislation, is the make up of the Creditors Committee. Miles J refers in his judgment:

Para 35. "There is a creditors’ committee, constituted shortly after the company entered special administration. It consists of four client members and the FSCS. Its meetings have been attended by at least one representative of the FCA. The FSCS, as a statutory compensation scheme, has a significant role. The great majority of clients are entitled to compensation for any losses arising from the insolvency of the firm and this includes the costs of returning their assets up to a limit of £85,000 per client. In practice, the FSCS is bearing the great bulk of the costs of the administration and will pay at least the vast bulk of the costs of the distribution plan if approved. The administrators have, indeed, appointed a cost assessors selected by the FSCS to advise on the costs of the administration. It will be seen that the FSCS has a keen interest in the outcome of the administration and as part of that, the distribution plan."

Who were these 4 " client members"? I did not realise that they represented "us". (I had assumed they  were creditors in the sense of outstanding office rent or whatever.) How were they picked- no one invited me!? What info did they have about ITI?

Miles J said at Para 47 I return then to the question of approval. [....] As to the exercise of my discretion, the plan has been carefully formulated in consultation with the creditors’ committee, the FCA, and the FSCS. Clients have been notified of this hearing and, though a number have attended, none objected. The administrators consider, in the exercise of their professional judgment as office holders, that the plan is an efficient and speedy way of returning assets in accordance with Objective 1. I give appropriate weight to their views. Overall, I am satisfied that this is a proper case for approval of the distribution plan and I give that approval.

Well Mr Justice Miles, none of us Clients, attending or not, knew that it was ITI Capital who were the transferees did they- that had been explicitly kept quiet. Apparently we could have asked LC who they were, so long as we agreed not to contact ITI (or tell anyone else?!!)- unfortunately LC never volunteered this "facility" publicly, so no one could know that.

At para 44 Miles J had said "I do not consider the anonymisation of the Nominated Broker to be a cause for concern. It is regulated by the FCA and its identity, as I have already said, has been disclosed to the FCA and the members of the creditors’ committee."

So a lot fell on the shoulders of our 4 representatives, meeting up  with the FCA rep and perhaps crucially, the FSCS Rep. The Judge also notes how important matters were to the FSCS who are footing the Bill for the Administration.

So there we are. I would live to know more about the Creditors committee, what they knew, or or were promised. I know that within a week of ITI Capital being disclosed I was contacting LC to express my concerns about ITI - solvency, experience, cabability, size in UK, etc etc. What were the clients reps on the Committee told about all this? Did they feel that the option to transfer out "for free" was good enough - I suppose in a way it should have been, although why subject us to the hassle of a further transfer if they knew ITI could be dodgy and/or unsuitable? Which in my view the Phoenix platform always will be- its an international day traders platform- its nothing like HL, Jarvis or iWeb, Best Invest etc, which were the REAL comparables to SVS.

Lastly, I seem to recall seeing a report that these 4 representative clients on the Committee were lawyers and experienced other professionals, but I can't recall where I saw that. Do you think they are still meeting as part of this process. What are they saying now? Can we ask them? Who are they? If they are our representatives, should we not be told how to contact them to represent our views?

All this just does not seem right to me. But I guess the real issue now is achieving a speedy and accurate transfer out for everyone- and yes, I suspect that now this really does mean everyone.

My2penneth

Just rang the 8001 number - this put me through to a call centre. The background noise was unbelievable - I've been to quieter football matches (seriously!). The lady on the other end of the phone confirmed it was a call centre in England (unless there is a part of India called "England"). 
I could hardly hear her and her accent was "strong" . I hung up in the end.
Another great service from ITI Capital.

My2penneth

Just tried the 8001 number again. Incredible noise levels.

I asked which account should I make sure is correct (Qort or Phoenix) before transferring assets. I was told "both" should be correct. 

(sorry, don't wish to be accused of being racist but do any of the people at the call centre have English as their first language?)

Jamesram

UPDATE ON MY PROSPECTIVE COMPLAINT ABOUT LEONARD CURTIS TO THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/insolvency-practitioners-guidance-for-those-who-want-to-complain/insolvency-practitioners-guidance-on-how-to-complain-about-an-insolvency-practitioner

21. Will I receive any compensation if my complaint is upheld?

No. The authorising body cannot award or compel an insolvency practitioner to pay you compensation for any financial loss you consider you may have suffered.  If you believe that you have suffered a financial loss as a result of negligence by an insolvency practitioner you should pursue your own legal remedies.

Never mind, eh! I was only going to spend weeks formulating my complint case, gathering and providing evidence and dealing with enquries and responses from LC just for the fun of it. I have nothing better to do.

Josl

23 Jul No activation email
24 Jul Elected to transfer out my holdings
04-Aug Filled out forms to withdraw cash to my bank and share holdings to Barclays.
05-11 Aug ITIC closed temp accounts and approved transfers. An email confirmed cash transfers will be immediate via bacs and will wait on third party broker to transfer out.
11-Aug Barclays sent transfer in requests
24-Aug Barclays sent a letter saying ITI Capital have failed to initiate transfers.
14-Sept ITI Capital to this day have not transferred cash or bothered to pick up Barclays transfer requests.
11--Sept Adviser from account management flatly refused to say what time frame is required for my requests to be processed/completed. Despite asking for clarity on the process NO ONE in ITI Capital can commit to a time frame. 

Complaint to ITIC compliance [No answer]
Complaints (several) with LeonardCurtis, who forwarded all my requests to accountmangement@iticapital.com [No results]
Served legal notice on LeonardCurtis [No answer]
Legal action against LC via a city law firm [Under review]
Complaint to Insolvency Practitioner re LeonardCurtis for negligence [Under investigation]
Complaint to FCA re ITI Capital for non-compliance [passed on to ITI Capital's FCA supervision team]
Complaint to FCA re Regulatory failures of SVS, LC and approving ITI Capital [No answer] 

FCA failures: History of SVS Securities helping to commit fraud goes back to 2009, Some directors of SVS also personally benefited from client portfolios by placing them in higher risk investments. Allowed LC to waste a ridiculous amount of time and ring up bills since LC conducted and completed audit of client accounts in 5-weeks. Allowed ITI capital to be regulated (a firm with history of fraud against its customers on record. Banned from registering/trading in the USA. Fined in the USA for defrauding customers. Fined in the UK by FCA around half a million for manipulating market prices to skim funds off its clients. ITI Capital should not have been regulated let alone be appointed. Its the reason why everyone feels they are dealing with a ponzi scheme being operated by a rogue business.