SVS Securities - shut down?

Emillion1

ITI and the Administrator have obviously underestimated the complexity of a client back office migration.  You have to remember that ITI have paid for these clients, it is therefore in their interest to retain as many SVS clients as possible. The correct choice would have been to retain the existing SVS software providers and let clients carry on as normal whilst working on a data transfer program behind the scenes. All clients would then have been able to carry on as normal.  This f*** up is so amateurish it is beyond belief.  

Jamesram

 IanManc said: "Of course there's nothing in the court rules that prevents starting litigation with no notice, but if you follow Practice Directions then the court won't be looking at your conduct but will turn both barrels on the other side, which is what you want......I do know what I'm talking about and you very obviously don't."

I was called to the Bar in 1983, practised in and around  the London courts until 1993, then re-qualified and practised as a litigation solicitor in the North until 2005. I also volunteered for some years as a CAB adviser dealing with debt cases on both sides. So I do have a little experience. If you were a barrister or solicitor you would be "my friend"- I had assumed that with all your knowledge you must be.

Anyway, ENOUGH - I stand by what I say, and willl  consider the discussion closed afer this post. Life is too short.

l will  just add that you are in fact distorting what I said.- a common but unattractive trait in pursuing a line of argument:

I am not proposing to start litigation " without notice" - I am proposing shorter notice than is usually the case, in the particular and unusual(?!) circumstances of a rogue finance house and broker- the Rules allow for this scenario as I have pointed out. You also seem to think that this is going to be major, defended, litigation; it isn't. No one is disputing what is owed. Both sides can see the cash in ITI's accounts. ITI is simply not paying out someone else's cash on that person's demand- it is undefendable . To give them 14 days notice is playing into their hands.

That is my opinion- I have made the suggestion of a threat of litigation to assist ex SVS clients, not mislead them. Is ITI more likely to respond to a threat of litigation after 3 days or after 14 days?

johnburman

You do not threaten and then carry out that threat.  The problem is that we can not quantify losses.  So any claim is likely to be for a small amount.  I wanted to start a class action but i was told by solicitors who handle that sort of case to spk to them after 3 months non-access to accounts, 6 weeks was too short.  Anyway do issue proceedings and post your Particulars of Claim here.  I do think that a breach of contract/negligence claim (and conversion) BUT do check the T & Cs that we all signed.  What do they say restricting a claim?

collin618

I offer the following comment 
the root cause of this situation is the behaviour of SVS security who as I understand had been instructed to divest in retail bond instruments which had reach 30% in 2017.
The FCA instructed SVS to divest these assets. by August 2019 this had grown to 70%
The FCA failed in its role to protect consumers sand keep the industry stable. The link below is an on link to raise a complaint against the FCA I would encourage all to complain. 
https://www.fca.org.uk/about/complain-about-regulators/form

collin618

Apologies for the gamma really pi**ed off 

Emillion1

I think the main question clients should be asking is actually to LC.  Where are my assets? Who is administering my assets, have my assets (cash & stock) been transferred out of SVS to ITI?  If so, I would want to know whether the CASS rules have been breached putting my assets at risk? CASS Rules 6.2.2 , 6.6.19 and 9.5.4 come to mind.  

johnburman

Emillion1, the answer is that it is almost certain that assets and cash have been transferred to ITI Capital.  if not they would not have made the very few transfers that have been made.  The CASS Rules have been and are being breached on a daily basis. That is why the FCA is involved.  But what can any one client do about it?  Answer appears to be "nothing".  My concern is that the ITI IT system is so terrible, shares will be "lost" and dividends will not be captured.  This is why we all neeed to transfer out ASAP.  But in the meantime keep on updating the FCA with our complaints so they at least know what is going one.  My fear is that ITI are minimising the issues with the FCA...back to the old "teething troubles" line.   

IanManc

Jamesram said:

 IanManc said: "Of course there's nothing in the court rules that prevents starting litigation with no notice, but if you follow Practice Directions then the court won't be looking at your conduct but will turn both barrels on the other side, which is what you want......I do know what I'm talking about and you very obviously don't."

I was called to the Bar in 1983, practised in and around  the London courts until 1993, then re-qualified and practised as a litigation solicitor in the North until 2005. I also volunteered for some years as a CAB adviser dealing with debt cases on both sides. So I do have a little experience. If you were a barrister or solicitor you would be "my friend"- I had assumed that with all your knowledge you must be.

Anyway, ENOUGH - I stand by what I say, and willl  consider the discussion closed afer this post. Life is too short.

l will  just add that you are in fact distorting what I said.- a common but unattractive trait in pursuing a line of argument:

I am not proposing to start litigation " without notice" - I am proposing than is usually the case, in the particular and unusual(?!) circumstances of a rogue finance house and broker- the Rules allow for this scenario as I have pointed out. You also seem to think that this is going to be major, defended, litigation; it isn't. No one is disputing what is owed. Both sides can see the cash in ITI's accounts. ITI is simply not paying out someone else's cash on that person's demand- it is undefendable . To give them 14 days notice is playing into their hands. shorter notice

That is my opinion- I have made the suggestion of a threat of litigation to assist ex SVS clients, not mislead them. Is ITI more likely to respond to a threat of litigation after 3 days or after 14 days?

Your assertion that you are a dual qualified lawyer to try to back up your duff "opinion" doesn't improve the quality of the advice, which is woeful.

I did not distort what you said. Your advice is awful. No distortion is needed to highlight that.

However, it is you who is distorting the meaning of what I said.

When I said "there's nothing in the court rules that prevents starting litigation with no notice" I was responding to your  statement "of course  anyway there is absolutely nothing in the Court Rules of procedure to preclude M Bourse bringing a Claim on 3 days notice". I was pointing out that there was nothing in the Rules preventing commencement of litigation without any notice, i.e. less than three days.

I went on to explain why starting litigation with no notice, or only three days notice, is foolish and in breach of the Practice Direction - a Practice Direction which any competent litigation lawyer would comply with, and would not advocate breaching like you do. All litigation has its own individual and unique facts. The circumstances of this case are not complex. Resolution of the case really ought to be straightforward. That fact doesn't justify departing from the Practice Direction, and your advice to do so is poor advice. 

Your statement "To give them 14 days notice is playing into their hands" is patently wrong. Following a Practice Direction doesn't play into the hands of an opponent. For someone who purports to be a lawyer to say something so stupid is beyond belief.

You state imperiously that you "willl  consider the discussion closed afer this post" (sic) yet end your posting with a question.

No, I don't think that ITI are "more likely to respond to a threat of litigation after 3 days or after 14 days" because I don't think that ITI are competent enough to respond to any threat of litigation. However if you're going to threaten litigation then you should comply with the Court Rules and Practice Direction so that if you do have to commence proceedings then you come with clean hands and in layman's terms are bombproof, giving ITI no grounds for complaining about you and your conduct of the proceedings. That is something which anyone with any sense would do. 

Your advice to people embroiled in the ITI fiasco doesn't assist them. If you are going to give legal advice to people it should at the very least be competent.

Jamesram

Johnburman said  "You do not threaten and then [not] carry out that threat.  The problem is that we can not quantify losses.  So any claim is likely to be for a small amount.  I wanted to start a class action but i was told by solicitors who handle that sort of case to spk to them after 3 months non-access to accounts, 6 weeks was too short.  Anyway do issue proceedings and post your Particulars of Claim here.  I do think that a breach of contract/negligence claim (and conversion) BUT do check the T & Cs that we all signed.  What do they say restricting a claim?"

Quite agree with all that's in bold John. The FSO is the way to go in my view -will take many months but any class action of the sort you describe could easily take years.

As regards Particulars of Claim I am not sure if you are referring to my discussions re. the position of Monsieur Bourse and others trying to get an identified amount  of their CASH back, and ITI are not complying with Cash Withdrawal demands. That is of course quite different and a lot simpler, and the claim can be issued through Money Claims Online without the need for a solicitor.

I would not worry too much  about the T & C's myself by the way- any global attempt to restrict legal liability is likely to be found void for unreasonableness under Unfair Contract Terms legislation.

helencary

Hi, 
can anyone give me email addresses for people that I can contact at iti that I might actually get a reply from please?