SVS Securities - shut down?

Michael_Reynolds

RasputinB said:

Would it be possible to develop a list of dividends that should have been paid on the shares transferred to ITI?

I have everything in my portfolio setup in the free FT online tool. This enables me to get daily valuations and all the dividends payable. Morningstar and many others have similar free tools. 
You have the details of your holdings and cash which LC supplied at the time of transfer to ITI? If you haven't then they will give you that info on request. Set these up in one of the free tools and it will tell you the dividends paid over the last nine weeks. 
I have hammered ITI about my dividends and they are now ALL up to date in my onboarding account. You will see several balances in each currency account. The first  is for the balances transferred over to ITI by LC prior to June 23rd and doesn't show any detail (you should already have that info from LC). The second balance shows dividends received by ITI post June 23rd and is detailed under the cash statement tab.
Hope this helps

Josl

shahtx2
You are right. LC did not give us a choice to opt out and have our holdings transferred out to a broker of our choice. LC are required to give this choice which is in the legislative section of 'The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations'. In this document, there is another clause that places legal liability on the administrators to ensure the contract with transferee (ITI) must allow clients to transfer out without unreasonable delays. Craig Harrison wrote to me insisting that investors do not have the choice to stop the transfer to ITI or transfer out to another broker. In fact he went on to say that LC prefers that investors must make use of the great incentive negotiated by LC and that ITI has given assurances to hold assets 'in good faith' until a request for transfer out is arranged. This email I have sent to my law firm for a review.
FTAdviser quoted LC that more than 100 brokers came forward and showed interest in taking on the clients of SVS. Insufferable Craig Harrison told me only a half a dozen firms came forward. Smith and Williamson LLP managed to find 5 brokers for the clients of Reyker securities during the same time LC were shopping for brokers. It makes sense that it had to be unfavourable terms/fees of LC that put reputable brokers off from acquiring SVS clients. I can't think of any reason why a broker would not want to acquire thousands of clients and keep them on by providing a good service.
ITI on the other hand 1) were not interested in keeping the client base on by providing any thing that resembled a service (from day 1 they swiftly went under the cover of IT failures)  2) £283m is the best commercial loan they could acquire to support their floundering business for a few months. No bank, I know of, would offer ITI £283m on these poor financial statements. There's is a reason why ITI keep changing the business name every few years. I guarantee, ITI will be operating under a different name shortly. They can't keep the business running with this much bad publicity.
Shah, if there is any consolation, I have lost a lot more than you in capital and being a day trader, a whole lot more in loss of income.

Michael_Reynolds

Josl said:

shahtx2
You are right. LC did not give us a choice to opt out and have our holdings transferred out to a broker of our choice. LC are required to give this choice which is in the legislative section of 'The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations'. In this document, there is another clause that places legal liability on the administrators to ensure the contract with transferee (ITI) must allow clients to transfer out without unreasonable delays. Craig Harrison wrote to me insisting that investors do not have the choice to stop the transfer to ITI or transfer out to another broker. In fact he went on to say that LC prefers that investors must make use of the great incentive negotiated by LC and that ITI has given assurances to hold assets 'in good faith' until a request for transfer out is arranged. This email I have sent to my law firm for a review.
FTAdviser quoted LC that more than 100 brokers came forward and showed interest in taking on the clients of SVS. Insufferable Craig Harrison told me only a half a dozen firms came forward. Smith and Williamson LLP managed to find 5 brokers for the clients of Reyker securities during the same time LC were shopping for brokers. It makes sense that it had to be unfavourable terms/fees of LC that put reputable brokers off from acquiring SVS clients. I can't think of any reason why a broker would not want to acquire thousands of clients and keep them on by providing a good service.
ITI on the other hand 1) were not interested in keeping the client base on by providing any thing that resembled a service (from day 1 they swiftly went under the cover of IT failures)  2) £283m is the best commercial loan they could acquire to support their floundering business for a few months. No bank, I know of, would offer ITI £283m on these poor financial statements. There's is a reason why ITI keep changing the business name every few years. I guarantee, ITI will be operating under a different name shortly. They can't keep the business running with this much bad publicity.
Shah, if there is any consolation, I have lost a lot more than you in capital and being a day trader, a whole lot more in loss of income.

I think this has been covered in earlier posts. If I remember corectly in the distribution plan approved by Mr Justice Miles at the High Court our rights to have our portfolios transferred direct from LC to alternative brokers were waived? The Creditors committee which no one seems know the make of, lodged no objection. LC made it quite clear last year that there could only be a single broker and all transfers would be to them. LC have covered themselves carefully. They have a considerable reputation to protect and have covered all angles. The High Court, FCA and FSCS approved the plan. LC won't be easy to turn over. Having said all of that I entirely agree with Mr Shah. They have behaved disgacefully and should not be allowed to get away with it. I have made that quite clear in my emails to Andrew Poxon and Alex Cadwallader. I have endured 14 months of unbelievable stress and anxiety and lost a fortune to boot! It has ruined my health! The question is who should pay compensation for that?

jenwrendorset

jenwrendorset said:

RasputinB said:

If shares are "stuck" with ITI Capital because your preferred broker won't take them wouldn't it be a good idea to ask Leonard Curtis what you can do?

Done that......their response, quick as it was, actually missed the point of my email.....they have contacted the Transfer Out team on my behalf to hurry along our transfers of both Phoenix and Qort accounts however in my email I explained (quite clearly I thought!) that iWeb won't accept the Qort account so now what happens - this is part of my response back to LC and I quote

"the problem is that  iWeb will NOT accept the Qort account as it only contains the delisted BNN shares and on the other hand, ITI Capital will not accept AIM shares in their Phoenix account so my question is:  what am I supposed to do, or more to the point what are you going to do about this.  We can't be the only ex-SVS clients to hold AIM listed shares - why was this problem not known before ITI Capital took on the responsibility. If, as I suspect, these shares are going to lay dormant in a Qort account until they are relisted am I going to be charged by ITI for holding this account - after what we've all been subjected to I sincerely hope this is not the case."

I've already submitted letters of complaint to FCA; FOS and my MP so not sure where else to turn.  I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

Received the following response from LC this morning

"Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression that iWeb would not accept the BNN shares on their own, as the valuation statement they were incorrectly sent by ITI Capital only included the delisted stock.  I was assuming that iWeb would take a different view and would be able to accept the delisted shares if they were coming along with all the other tradable shares in your ITI Phoenix account.  Have you spoken to iWeb to ask if they will take the BNN shares if they form part of a transfer including the rest of your active portfolio?

 

If iWeb will not take them, you’re other options would be to:

 

1.       Keep them with ITI longer-term. I believe their custody charges are based on a percentage portfolio value, so it maybe that it won’t cost you anything to keep a currently value-less share with them – but you would need to confirm that with them;

2.       Find another broker that will accept them in a transfer from ITI;

3.       Request that they be withdrawn from ITI in certificated form so you can hold them yourself.  This option is dependent on a registrar still acting for the company being able to materialise the stock  or, if a registrar no longer acts for the company, the company doing this themselves.

 

Many SVS clients did hold AIM shares and although ITI’s Phoenix accounts cannot hold them, they are able to trade them for clients over the telephone – provided they are not delisted, like BNN currently is.

 

Yours sincerely

for and on behalf of

SVS SECURITIES PLC

I have spoken again with iWeb who have confirmed that they cannot accept any delisted shares whether individually or included in a portfolio so that has knocked that on the head.  I think my only option is to check with ITI as to whether they will levy a charge if they remain in the Qort account for the forseeable - the jury is still out as to whether they will resurface but the Chairman is writing very positively so trying to remain optimistic.  On the plus side (but I'm not convinced) iWeb has indicated that my transfer should be completed by 30/09.....I'll be watching for the pigs up there in sky.  Fingers crossed on that, now having to chase the rest of the family's transfers.

rnf11

Still no sign of any cash being transferred across from ITIC - a week after the stocks had arrived.

The potential for fraud cannot be overlooked...

johnburman

Josl ....where does it say "In this document, there is another clause that places legal liability on the administrators to ensure the contract with transferee (ITI) must allow clients to transfer out without unreasonable delays".?

n_aftab

As of this morning i have had all of my cash back and all of my stocks are now showing correctly in HL. 

pafpcg

Michael_Reynolds said:

I have been over all of this with Andrew Poxon and Alex Cadwallader (the JSAs). They are very sure of their position and have no intention of giving any ground whatsoever. Together with the FCA, FSCS and the High Court they have dumped 20,000 clients on a compnay of Russian crooks, wiped their hands and walked away! The entire infrastructure is breaking down in the UK! Believe me, during that 12 month administration I lost alot more than GBP 7,000!

Welcome to the world of Insolvency Practitioners!

The framework of law in England & Wales insulates insolvency practitioners from pretty much any liability - how else would you be able to get someone to take on the administration of a failing or bankrupt company? 

shiznit76

Sounds like HL are in front of other brokers doing the transfers

LEAR1

n_aftab said:

As of this morning i have had all of my cash back and all of my stocks are now showing correctly in HL. 

Could you give us a guide as how long the lag was between your stock appearing and the cash arriving? A week? Longer, shorter? Also, when you say 'cash back', I presume you mean arrive at HL? Or did you withdraw this to your personal account and only move your stocks to HL? Thanks