SVS Securities - shut down?

Michael_Reynolds

pafpcg said:

In my working life, I tried to adopt the policy to "under-promise but over-deliver" - clearly, ITI has a radically different philosophy!

An excellent philosophy which I share. Sadly ITI don't have a philosophy or a plan. They are like policitians. They make it up as they go along. It is entirely motivated by greed.

Michael_Reynolds

In the words of my esteemed colleague I see that the "Lurking Trolls" have re-emerged from their dark corners. Beware of those beaing false testimony.

Michael_Reynolds

I'd like to return now to the subject of LC's appointment of the members of the Creditors committee. 
In reply to my recent letter LC stated the following:

At the initial meeting of creditors and clients of SVS held on 10 October 2019, the clients and creditors in attendance (in person or by way of proxy) resolved to form a Creditors' Committee. Nominations for membership of the Creditors' Committee were received by the Joint Special Administrators from clients and creditors. Those nominees for membership of the Creditors' Committee in turn consulted and made recommendations to the Joint Special Administrators regarding the composition of the Creditors' Committee.

Following careful consideration of those recommendations, the Creditors' Committee was formally constituted on 23 October 2019 and, on 30 October 2019, the Joint Special Administrators announced via the dedicated website (www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/svs) that the elected members of the Creditors' Committee were:

-               Mr Paul Glaser;

-               Dr Patrick Wright;

-               Mr Bin Lou, being represented by Mr Salam Alaswad;

-               Mr Harry Mount; and

-               the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

In addition to the above, the following observers were appointed 

-               Mr Allen Challender;

-               Ms Jing Ying Yang; and

-               Mr Ian (Chris) Underwood.

The members of the Creditors' Committee represent the client and creditor bodies of SVS as a whole (rather than the interests of certain parties or individuals) in the special administration. There is therefore no single representative of clients and/or creditors, but a combined representation across the Creditors' Committee

I find the wording of the two paragraphs above regarding the selection, election & final constitution of the committee on Oct 10th, 23rd & 30th to be very odd? I don't recall at any stage being requested to complete a proxy form for the meeting on Oct 10th or indeed at any time to elect these faceless, now uncontactable people, to represent our interests throughout the course of the administration? It seems to me that this was a crucial event in the timeline and almost certainly when we lost a major part of any control of the process. Presumably all of these people attended the meeting holding sufficent proxy votes to get themselves elected? Can anyone outline for me exactly how that would have been possible? i think we need to see alot more detail from LC regarding this meeting on Oct 10th? Numbers of attendees, agenda, voting procedure etc etc?

eskbanker

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

johnburman said:

I have received an email from Jarvis x-o saying that they have had mass delay with transfers from ITI and HERE IS THE INTERESTING BIT they have informed the FCA.

There is no progress with our transfers which are now 9 weeks old. 

One wonders what the FCA is doing about this.... !!!!!! all for all I can see. BUT we should keep the FCA informed as to our position and keep the complaints to them coming. 

Many ISA transfers between numerous permutations of providers have been conducted well outside guideline timescales this year, given the Covid crisis that has naturally impacted on resourcing and efficiency levels throughout the financial services industry (and all others).  Not saying that the delays with transfers from ITI can be solely attributed to such issues but just highlighting that they're far from alone in not operating at the desired level, i.e. don't expect that FCA to leap into action for this particular company when they're not really out of step with what many others have been doing without apparent sanction.  That doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right of course!

Are you you for real, this has been going on for well over a year.   

For the avoidance of doubt, my comments clearly related specifically to the subject of delays in transfers - ITI were only announced as the new broker four months ago and no transfers could actually be initiated until late July at the earliest.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to defend them, I'm just observing that their performance on transfers isn't noticeably out of step with many other companies during these turbulent times - obviously this doesn't make it right or acceptable, but is worth bearing in mind when expecting the FCA to ride in on the white charger....

eskbanker

Michael_Reynolds said:

I don't recall at any stage being requested to complete a proxy form for the meeting on Oct 10th or indeed at any time to elect these faceless, now uncontactable people, to represent our interests throughout the course of the administration? It seems to me that this was a crucial event in the timeline and almost certainly when we lost a major part of any control of the process. Presumably all of these people attended the meeting holding sufficent proxy votes to get themselves elected? Can anyone outline for me exactly how that would have been possible? i think we need to see alot more detail from LC regarding this meeting on Oct 10th? Numbers of attendees, agenda, voting procedure etc etc?

See https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Joint-Special-Administrators-Report-Statement-of-Proposals-25.09.2019-1.pdf and in particular paragraph 1.8, section 15, and appendix J, also the voting info towards the end of https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Slideshow-Presentation-made-to-the-Meeting-of-Clients-and-Creditors-on-10-October-2019-17.10.2019.pdf

Michael_Reynolds

eskbanker said:
See https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Joint-Special-Administrators-Report-Statement-of-Proposals-25.09.2019-1.pdf and in particular paragraph 1.8, section 15, and appendix J, also the voting info towards the end of https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Slideshow-Presentation-made-to-the-Meeting-of-Clients-and-Creditors-on-10-October-2019-17.10.2019.pdf

Thank you so much for digging this all out. I found it very interesting. I then looked at my emails and found that yes I had completed a proxy form and I'm ashamed to say, probably like many, others I gave my proxy to the chairman thinking of course that Julian Irving would do a wonderful job for us! How wrong I was!

I did note from the statement of proposals 25/9/19 that the weight of a client's vote would be calculated based on the value of their claim. I quote from the powerpoint presentation of Oct 10th "Votes are calculated on the value of claims"

So we then move on to the next LC update which really is interesting. THE RESULT OF THE VOTE : https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Report-on-the-Outcome-of-the-Initial-Meeting-of-Clients-and-Creditors-on....pdf 

I'm afraid it looks like we've all been asleep at the wheel? £17,074,257.02 in favour of the committee = Resolution Passed – 99.45%!  £17M represents only about 8% of the total assets?. 

So my conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.  Only 8% voted and those were probably proxies given to Julien Irving. It doesn't look like there were too many in the room? I am astonished that LC didn't record the number of attendees at the meeting or the numbers of  voters in each category. No doubt these faceless committee members were in attendance and got the job by default? Did anyone currently posting on this blog actually attend?

It's probably our own fault? If we wanted to be represented by a committee of people we could trust it was incumbent upon us to attend and vote.  I now live in Australia where voting is compulsory.

eskbanker

Michael_Reynolds said:

Did anyone currently posting on this blog actually attend?

It's probably our own fault? If we wanted to be represented by a committee of people we could trust it was incumbent upon us to attend and vote.

I think this hits the nail on the head - as I recall there was only one poster who put him/herself forward for nomination to the creditors committee and only one who claimed to have actually attended the meeting, which reinforces the impression that talk is cheap, i.e. it's one thing for posters to make belligerent sabre-rattling posts on here and to fire off stroppy emails to all and sundry, but another to get more actively involved and walk the walk.

rnf11

That Client and Creditors meeting seems such a long time ago now.

I attended.

There was no expectation whatsover that the X-O ex SVS clients would end up involuntarily in the situation that so many of us are still now in.

Circumstances have changed, but the clock is not for turning back....

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

...performance on transfers isn't noticeably out of step with many other companies...

Exactly right and I would also agree that people might expect more of the FOS than they are likely to get.

Have a look at https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk and compare with https://www.trustpilot.com/review/iticapital.com Two organisations that are a disgrace!

sweetsand

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

...performance on transfers isn't noticeably out of step with many other companies...

Exactly right and I would also agree that people might expect more of the FOS than they are likely to get.

Have a look at https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk and compare with https://www.trustpilot.com/review/iticapital.com Two organisations that are a disgrace!

Still worth reporting IMHO. Sadly, with the advent of Covid, that is being used as an excuse. IMO there should be someone that you can complain to complain to about them.