SVS Securities - shut down?

Josl

shiznit76 said:

how do you check what dividends should be paid and value of them?

This information can be found on many websites providing dividend payment info such as LSE. Others are providing means to calculate (dividendmax.com). If you want to be exact, contact the firm you are holding shares of and ask them value of the dividend paid per share, multiply that with appropriate holdings and you'll have the exact figure for which you'll need to file a claim.

t237

Josl said:

Cash and both my accounts (trade & ISA) now transferred out after threat of legal injunction by my law firm. Hilariously, ITI blamed the delay on the receiving broker for not having access to clearing house. Not a chance of this being true, since receiving broker has one of the biggest brokerage setup in the country. I forwarded that piece of tidbit to FOS. 
My sympathies to fellow investors stuck in this abyss. However, this is far from over.

Update: FOS has today assigned a caseworker to my case requesting additional documents.

Could you let us know more details about the threat your law firm made? What is the injunction in respect of?

Jamesram

Josl said:

Jamesram, I agree, this is not a choice many of the small account holders can make but my accounts were significant in value and cost of threatening legal action by solicitor have still caused me fraction of the damage compared to what damage had been done by ITI (through share price fluctuations).
For smaller accounts, I recommend everyone same as you 'Small Claims Court'. Investors need to know the cost of the court can be recovered from ITI so they should not delay with dividend claims.
As shown by your post earlier, ITI do not want legal costs to mount which is a major issue as their defence has no legs to stand on.

Well I suppose in relation to compelling the transfer out of accounts, there is no reason why people should not themselves write (not email- snailmail) to ITI stating that they intend to instruct solicitors to bring a claim for an injunction to compel transfer. I don't know if you would be willing to put up the terminology used by your solicitor's letter to assist- I am a bit out of date on the rules of court etc, so might say the wrong thing if I start suggesting anything. Much of the terminology was in Latin when I qualified- I think it may have changed a bit!. Apparently ex parte is now frowned on for instance - can't think why seems perfectly Res ipsa loqitur to me

Josl

t237: A mandatory injunction legally compels a firm or individual to act on/prevent from acting on the court order. Additionally, in some circumstances you can show the court that you made effort to resolve this and have not been successful in your effort then court can issue a legal injunction to force the firm to act without delay (even without notifying the defendant (ITI Capital).
Since I reported that ITI failed to abide by the terms of earlier court order (distribution doc), my legal defence was in a position to act on this without even notifying ITI.
ITI took that prescribed action in 1 day. 

Jamesram: Letter was sent directly from my law firm to ITI, therefore I am not in possession of it. If all small accounts can jointly appoint a solicitor then progress could be made for smaller cost. This is a better option than writing letters ITI bound to ignore.

Jamesram

Thanks Josl. Yes, I was thinking about a joint approach and wondered if Sharesoc might facilitate contact with a friendly solicitor. Thanks also for pointing out the existing High Court Proceedings and ITI's responsibilities. ITI gave an Undertaking (Schedule 1 to 7 May Court Order)  as regards client monies and reverse transfers back to LC. I can't see an undertaking re transfers to an alternative broker though. The  FAQs say:

"However, as set out in the Distribution Plan, you will be able to request, by contacting the Company's client services team, after the transfer to ITI on 11 June 2020, that your Client Assets and/or Client Money be transferred back to the Company.

Further, once the transfer to ITI has completed, clients will be able to instruct to move some, or all, of their Client Assets and/or Client Money to another custodian, in accordance with ITI’s client terms of business.

See the distinction? - the right to transfer out is not contained in the Distribution Plan- maybe the parties assumed it was uneccessary, I don't know. I am also aware that the Judge himself referred clearly and specifically to a right of transfer out after the ITI  aquisition as being relevant to the decision to approve the Order- "if they don't like it they can leave, that's their protection " he (almost) said.

I am just curious as well as pleased, to learn that the existing proceedings cover us specifically in the matter of the failed transfers out- obviously it is quite compelling if you can say to ITI  "Look, get this transfer done or we are going back to Mr Justice Miles because you are taking the p**s in respect of his Lordship's High Court Judgment and Order of 7 May"- that would be great!

My2penneth

shiznit76 said:

how do you check what dividends should be paid and value of them?

For me the issue is not knowing what should have been paid (quantity of shares x dividend = £) but whether or not it has been credited to the Qort account. 

Most of our shares have now been transferred into Phoenix (start of September) and the handling of dividends in Phoenix is as it should be - I have found no discrepancies. 

rnf11

Jamesram said:

.....obviously it is quite compelling if you can say to ITI  "Look, get this transfer done or we are going back to Mr Justice Miles because you are taking the p**s in respect of his Lordship's High Court Judgment and Order of 7 May"-

...and the mechanism for doing that is???

shiznit76

My2penneth said:

shiznit76 said:

how do you check what dividends should be paid and value of them?

For me the issue is not knowing what should have been paid (quantity of shares x dividend = £) but whether or not it has been credited to the Qort account. 

Most of our shares have now been transferred into Phoenix (start of September) and the handling of dividends in Phoenix is as it should be - I have found no discrepancies. 

Yeah worked put my dividends and they are correct and were in Qort but paid in to bank account yesterday. Whats verdict here, only have a few K worth of shares held by ITI, think it is best just to take the commission hit and sell up and get my money yhtat way?

markthompson32

I am stuck trying to do a transfer out to iweb as many seem to be. They just told me i need to send a form in  and do an id check to close my account and what iweb send is not sufficient, i thought the receiving broker did it all. Is this the bit I have being missing that has stopped a transfer?

Jamesram

rnf11 said:

Jamesram said:

.....obviously it is quite compelling if you can say to ITI  "Look, get this transfer done or we are going back to Mr Justice Miles because you are taking the p**s in respect of his Lordship's High Court Judgment and Order of 7 May"-

...and the mechanism for doing that is???

Well this is rather what I was getting at - there is power to revisit the Order of a Judge, and an application can certainly be made for the issue to be heard by the particular Judge who made the Order- it won't automatically be granted of course; Judge might be unavailable. So then there is the question of the standing of an individual to make an application- we are not parties to the original claim so unless LC were to do it for us (fat chance) the individual would have to asked to be joined in to the proceedings, as a person having an interest.Not surprisingly there is law on this- Josl's solicitor, at least, apparently felt it was feasible (you are not supposed to state a course of action unless you believe you can do it, as a solicitor).

Then the next  question is: Is the matter complained of actually covered by the proceedings heard on 7 May in the High Court? As I said, I personally am rather curious about this, but again, Josl's solicitor believes it is. They may be relying on The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“the Regulations”) which cover the transfer from the Administrators to ITI - "Regulation 10 provides that a special administrator has three special administration objectives. Objective 1 is to ensure the return of client assets as soon as is reasonably practicable. First, account must be taken of the purpose of the distribution plan under the Rules, which is to assist in the achievement of Objective 1 of returning client assets as early as possible." and "The court must be satisfied that the plan provides a fair and reasonable means of effecting the distribution of the client assets to which the plan relates": notes Miles J. at paras 16 and 32 of his judgment. Maybe that is what would give the individual client the right to complain that Objective 1 has not been "ensured". - it is very complicated though- is it just the Plan which has to be satisfactory, or does Objective 1 cover events following implementation of the Plan?

Interestingly, nowhere in ITI's Terms of Business (which are annexed to and therefore part of the Distribution Plan under the Order) can I find any specific provision dealing with transfers OUT. Transfers IN are dealt with, but unless I have missed it there is no reference to a right to transfer out. (Although for ISA's there are other financial rules which provide a framework.)

Miles J also said,,at  para 37 " Provision is also made for any client who does not wish to remain with the Nominated Broker..... under the terms of business that have been negotiated, to move to another firm......"  Well fine, except I can't actually find a provision. But maybe this is a bit of a "red herring" - or maybe it is the " 6 months fee free transfer" that the Judge means is a "provision"? EDIT - I now think the Judge is definitely referring to the "New Terms" letter to Clients which was Schedule1 to the Distribution Plan and sets out the time limited fee concessions amongst other things.

Lastly I  did find this in the Ts of B- 28.4     "Where the Agreement specifies a time or period by which we or you must carry out responsibilities under it, we must both keep to these time scales and time will be of the essence in respect of those obligations. If there is no timescale given, any responsibilities must be carried out within a reasonable time in all the circumstances. We may serve notice on you, and you may serve notice on us, stating that legal action may be taken if the obligations and responsibilities are not met within a reasonable time period.

I don't think this adds anything much to ITI's legal obligations, but it may be useful to quote back at them, and the FOS, alongside the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Time of the essence means a strict time limit is imposed and is essential to the contract, but off the top of my head I am not sure any particular time limit could be applied here- no matter "reasonable time period" should do us.