[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
Misconduct and malpractice. Investment industry "best and worst practices". Information to improve public protection. Expert witness services for industry and investors. Forensic investment analysis. • View topic - GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... &utm_term=

The costly consequences of inadequate supervision

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Ellen Bessner and Jessica Zagar
Canada
June 7 2011
A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Straus Estate v. Decaire, 2011 ONSC 1157 (“Straus”) serves to reiterate the importance of ensuring that compliance policies and proper training of sales representatives are practiced at the branch level. This is yet another cautionary tale for dealers of the importance of providing oversight and ensuring compliance policies not only exist, but are functionally implemented throughout the organization. A full copy of the case is available here.

In Straus, the plaintiffs sought damages for losses sustained from an “off-book” investment opportunity recommended by the advisor that was neither part of the dealers’ registered mutual fund financial products, nor suitable for the plaintiffs.1

The dealers argued that the terms of their contract with the advisor was limited to the sale of the dealers’ mutual funds and that the plaintiffs knew that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund and beyond the authority of the advisor as mutual fund representative of the dealers.

Despite finding that the plaintiffs were aware that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund investment, the trial judge denied the dealers’ defence and found them vicariously liable for the plaintiffs’ losses. The conduct of the dealers in failing to maintain proper compliance practices played an important role in the trial judge’s reasons for finding the dealers vicariously liable. According to the trial judge, even a “superficial inquiry” by the governance officer would have revealed that the advisor was actively engaged in off-book activity.

While the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was denied, the trial judge took the rare step of awarding the plaintiffs substantially all of their costs (full indemnity costs) to restore the plaintiffs to their original financial position, in effect punishing the defendants for being motivated by profit through the exploitation of trust and for the defendants’ assertion at trial that the plaintiffs were the authors of their own misfortune.

(nearly every case of financial abuse I have seen carries that "you were the author of your own misfortune" defence by the industry. I am pleased to see in this case the investment dealer being punished for such a false and bullying tactic. If one checks the advertising, the promises implied, the terms used to mislead and misinform the public by most investment sellers, they will soon learn that the industry practices the world's best "bait and switch", to do financial violence to customers. see http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgary/larry-elford for a full explanation of the industry bait and switch)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:18 pm

Hi Larry,

Questions for you:

Re the statement below that you write:

If you were to combine the MFDA "suitability" rule violation by IG with the false and misleading title that IG allows it's licensed sellers to use to misinform investors, you will have struck a blow for not only yourself but for millions of others. I hope you see the position of strength you are in by having possession of this info about IG.

i) Does this mean that MFDA is getting a little nervous at all?

ii) Since I “caught them” (MFDA) – should I be hiring a lawyer? Would anyone take my case at all?

What are your thoughts on this.

========================================================================

Yes, you have caught them in violating industry rules, industry principles, their VERY OWN rules on suitability, on title misrepresentation and perhaps criminal code laws on fraud and misrepresentation. Certainly the criminal provisions in the Competition Act of Canada against "misrepresentation".

You are a victim of a classic "bait and switch" in which you the customer, are led to believe that you are dealing with a trusted and trained professional investment person, and then when push comes to shove, you find you have been lied to and given a buyer beware relationship with a correspondence school commission salesperson, who does not even posses a licence for the category of professional that he or she led you to believe...........

You have them soooooo caught, that you are very much in the drivers seat, IF you know what to do with it. here is what will probably happen though, based on my experience with the industry.

First they will jerk you around for years......you may have already seen some of that. They will refer you to one of hundreds of people all paid to protect THEM. Paid by them.

Second, if they are really, really caught, they will offer you pennies on the dollar for your losses, subject to you signing away your rights to share what happened to you. Your silence will be "bought" with your own money.

If you accept that, and 99% of Canadians do accept that deal, (after years of bullying), they will have earned the right to go forward and do this same financial violence to thousands and thousands of others with impunity since your silence, bought with your own pain and money, will let them.

I look forward to the day when one, just one Canadian, steps out of that procession, and makes sure that the world knows what they are doing to financially molest Canadians.

Demand all your money back, threaten to file criminal charges, summarize your story in a one page "release" for the media if you need to follow through on those threats, and show them who holds the cards in this case. If you do not, they are very likely to bully you into the same end game that they do with the rest.

cheers and best

larry

Be using FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, VIOLATIONS of MFDA RULES etc., etc loudly and often in your complaint and it will change the tone from the weasel-like discussion you are now engaged in about "disclosure" of the DSC ( which may or may not have merit). The "disclosure" debate is a great smoke screen to keep you away from the more serious violations they have done.

PS. Re: the lawyer thing. I do not know the answer to this one. It depends on whether you are going to "follow the system", "fall into the system", "buck the system", "find a lawyer that will help you to buck the system".................I would be happy to be on a conference call with a lawyer, and to help him or her to understand the damages/violations, IF you can find one who can and will listen, and help you to write some letters on your behalf. THAT would be a huge benefit, just to have a legal mind to help you write and think outside your situation. $500 to $1000 spent up front for some talented help in this area would work wonders for getting beyond the "bullshit and bullying" stage that financial industry players usually operate under.

Do it, if you need my help, I am happy to help edit or contribute. Best solution, if you can would be to find the right lawyer and see if they understand some of the violations I have given you to think about in regards to your situation.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:44 pm

the following may also be posted in MFDA topic, abuse by trusted professional topic, etc, but I felt it held such significant information that points toward fraudulent misrepresentation that it had to be posted in the GET YOUR MONEY BACK topic, for those who have been used and abused.

The situation seems to be that the industry has every well written rule in the book, which is necessary and well intentioned. However, the enforcement of this rule book is left to people whose very salaries are paid for by the industry itself, so the self regulation aspect leads to a very client damaging "de-criminalization". See below:



Two questions for the MFDA.

Question # 1, Misrepresentation refers to the MFDA requirement not to
mislead, misinform or misrepresent oneself or ones role as an
investment industry employee.

For example, MFDA Rule 1.2.1(e) generally prohibits Approved Persons
from using any business name (or title) or designation that deceives
or misleads, or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead, a
client or any other person as to the proficiency or qualifications of
the Approved Person. In addition, business titles that deceive or
mislead clients or the public as to the Approved Person's category of
registration are also prohibited.


How then, do you justify and allow investment persons who are
registered, licensed, and compensated in the license category of
"salesperson", to inform, advertise, and generally represent
themselves to the public as being trusted, professional, "advisors"?
(advisor being a totally different license and registration category,
different duty of care, different motivation and compensation)

Question #2, Suitability refers to the MFDA requirement that
investment industry persons should ensure that each and every trade
meet suitability requirements:
===========================================================================================

From MFDA MEMBER REGULATION NOTICE MR-0069 regarding “suitability”. To the extent that there is subjectivity in the analysis, the expectation
of MFDA staff is that the Member and AP take the most conservative
approach and act in the best interests of the client:

How do you explain (or allow) mutual fund salespersons to place mutual
funds product sales into the highest revenue generating mutual fund
class (DSC), when equal and identical mutual fund classes are more
cost effective to the client, and therefore more suitable for the
client?" This practice is forbidden by US regulators, yet accepted or
ignored by yours. Why?

I believe that actions or infractions against the public, such as the
above, are a contributing factor in bringing about the conditions of a
“perfect storm” in our financial markets. I ask that you please
explain your part in condoning these actions or in failing to police
them.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:25 pm

dantemoneybags.jpg
"ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE"

Dante finally enters hell-- at least its outer region--by passing through a gateway. The inscription above this gate--ending with the famous warning to "abandon all hope"-- establishes Dante's hell..................

If a financially abused investor accepts and trusts in the objectivity and impartiality of the Canadian financial regulatory system to protect the abused investor, and if that abused investor enters into the regulatory and self regulatory maze of self serving dealers from hell, I say that Dantes quote should be placed above the entrances to the OCS, MFDA, IDA, IIROC, ASC, BCSC, SFSC, MSC, CBA, CCIR, CFIE, CICA, CSA, CFSON, FATF, FCAC, FSCO, ICB, IOSCO, IFIC, ETC......

Once you enter, you will be turning your life and your complaint over to the very people who are paid a salary NOT to resolve your complaint and NOT to see that you are made whole. Finance is the only retail game in the world that still has a "no satisfaction, no return" policy, even on knowingly toxic, and tainted, misrepresented products.

DO NOT enter into the self regulatory den to get your money back. Go directly to an experienced lawyer and stick to simple right from wrong. I am happy to help with the details.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:14 pm

I found this rule section from the MFDA :

1. Relationship Disclosure Requirements MFDA
Rule 2.2.5 (Relationship Disclosure) requires that, on account opening, all clients be provided with written disclosure that sets out certain core information about the nature of their relationship with the Member and its Approved Persons. The required disclosure, which may be adopted in one document or several, includes a description of:
• the nature of the advisory relationship; • products and services offered by the Member; • the Member’s procedures regarding the receipt and handling of client cash/cheques;
• the Member’s obligation to ensure that each order accepted or recommendation made is suitable for the client and advising when the Member will assess the suitability of investments in the client’s account;
====================================================================================================================
(advocate comments on the MFDA info above are this:

1. wouldn't you think that part of the "all clients be provided with written disclosure that sets out certain core information about the nature of their relationship" rule would include the part where the salesperson has to place in writing that they are indeed a salesperson, rather than continuing the ruse of "financial planner", "wealth manager", "consultant", "advisor", or about anything but what they are licensed and compensated as?
2. And as for "the nature of the advisory relationship", it is probably not practiced that they should be telling clients that they are not licensed, nor compensated as advisors, but only as salespersons. (I will dually post this info in "GET YOUR MONEY BACK" topic as this matter should be available for the courts to decide upon)
3. The suitability obligation is also discussed in the get your money back section. The industry position is this: "everything we sell is suitable". Whereas the industry practice is to search among the open field of "suitable investments and too often sell the one which pays the most commission. Further, if two otherwise identical investments are available, the industry tends to strongly favour sales of the choice which gives them the higher commission. Evidence of sales (and not advisory) relationship is very heavy and goes beyond the fact that most are licensed in the category of sales.
4. It is simple consumer fraud, when an industry participant misrepresents his services, AND his license to provide those services. Inflating his position to one where no such duty or qualifications exist is a criminal offence. The only reason it is allowed is due to a plethora of organizations like the MFDA, who tout great rules, but enforce only those they so choose. It allows an entire industry of "reputation protection" to be built around the financial industry, allows them to capture the high moral ground with this, and then allows them to do immoral things to the public and skim billions of dollars with impunity............to be continued
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:43 pm

Laying private charges, (called "Lay an information" in section 504 of the criminal code, page 1072 of Tremeears Criminal Code 2011.

Most investment (abused) customers are informed by the various police agencies they approach, that they "will have to deal with the securities commissions with investment problems", and thus criminal code violations are largely ignored by every police agency in Canada that I am familiar with. Then again, the RCMP Securities police (IMET), have an annual budget of about $17 million for the entire country, so they can handle less cases than a couple dozen cases for the entire country. Chance are your case will not even hit the trash as the RCMP. They are widely written in Canadian media, as being an abject failure. (Search RCMP in this forum for yourself).

My notes from reading it yesterday are that "anyone can lay an information......before a justice.......about an indictable offence......" It certainly does not mean that it will be followed up on, but it might, (just might) be one of the methods by which independent research (like Diane Urquhart etc) and information can be shown to be of higher and better quality than any police agency in Canada. It might be a stepping stone towards the type of Securities Investigative Unit that she and Hugh envision. I would fully support and sign my name to such a project, and I think if others were in agreement, that it might have some impact. It certainly would be newsworthy , would it not, if the RCMP were shown to be incapable of proper investigation and prosecution.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:04 pm

(the following info was shared with one or two victims of fraudulent investment selling practices, by trusted Canadian institutions. I assume that the same was done to millions of people overall, and that some of this might also serve others who have been victimized.)
===================================================================================================================================

Some thoughts about your predicament: (take what works for you and leave the rest...)

1. Your case is a very important and delicate one (speaks to fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent selling practices) the investment industry has so long operated as it's own judges, that it no longer feels it has to answer to anyone.......for any infraction. It feels as if it is "above the law."

2. for those and other reasons (industry breaking laws consistently) YOU are the one in charge and in the one holding the cards......THEY are the ones who should be frightened of this

3. due to a well developed "reputation protection system" and "self regulation" they have nothing to fear from you unless you work and think outside the box

4. if you try to solve your problem with the same level of "help" that got you into the situation, you will be twice victimized (if you succumb to the lure of an investment industry regulator solution to your complaint)

5. exposure, threat of lawsuit, threat of criminal sanction, threat of legislative changes are all things that the industry would fear

6. your background with PR might serve you in any one of these areas (or others I have not mentioned)

7. OBSI is in the news at the moment so this should help (except with timid reporters)

8. document your story, make it short, make it sweet, make it clear to understand the case of abuse

9. figure out a way to give it very wide exposure (i will publish is to begin, but that is not very wide)

10. file a small claims court action for $50,000 against your seller for the various frauds and unethical sales practices (you already have Ellen Roseman Star article, OBSI recommendation, my writing etc to support this)

11. small claims court is free to use

12. small claims puts your case on public record

13. public record is what your investment seller most afraid of (repetitional damage.......millions of other clients might follow suit)

14. give up working within the "system" and use the courts instead (ask for the maximum due to the further abuse of withholding your money from you for a year or two)

15. as a legal step and to raise the stakes on the company file private charge of criminal code violations (called "laying an information") with the courts (also free). I know of only one person who has done this in Canada, and it would also be somewhat of a newsbreaking story to have a private person hold large corporation to account for criminal violation........believe me, I do not expect you to win with such an action........you will only be making waves with this action, possibly making news for your case of abuse, and making the road paved and easier for the next abused person

16. that is about it for the moment. That alone should keep you busy for a long time. Keep working with your investment seller, and as you keep raising the stakes until they start to become a little too high for the firm to ignore, you should eventually have success. they will pay you to make your claim go away just to prevent embarrassment.

summary........in their opinion, you have no cards, and no power. They have both. Go outside their level of thinking, and play the cards that you have very, very hard and I think you will change their position.

I am not giving advice, nor opinion, having not enough info about your case, your side and their side. this is just what I would do if I were sold the highest cost product by a guy who led me to believe he was there to advise me professionally.........especially if I learned later that he did not even honestly represent to me what his true licence was. Really illegal practices should not be met with "tough luck, we are bigger than you, and we police ourselves". I oppose abuse and that is abuse or bullying.

Imagine an industry that can use fraud and abuse to get money from trusting people, and then bullying to keep from paying ti back and you will imagine what the public should be aware of.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon May 30, 2011 7:37 pm

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (2.97 KiB) Viewed 12246 times
Principles of common law say that if your represent yourself to others in some fashion, lets say as a financial "advisor", then you have assumed a duty to act in such a manner. If on the other hand, you are simply utilizing the path of least marketing resistance, namely fooling people with a professional and accountable sounding name or title, and then duping them into commission sales tricks for your own benefit..........if that is the game, then........hey, wait a minute, that IS the game in Canada.

Get a lawyer, and get your money back. Don't even bother with the industry lineup of highly paid and highly loyal "self regulators". Self regulation involving money pretty quickly turns into some form of decriminalization. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 8:32 am

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (11.75 KiB) Viewed 12300 times
S

Won $450,000 case today without trial .[ 100% recovery + interest]
Case involved unauthorized trading,fund churning and wholly unecessary borrowing to invest in high MER mutfunds..
The 85 year old widow 's eyes said Thank You . Her voice siad God Bless You.
What a high and great feeling. Took 14 mos. and many letters ,statistical analysis and spreadsheets!

Have to sign gag order but it's finally over..

The dealer capitualated at the 12th hour.

With Bin Laden finished off, today was a day to remember.

K

(advocate comment......it is unfortunate that our trusted Canadian investment firms will practice this kind of financial bullying towards their customers when they get caught causing financial violence upon them. An 85 year old widow is an easy target for financial predators, posing as professionals. Adding insult to injury is the failure to make her whole once caught and pushed into court.........finally forcing a gag order seems like an industry blackmail deal to give her own money back in exchange for silence...........it prevents the public from being informed or warned and allows the financial predator to repeat this process again and again upon others. How many crimes must our investment industry be allowed to "perfect" before we lift a finger? Buyer Beware in Canadian investing)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:11 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-06 at 10.50.18 AM.png


The images above and below, (CLICK ON THEM TO ENLARGE) describe some of the BEST EXECUTION duties that your investment broker, seller "advisor" must meet in order to be meeting his or her obligations to you to deal fairly. I have NEVER seen these rules enforced. Thirty years of overcharging clients, double dipping, DSC funds, whatever it takes to put the client into the maximum revenue generation scheme. That is part of the "decriminalization" that results from self regulation. Take this info with you into court (not the industry Kangaroo court process) and get your money back if your salesperson has not met his or her obligations to you. If you go into the industry dispute resolution process, you will enter the "decriminalization" zone. Do not go there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see also: MFDA rules that you should count on to demand your money back when you discover that your "advisor" has not met these in your case:

“Rule 2.1.1 Standard of Conduct.
Each Member and each Approved Person of a Member shall:
(a) deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with its clients;
(b) observe high standards of ethics and conduct in the transaction of business;
(c) not engage in any business conduct or practice which is unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest
Attachments
Screen shot 2011-04-06 at 10.45.27 AM.png
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:34 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-28 at 9.23.01 AM.jpg

The above image comes from the ONTARIO SECURITIES ACT April 2011

Why do "advisors" or "advisers" represent themselves as such when they are in fact most often licensed as "salesperson" (pre 2009) and "dealing representative" post 2009)?

I feel it forms part of the "bait and switch" where the industry does everything possible to lead the public to think they are gaining the services of a trusting, professional advisor (someone who would give advice in your best interests), when in fact 80% to 90% of the time what is truly given to the customer is a sales pitch by a commission salesperson, who does NOT have an advisor license.
This would be a fraud, but a fraud that is aided by the legal minds at the OSC......who are in turn paid for by the investment industry.
I hope to see this legal trickery or attempts to defraud the public through trickery corrected.

See other forum posts on advisor fraud topic on this web site, to see how well the more than 60 lawyers at the OSC alone can play legal tricks on the consuming public.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:26 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-28 at 9.34.55 AM.jpg
Here is an image copied from the Ontario Securities Commission

If your investment "advisor" has sold you DSC funds, for the higher commission and for the trailing fees, when there were cheaper fund classes and choices available for the IDENTICAL fund you bought.......you must ask yourself if your "advisor" actually gave you the most "suitable" product choice, and the best "advice" he or she could give you, or .............were you sold the most "suitable" product for them, the best "advice" for them.

From MFDA MEMBER REGULATION NOTICE MR-0069 regarding “suitability”. To the extent that there is subjectivity in the analysis, the expectation
of MFDA staff is that the Member and AP take the most conservative
approach and act in the best interests of the client:


How do you (MFDA) explain (or allow) mutual fund salespersons to place mutual
funds product sales into the highest revenue generating mutual fund
class (DSC), when equal and identical mutual fund classes are more
cost effective to the client, and therefore more suitable for the
client?" This practice is forbidden by US regulators, yet accepted or
ignored by yours. Why?


This indicates a failure of the industry requirements to act fairly, honestly and in the clients interest. You should be fighting for your money back. You are a victim of the "bait and switch" described at

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgary/larry-elford
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:01 am

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ge-43.html

Some unique provisions of the Competition Act of Canada that are NOT enforced by this government agency when it comes to the financial services industry.........net result is that financial services predators get a free pass to violate these laws and violate your financial interests.

from section 52. of the act "False or Misleading representations".


General impression to be considered

(4) In a prosecution for a contravention of paragraph (3)(a), the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning shall be taken into account in determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
(this means that those persons who give customers a "general impression" of trust, professionalism and reliance, when they are only commission salespeople may be in violation of this provision........see http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgar ... and-switch )
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:31 pm

B Managers.jpg
If your investment "advisor" has sold you the DSC fund (deferred sales charge) please read the "tricks of the trade" section of this forum and view the enclosed page from the Canadian Securities Institute Branch Manager Training course. (The bottom of page 181 is highlighted in yellow and if you click on it it should get larger and easier to read. It will tell you how your "advisor" took advantage of your trust in him or her.)

From the other posts in this forum (tricks of the trade etc) you will find that your "advisor" is not licensed as an "advisor", has violated the "suitability" rules by selling you the fund class which pays them the highest commission and highest trailing commission, AND they have violated the "best execution rules" of the industry by giving you the poorest cost advantage possible, and the best commission advantage available to them. (Well, not every time, just 80% to 90% of the time according to Canadian Mutual find industry sales stats)

Get your money back from people who fraudulently misrepresent themselves to you and from people who "bait" you with a promise of investment "advice" and then "switch" you by delivering a commission sales relationship. That too is fraud. It is in the criminal code definition of fraud and in the Criminal provisions of the Competition Act of Canada (see topic) on misrepresentation.
Attachments
Screen shot 2011-04-09 at 9.18.19 PM.png
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:52 am

Fund dealer’s lawsuit against former consultant can proceed to trial, court rules

IGFS seeking $150,000 from McKee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty

Monday, April 4, 2011

By James Langton

Advertisement

An Ontario court is letting a case proceed to trial in which a mutual fund dealer is suing a former consultant over allegedly poor advice provided to two clients.

The province’s Superior Court of Justice has ruled that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial in a suit brought by Investors Group Financial Services Inc. against a former consultant, Alex McKee.

According to the decision, the action brought by Investors Group is seeking $150,000 in damages for breach of contract and, alternatively, breach of fiduciary duty. The firm alleges McKee provided negligent investment advice to a pair of clients when he recommended a leveraged investment strategy to them. (advocate comment......unless your "advisor" sold you investments without a sales commission, and in the lowest possible cost to you, it is most likely that his or her motivation to tell you to leverage is simple.......to increase his or her commissions. If this has happened to you, you have two practice "infractions" against your salesperson: One is violating the "cost" aspect of the "suitability" rule, and Two is violating securities industry regulations regarding "best trade execution". Add in the third of negligent advice to maximize his or her own commissions and you have a strong case to getting your money back.......just DO NOT enter into the investment industry Kangaroo court process. They own each and every referee)

McKee brought a motion seeking dismissal of the action on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period. He argued that the firm became aware of the clients’ complaint about the quality of the advice they had received in October 2004, meaning the statement of claim against him by the firm was out of time when it was served in November 2006.

The firm argued that the limitation period did not begin to run until after its investigation into their complaint was completed in December 2005, as that was the point when it realized it might have a claim against McKee.

After an investigation of the clients’ complaint, the firm entered into a settlement with the clients in March 2006, in which it paid $150,000. It began an action in November 2006 seeking $150,000 in damages from McKee.

In this case, the court found that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. “I do not accept the defendant’s submission that the plaintiff knew of the clients’ complaint about negligent advice in October 2004, so that the limitation period began to run at that time,” the court said.

Instead, the court said that the essence of the complaint in October 2004 was the amount of the charges imposed on the clients, and that complaint was settled. A second complaint regarding the quality of the advice provided was lodged in March 2005. “There is no indication in that letter that the clients had taken issue with the quality of the advice earlier, or that they had sought compensation from the plaintiff for it,” the court notes.

“The defendant has not satisfied me that the limitation period began to run in October 2004, and, therefore, that the action is statute-barred. As there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the motion for summary judgment is dismissed,” the concluded, awarding the firm costs of $7,500.00, payable within 30 days.

IE
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron