Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am ... &utm_term=

The costly consequences of inadequate supervision

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Ellen Bessner and Jessica Zagar
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 for a full explanation of the industry bait and switch)
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:07 am


JUNE 25, 2011
Madoff Trustee Raises J.P. Morgan Claims to $19 Billion

The trustee seeking to recover money for Bernard Madoff's victims filed an amended complaint Friday that increases the damages being sought from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to $19 billion from $5.4 billion.

The amended lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges that J.P. Morgan ignored or dismissed warning signs about the Madoff fraud even as it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its relationship with the firm.
The trustee, Irving Picard, made similar allegations when he filed a first complaint against J.P. Morgan last year.
The damage request jumped by $13.6 billion because the amended complaint includes life-to-date damages and a jury demand, said a spokeswoman for the trustee. The trustee separately is seeking the recovery of $400 million in allegedly fraudulent transfers and "at least" $500 million in revenue J.P. Morgan made "off the back of Madoff's victims."

New evidence cited by the trustee includes an unnamed financial institution that "in or about" 1997 assigned an investigator to examine Mr. Madoff's many transactions with J.P. Morgan.
This investigator questioned Mr. Madoff's employees, and the unnamed financial institution closed its own Madoff account after "having failed to receive a satisfactory explanation for the suspicious account activity," according to the complaint. The trustee said the investigator "would have contacted" J.P. Morgan Chase about the transactions.

A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman said the amended complaint is "meritless and is based on distortions of both the relevant facts and the governing law." J.P. Morgan "did not know about or in any way become party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff."
There is a detailed description in the amended complaint of Mr. Madoff's relationship with Sterling Equities, a real-estate firm founded by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. Sterling was among Mr. Madoff's biggest customers and also a private banking customer of J.P. Morgan. Sterling Equities has denied any knowledge of the fraud.
Write to Dan Fitzpatrick at
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 3:51 pm

Deutsche Bank Accused Of Massive Mortgage Fraud, Sued for $1 Billion By U.S. Government

First Posted: 05/ 3/11 04:35 PM ET Updated: 05/ 3/11 04:42 PM ET


The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world's 10 biggest banks by assets, on Tuesday for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by "repeatedly" lying to a federal agency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages.

MortgageIT, a subsidiary of Germany's largest lender, egregiously violated federal rules that came with government backing on more than 39,000 mortgages worth more than $5 billion since 1999, according to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court.

By funneling risky mortgages to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration, MortgageIT's loans were guaranteed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. A third of those mortgages, or about 12,500, have since defaulted, leaving the government on the hook.

On more than 3,100 of its FHA-guaranteed mortgages that have defaulted, HUD has paid more than $386 million in claims to the owners of the mortgage debt, according to the lawsuit. More than two-thirds of those mortgages defaulted within two years of origination.

As of February, more than 7,500 additional mortgages, with more than $888 million in unpaid principal balances, also had defaulted without HUD paying any claims. About half of those defaulted within the first two years.

The agency expects to pay "at least hundreds of millions of dollars" in additional claims as more risky mortgages default in the months and years ahead, according to the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank made "substantial profits" by selling these loans to investors, the suit claims. Federal authorities identified some of the MortgageIT practices that now form the basis of its suit as far back as 2003. Despite warnings, the problems continued.


The Justice Department is seeking damages three times the amount HUD has already shelled out for defaulted mortgages with allegedly fraudulently-obtained government insurance, plus additional penalties for each mortgage that broke federal rules.

While private investors have thus far faced a long, slow war battling lenders and connected Wall Street firms to buy back toxic mortgages investors claim were sold to them fraudulently, the government's suit is fairly straightforward. As part of the FHA program MortgageIT participated in, lenders are required to annually certify that they check basic records like borrowers' incomes, credit history and employment record. The lenders also are required to review loans that quickly default to guard against sloppy lending practices, and act in the government's best interests because taxpayers are bearing the risks for potentially poor loans.

Deutsche did none of those things, according to the lawsuit.

The lender "recklessly selected mortgages that violated program rules in blatant disregard of whether borrowers could make mortgage payments," the government claims. "While Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT profited from the resale of these government-insured mortgages, thousands of American homeowners have faced default and eviction."

Deutsche acquired MortgageIT for about $430 million in January 2007. At the time, Deutsche said MortgageIT was "one of the fastest-growing and largest residential mortgage loan originators in the U.S." and would help the bank expand its mortgage securitization business.

On Tuesday, a Deutsche spokeswoman, Renee Calabro, said that "close to 90 percent of the activity" alleged in the lawsuit occurred prior to the bank's purchase of the lending unit.

"We believe the claims against MortgageIT and Deutsche Bank are unreasonable and unfair, and we intend to defend against the action vigorously," Calabro said in a statement.

From 2007 through early 2009, Robert Khuzami, the current head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, served as Deutsche's lawyer overseeing regulatory matters and investigations. He was not named in the Justice Department's suit.

In the suit, authorities spelled out a variety of alleged abuses that paint the Deutsche subsidiary as a reckless lender that employed minimal oversight over its operations. When alert employees raised concerns over violations, upper management, including the president of MortgageIT at the time, failed to act, the suit claims.

The firm's president knew there were problems with its loan underwriting as early as 2005, according to the lawsuit.

Upper management at MortgageIT "knowingly, wantonly, and recklessly permitted egregious underwriting violations to continue unabated," the lawsuit alleges. "These failures caused the government millions of dollars in losses."

In one example of the firm's reckless attitude, an outside auditor’s reports that found "serious underwriting violations" at MortgageIT were “literally stuffed in a closet and left unread and unopened" in 2004, according to the suit.

The firm should have had up to eight employees reviewing loans it peddled to FHA. Instead, it never employed more than one person, the suit claims. By the end of 2007, that one person was producing loans, instead of reviewing them.

On three separate occasions in 2003, 2004 and 2006 the firm was told by federal authorities to fix its deficient review practices. Each time, MortgageIT said it had complied. And each time, it lied, the suit claims.

Twice in 2005, employees at the firm went to upper management to complain about poor underwriting practices. Management did nothing, the suit claims.

The lawsuit follows two separate reports this year by HUD's inspector general. In one, the internal watchdog faulted the agency for its poor oversight of FHA-approved lenders. In the other, it found that more than 49 percent of loans underwritten by FHA-approved lenders in a sample did not conform to the agency's requirements.

"These companies repeatedly and brazenly breached the public trust," said Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. "This lawsuit sends them -- and other lenders -- the message that they cannot get away with lies and recklessness. They cannot casually assign the prospect of being caught to the cost of doing business."
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 9:15 am


(photo not related to case described, illustrative only)

Justice Binnie observed that “protracted litigation has become the sport of kings in the sense that only kings or equivalent can afford it. Those who inflict it on others in the hope of significant personal gain and fail can generally expect adverse cost consequences.”

Case Name:
Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc.

Douglas Kerr, S. Grace Kerr and James Frederick Durst,
Danier Leather Inc., Jeffrey Wortsman and Bryan Tatoff,
Respondents, and
Ontario Securities Commission, Intervener.

[2007] S.C.J. No. 44
2007 SCC 44.
File No.: 31321.

Supreme Court of Canada

Heard: March 20, 2007;
Judgment: October 12, 2007.

The quote "has become the sport of Kings" from Justice Binnie above is interesting in what it says about our legal system in Canada. It has become well known that the layers of "protection" for people who cause financial violence against the vulnerable are just getting better for the financial violators.

They most often cannot be brought to justice by regulators since the regulators are chosen and paid by the financial violators themselves. Self regulators are simply worse, and have no duty to care for the public interest. Police have neither the time, nor the talent to deal with financial violation. (RCMP IMET budget $17 mil for entire country) This leaves the civil court process to level the playing field for the population, and this "sport of kings" insight is fair comment by Justice Binnie. It coincides with candid commentary by Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin, saying that monopoly powers granted to the legal profession may be misused for the benefit of the profession rather than the benefit of the public.)
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:50 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-29 at 8.50.17 PM.png


Immunity of Commission and officers
141. (1) No action or other proceeding for damages shall be instituted against the Commission or any member thereof, or any employee or agent of the Commission for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or the intended exercise of any power under Ontario securities law, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such duty or power. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, s. 141 (1); 1994, c. 11, s. 377 (1).

(with a track record consisting of thousands of examples where the public has been damaged while benefitting the industry, and the regulator.......I believe that proof of "bad faith", or gross negligence, or even conscious wrongdoing on the part of securities regulators is simply a matter of time, the right lawyer, and the right claimant or class of claimants.)

If you are aware of a law firm who might look at a case where damages could go into ten figures I would like to be put in touch with this firm regarding a potential class action. please contact me at

If you are an industry participant with evidence of conscious wrongdoing and damage to the public interest by securites regulators or self regulators, pelase forward in confidence to

Public Interest Leaks

Suite 309,
440-10816 Macleod Trail SE
Willow Park Village
Calgary, Alberta T2J 5N8
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:38 pm


First (of three points) was a Calgary Herald story recently about the ASC levying fines and penalties against various securities violators. Two items overlooked in the story: First being that most ASC fines are simply Public Relations exercises and are all too often not collected, and second, that whenever they are collected the ASC KEEPS the money for itself, rather than making sure that the people who were abused get anything.

This is a failure of ethical as well as professional practices on the part of the ASC.

Second is information available on approximately 5000 examples of "decisions" made by the ASC to grant exemptions to our securities laws to investment firms. Firms including Goldman Sachs as well as thousands of others, who have used these special permissions to take advantage of a trusting and vulnerable public. These have damaged Albertans by billions. (Asset Backed Commercial paper sold here being just one single example that cost billions)

These exemptions are usually done in private, between the investment firm and the commission, (which is paid by the investment firms), and it makes one wonder why there is no public notice to those unfortunate consumers who end up owning tainted products or advice.

Today, an article about WEALTHSTREET INC doing public investment seminars for twenty years. The Calgary Herald's article says that the ASC claimed that "this person was not registered". I have to wonder if the reporter considered asking the ASC why WEALTHSTREET was ever allowed to operate for twenty years without being registered. It was another of a series of articles that seems to apologize for the ASC instead of reporting on them.

This failed system is costing the province of Alberta billions of dollars, and making the corresponding billions easier for people like Goldman Sachs and other giant corporations to make by coming to Alberta to prey upon Albertan's.

Combined, the failures, conflicts of interest and paper record of preferential treatment towards investment industry funding players, and against the protection of the Alberta public, reflects very poorly on the ethics and the professionalism of the Alberta Securities Commission. It speaks to the possibility of investors in WEALTHSTREET and CONCRETE EQUITIES, among many, many other investments turned bad, to recover their money by pursuing the ASC with class action, as investors in Quebec have done with success.

Larry Elford, Financial Fraud Investigator, former, CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager

web sites referenced regarding decisions to allow corporations to violate our laws: ... rders.aspx

web site for Montreal Gazette article about securities commissions being held liable for investor losses from being inept, corrupt or simply asleep....... ... story.html

web site for alberta truth telling investment expert who fees similar legal action could be filed against the Alberta Securities Commission to gain not only Concrete Equities, and WEALTHSTREET clients money back, but thousands of abused Albertans for thousands of other legal tricks played for money by the ASC
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:30 pm

Financial regulators held accountable


In a turnaround that few of Vincent Lacroix's victims expected they'd ever see, last week all 9,200 of them learned they can expect to recover nearly all the money they lost when the fraud-riddled Norbourg empire crashed in 2005.

An agreement in principle with the institutions targeted in the investors' class-action lawsuit -and they include the Quebec securities regulator and two prominent accounting firms -means investors will see $55 million, money they thought was lost.

For investors who were fleeced out of their retirement savings, this is obviously great news. It also heralds a new trend in investor empowerment, some experts say.

For the price of a class-action civil suit, investors can head into battle against fraudulent investment companies. They now have the means to fight back, to be reimbursed or to win compensation.

The $55 million provided in the out-of-court agreement comes in addition to the $32 million in compensation paid by the Autorite des marches financiers from its indemnity fund to 925 Norbourg victims in 2007 and $26 million from the liquidation of Norbourg assets and tax refunds from Revenue Quebec. The total amounts to nearly 100 per cent of the capital lost in the fraud, a nearly unheard-of rate of recuperation.

The downside to the agreement -and it's a big one -is that there will be no public accounting of the role of the securities regulator or the accounting firms and the trust companies involved, Concentra and Northern Trust Company Canada.

The defendants, in return for signing the agreement, made no admission of guilt, and they are under no requirement to discuss in any way their role in the Norbourg meltdown. The public is the worse off for this. There are lessons to be drawn from the debacle, but we don't have any way of knowing what they are.

Unanswered questions are piled up in a dark corner, the biggest being: How efficient an overseer is the province's securities regulator? It seems safe enough to have a few doubts about how much authority the Commission des valuers mobilieres could wield as one of four financial-industry regulators that were collapsed to form the Autorite des marches financiers in 2004. But we should also know more about what kind of improvements the AMF brought in. What became of its inaugural promise to investigate and prosecute cases of fraud rather than negotiate settlements? That seems to have gone by the by.

Investors depended on the professionalism and vigilance of the AMF and of well-known accounting firms to safeguard their money. Was their confidence misplaced? In essence, what went wrong?

Perhaps the lawsuit will prove its worth in another way: A large, scary payout is not something the defendants would want to find themselves part of again.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:23 pm

apply the following to banks, for mutual funds, gouging, world's highest fees etc, etc. Use your imagination.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that an agreement to lessen competition "unduly" requires proof of the following two elements:
Don Houston - Paper - Conspiracy Claims - May 2005.doc
1. a moderate degree of market power among the parties to the agreement, and
2. behaviour that tends to reduce competition or limit entry in the relevant market.1
It is not necessary that the agreement actually result in an undue lessening of competition. Nor is it necessary that the parties to the agreement intend to lessen competition unduly. The offence will be made out where the parties to the agreement intended to enter the agreement, which, if carried out, would likely result in the requisite undue lessening of competition. A conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of communications or an agreement between the parties is not necessary for the offence to be proved.

Full document found at : ... y_2005.pdf
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:09 pm

regarding the forum topic on failures to act by the Canadian Competition Bureau: ... y_2005.pdf

The link enclosed was suggested as a private remedy by a competition bureau employee. I suspect the comp bureau itself could be named in a class action that addresses the misrepresentations and misleading claims and names used by the investment industry to help them dupe customers.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:37 am

Madoff Investor Sues U.S. for Negligence, Seeks $270000

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
(Updates with government immunity in seventh paragraph.)
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- An investor in Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme sued the U.S., alleging the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to protect him and demanding at least $269,693 in compensation for his losses.
"The SEC turned a blind eye to Madoff's scheme after a plethora of warnings and red flags," Paul Kaye, 40, a lighting technician from New York state, said in a complaint filed Feb. 28 in federal court in Manhattan. "The SEC owed a duty of care to all Madoff investors."
Kaye's suit followed earlier allegations by Madoff investors that the government loses its sovereign immunity from lawsuits if its agencies are negligent. The Litwin Foundation sued the SEC in September for $19 million plus damages.
A similar lawsuit was filed in 2009 by Phyllis Molchatsky, a disabled retiree and single mother who lost $1.7 million. There are 12 cases related to the Molchatsky suit assigned to U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan.
The SEC received at least eight complaints or warnings about Madoff from 1992 to 2008, when the fraud was exposed, Kaye said. During formal probes and "numerous" informal inquiries, the regulator disregarded its policy of reviewing information in tips and complaints before drawing conclusions about their legitimacy, he said, citing a 2009 report by the SEC's inspector general.
The SEC "admitted its gross negligence through an internal investigation" conducted by the inspector general, Kaye said. Florence Harmon, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment.
Government Immunity
Government agencies can't be sued for doing their jobs, unless they don't follow their own rules. They remain immune from lawsuits if they were exercising judgment, even if they were wrong, the U.S. said in a memorandum supporting a 2009 request to a judge to dismiss the Molchatsky suit.
A federal judge in Los Angeles last month dismissed a suit against the U.S. and SEC, saying the plaintiffs couldn't identify "mandatory directives" that the SEC failed to follow in conducting its investigations of Madoff.
"The pronouncements that plaintiffs identify do not affect the government's discretionary function defense," U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said in his decision.
In December, the trustee liquidating Madoff's firm, Irving Picard, sued David M. Becker, a former chief SEC lawyer, for $1.5 million. Becker inherited about $2 million from his parents' Madoff account in 2004. Becker said in a Feb. 25 letter to Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that the SEC's ethics counsel didn't question Becker's impartiality in doing Madoff work.
At the time of his arrest, Madoff's account statements reflected 4,900 accounts with $65 billion in nonexistent balances. Investors lost about $20 billion in principal.
The case is Kaye v. U.S., 11-cv-1370, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
--With assistance from Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado in New York, and Jesse Hamilton in Washington. Editors: Andrew Dunn, Glenn Holdcraft
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:17 am

Subject: Manitoba Securities Act - Offences and Penalties


General offences

136(1) Every person or company that
(a) makes a statement in any material, evidence, or information submitted or given under this Act or the regulations to the commission, its representative, or the Director, or to any person appointed to make an investigation or audit under this Act, that, at the time, and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact or that omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading; or
(b) makes a statement in any application, report, prospectus, return, financial statement or other document, required to be filed or furnished under this Act or the regulations that, at the time, and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or that omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading; or
(c) contravenes this Act, the regulations or a rule specified in a regulation under clause 149(cc); or
(d) fails to observe or comply with any order, direction or other requirement made under this Act or the regulations;
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $5,000,000. or imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day, or both.


What if a mutual fund company publishes written material for public consumption or has media publish the article and knowingly misrepresents
factual information about its operations, policies, investing actions, etc. for the purpose of elevating its public image?

As you can see from the above, articles published and/or distributed for public consumption which are not sent to the Regulators for filing
are not covered under this portion of the Act.

In other words, say what you want to say in public. The public can deal with misrepresentations themselves.

Proof of such misrepresentation (deliberate lying) is available to interested parties.

"Deception by design", the ways of the financial industry.

Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:19 pm

Picture 9.png
We are seeing corporations, regulators and some government participants "eating the system from within". Feeding voraciously as if they were a giant internal parasitic organism.

I believe this last two decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st Century will be remembered in history as time when infectious greed ran rampant in corporations, in finance, in regulatory oversight, in ratings agencies, in all levels of government.

It is only for history to decide whether there will be even a glance at justice for the untold trillions of dollars stolen by insiders, or whether those who create our laws will yet again be found to be "above" our laws.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:55 pm

** Media News ** - BREAKING NEWS - Norbourg victims, AMF could settle $160M lawsuit out of court

by: Paul Delean, The Montreal Gazette, Thursday, January 6, 2010

Investors victimized in the collapse of Norbourg mutual funds in 2005 finally may be on the verge or recouping part of their stake.

Negotiations are under way to reach a settlement in the $160-million class-action suit filed on behalf of all Norbourg victims and scheduled to begin this month in Superior Court in Montreal, a source close to the talks confirmed.

The lawsuit, which targeted Quebec securities regulator L'Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) as well as accounting and other companies that were controlled by or did business with Norbourg and its former head Vincent Lacroix, is due to begin Jan. 31 and take up 12 court days a month for 16 months.

"There's no agreement at this moment," the source told The Gazette on Thursday. "The case could still go ahead. But chances are reduced."

Though there'd been rumours the AMF had received in-house advice to settle with the claimants, it gave a contrary signal last month when it decided to appeal a Superior Court judgment from November that ordered it to provide upwards of $7 million in compensation to 138 Norbourg investors whose original claims were denied.

Judge Bernard Godbout had concluded there was no grounds for denying the group.

Norbourg had 9,200 investors when it was shut down in 2005. The AMF agreed to indemnify 925 of them in 2007, paying $31 million from its financial-services compensation fund.

........please read the article online at - ... story.html
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Legal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:33 pm

images.jpeg (18.93 KiB) Viewed 10642 times
It is December 2010 and I am just marvelling at how "much more" the self serving, abusive and often fraudulent actions prevail by "professional" people, groups and institutions in Canada and the USA. In the USA they allow some transparency into things, and also some prosecutions. In Canada we are so tightly knit, so interconnected that corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest seem to be an accepted standard practice. It is a form of "financial segregation" which keeps elite power groups getting richer, and the middle class paying for it. Anyone who does not play along is shunned, banned and eliminated from the respective business or profession.

I will upgrade the title for this flogg topic from "legal actions" to "Civil or Criminal Actions" against those who violate the public trust, who sell out the public for profit, for loyalty, for some other gain or consideration. It seems that this is what makes too much of the Canadian world go round. I know that I am dreaming in technicolor to expect something to change in my lifetime, but it never hurts to have a goal in life.

I started complaining about my financial services industry (brokers) in the 1990's after seeing how the "big swinging dicks" (a title given to them by the Edmonton RBC sales manager, Don Milligan, a very old school guy) made their money. Mostly by misinforming trusting and vulnerable clients, often elderly clients who had given them their complete faith and trust. Earn their trust and then abuse it for maximum commissions. That was the game to an entire industry of stock and mutual fund salespeople. It happened about 80% of the time while I watched. Now that I am retired I see it happening (based on sales stats from industry) about 90% of the time. Very abusive. Very obvious.

All parties in the game look the other way. Just like watching the cigarette industry 60 years ago. Or like the Catholic church on abuse 50 years ago. I guess there will come a day when these new forms of abuse are no longer tolerated. When prosecutions, and civil action can and will be common for bankers, regulators, politicians, as well as bureaucrats who sell out the public interest for some kind of gain to themselves. To remain "part of the group".

I find it painful to sit and watch the billions of dollars go missing from investment clients returns while a greedy and morally bankrupt industry keep stuffing money into their own pockets as fast as they can. They don't know whether the law is five years of fifty five years away from catching up with them, but it will come, and until it does, they act like a group of gangsters in an LA riot, when they learn that the police are afraid to come into the neighborhood.

I have to thank them for making my case easier though. For making it more and more obvious that crime, abuse, corruption, conflicts and cronyism is "the way of the middle age white man". I had a hard time engaging people when first talking about it in the 1990's. Markets were so damn good that virtually nobody cared. "Steal?? who cares, my investments are going up."

Today it is a different world. Today we are starting to see glimpses of virtually "everyone" trying to get in on the game. Right up to my local politicians, provincial, and up to Congress in our neighbours land. Almost no one is surprised anymore, and almost nothing is considered to be too unethical to be practiced. Sell out the public for money or power, and there is virtually "nobody" who can stop us, seems to be the rallying cry. They are probably right in these times. Lets hope times change.

You should have seen the scramble in my own city, for council and mayor jobs. I could not figure out any attraction whatsoever. Until I learned that our council had jobbed out about $52 million in consulting contracts over recent years. That is a lot of friends, a lot of loyalties, that can arise from spreading or spending that kind of money. Private business has been done without open transparency among our council members, with nary a thought that they ought not to have their own fingers in the jar......after all, who can stop them?

Provincially, our province (Alberta) has been governed by the same party for nearly 40 years, and the selling out of the public interest is rampant and nearly complete by those who have stayed too long. Financial regulations are now in the hands of friends and elites who are so far above having to follow the law, that we may never get it back. Our health care system is being stolen by bureaucrats being paid on the bonus system to save money here and there by cutting on the actual delivery of medical care, while increasing their own private bonus's for doing so. A virtual private money grab for fat folks who suck at the public trough, lie and cheat to gain their loyalty points and move up the ladder. It is so sad.

I still hold out hope. I look forward to a day when the political porkers will be marched in front of a judge and held to account for selling out the public interest. The cases are too numerous to even begin to count. It might take a private makeover of the judicial system, to allow such radical concepts as justice to enter the arena, but it could happen.

I begin with the financial industry, and very quickly find myself looking into the eyes of political leaders, finance ministers who look the other way for points. Or for worse.

See for a single billion dollar example of political sellout of the public interest. There are a thousand from where than one came from. Each and every one ignored. Each and every one brushed aside by those people at the top whose corruption is so complete that they do not even think about having to follow the law anymore. What a shame. What a bit of entertainment. What kind of ending will we see?
The image enclosed gives me the best visual I could find of what certain politicians, bureaucrats etc act like once they come into a bit of power. A money grab machine for those on the inside.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Legal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:39 pm ... l=40&Ses=3

good site to view text of

meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Thursday, November 25, 2010.

We're beginning our review of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud).

Some excellent comments about the difficulty of the RCMP to get anything done, then the difficulties of the Crown Prosecutors to run with commercial crime cases. Experts speaking to Parliament.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests