• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chia Ti Lik offers to fight for minibond investors

Monkey Loh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Written by Ng E-Jay
31 December 2008

In his final rally for structured products investors held at Speaker’s Corner on Sat 27 Dec 08, Mr Tan Kin Lian reflected that he had experienced grave difficulties procuring legal assistance for investors who were in the midst of considering whether to initiate a class action lawsuit against the errant financial institutions.

This is in stark contrast to Ms Sylvia Lim’s (Chairman of Worker’s Party) assertion at the IBA Conference in 2007 that WP has no problem finding lawyers — perhaps Ms Lim should step forward to help rope in lawyers for Mr Tan.

Many senior lawyers whom Mr Tan Kin Lian spoke to were too afraid to step forward to provide legal aid or to represent investors because of their ties with the financial institutions. They were fearful of offending the banks, thinking that if they helped investors, the banks might cut them off.

Other lawyers whom Mr Tan has known personally for 10-20 years have also responded negatively to him, citing issues with compensation. These lawyers would not spend the time to read the prospectus and research into the case without first receiving payment, which can be very expensive.

This prompted me earlier to make the following comments: “Has civic-mindedness and social responsibility gone completely out of the window? Are Singapore lawyers so afraid for their livelihood that they do not dare to assist fellow citizens in times of need, or are they so materialistic and caught up in the rat race that they refuse to even spend a little time researching the cases to see if they can be fought in Court? The attitudes of Singapore lawyers are truly disappointing. With our legal profession having castrated itself, no wonder the authorities dare to wayang and deny Singaporeans their basic rights.”

However, at least one more lawyer has expressed his willingness to fight for Singaporean investors, if he had been approached by Mr Tan Kin Lian. He is none other than Chia Ti Lik, my buddy who helps me with this blog, Sgpolitics.net, from time to time.

When I asked Ti Lik if he would be willing to take up these cases and whether he, like so many other lawyers, was afraid of the authorities, Ti Lik answered: “I was not approached. I am willing to take up the case. TKL did not approach me. Afraid of the Administration? — You must be joking!”

Chia Ti Lik is a litigation lawyer who is also a political and civil activist. By his actions and his willingness to stand up to the authorities, he has shown that he is not afraid to walk the talk. I am sure that if he had been approached by Mr Tan Kin Lian to take up a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors, he would have been more than willing to do so.

Perhaps Mr Tan should have cast his net wider.

Or perhaps, Mr Tan should have looked beyond the prejudices which other people have pulled over his eyes.




Source: sgpolitics.net
 

Monkey Loh

Alfrescian
Loyal
This "other people" mentioned in the above article refers to TOC Deputy Chief Editor Andrew Loh Hong Puey aka Darkcloud who has been bad-mouthing Ti Lik to Mr Tan Kin Lian.

He is f**king worried that Ti Lik will threaten his position in Tan K L's new party.

The Minibond victims must be informed of his chap's shady past including his infamous exposure on SBF which will surely destroy Tan Kin Lian once the state media embarked its smear campaign against him.
 

leetahbar

Alfrescian
Loyal
the cases that he was involved before had a head but not a tail, i.e, it opened with a bang but without any ending. it ended with a whimper excuse to mutiny.:(
 

guavatree

Alfrescian
Loyal
the cases that he was involved before had a head but not a tail, i.e, it opened with a bang but without any ending. it ended with a whimper excuse to mutiny.:(

bobpigonsnowfj6.jpg


yah! bapok Bob Sim old faggot swine you got HEAD & TAIL ... LOL
 

popdod

Alfrescian
Loyal
Tan K L must be thinking..."Hmmm...did Chia win any court case before?, only hear losing cases...."

Thatz why neber approach lor.

:p :biggrin: :p
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Clone

And again Ng E Jay barks up the wrong tree. As pointed out by Porifirio and myself a conflict of interest means some top lawyers will be unable to represent investors due to prior work with the banks in question. There are however top lawyers able to and willing to work for a fee.

For such a complex case I believe paying for top legal talent remains the best option and if the investors are not able to cooperate and pay for the best then they deserve to get screwed by the banks.

With all due respect to the dear learned CTL, he is unfortunately neither a top legal talent though he seems willing to work for free, and free in his case seems to mean two press conferences, and appeal for public donations to his personal account followed by him dropping the case because of excessive work, not someone I would recommend in any way.



Locke




1 December 2008

In his final rally for structured products investors held at Speaker’s Corner on Sat 27 Dec 08, Mr Tan Kin Lian reflected that he had experienced grave difficulties procuring legal assistance for investors who were in the midst of considering whether to initiate a class action lawsuit against the errant financial institutions.

This is in stark contrast to Ms Sylvia Lim’s (Chairman of Worker’s Party) assertion at the IBA Conference in 2007 that WP has no problem finding lawyers — perhaps Ms Lim should step forward to help rope in lawyers for Mr Tan.

Many senior lawyers whom Mr Tan Kin Lian spoke to were too afraid to step forward to provide legal aid or to represent investors because of their ties with the financial institutions. They were fearful of offending the banks, thinking that if they helped investors, the banks might cut them off.

Other lawyers whom Mr Tan has known personally for 10-20 years have also responded negatively to him, citing issues with compensation. These lawyers would not spend the time to read the prospectus and research into the case without first receiving payment, which can be very expensive.

This prompted me earlier to make the following comments: “Has civic-mindedness and social responsibility gone completely out of the window? Are Singapore lawyers so afraid for their livelihood that they do not dare to assist fellow citizens in times of need, or are they so materialistic and caught up in the rat race that they refuse to even spend a little time researching the cases to see if they can be fought in Court? The attitudes of Singapore lawyers are truly disappointing. With our legal profession having castrated itself, no wonder the authorities dare to wayang and deny Singaporeans their basic rights.”

However, at least one more lawyer has expressed his willingness to fight for Singaporean investors, if he had been approached by Mr Tan Kin Lian. He is none other than Chia Ti Lik, my buddy who helps me with this blog, Sgpolitics.net, from time to time.

When I asked Ti Lik if he would be willing to take up these cases and whether he, like so many other lawyers, was afraid of the authorities, Ti Lik answered: “I was not approached. I am willing to take up the case. TKL did not approach me. Afraid of the Administration? — You must be joking!”

Chia Ti Lik is a litigation lawyer who is also a political and civil activist. By his actions and his willingness to stand up to the authorities, he has shown that he is not afraid to walk the talk. I am sure that if he had been approached by Mr Tan Kin Lian to take up a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors, he would have been more than willing to do so.

Perhaps Mr Tan should have cast his net wider.

Or perhaps, Mr Tan should have looked beyond the prejudices which other people have pulled over his eyes.




Source: sgpolitics.net[/QUOTE]
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think it is a misnomer.

In my view, when Sylvia Lim said "WP had no problems finding lawyers" I presume it mean for WP itself and political cases. There is no evidence that no lawyer wants to take up political-related cases. All the WP needs is one lawyer and so does the PAP if it sues the WP.

For this case, the banks have "chopped" all the senior counsels in the whole country in total because the latter are their engaged day-to-day lawyers in the first place.

I also do not remember TKL ever saying that lawyers are rejecting them because of fear. What I recall was him saying that the product was too complicated and could result in lawyers not willing to take up the case.

Hence, I feel it is simplistic to take Sylvia Lim's quote and plant it into this illustration via wholesale in the first place.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, generally agree with what you say Bro.

Ouch once again on Chia Ti Lik though.

On a serious note, I am of the personal view that also with all due respect to Chia Ti Lik, this sort of case would probably be out of his league unless he joined together with a team of other experienced lawyers and the case fronted by a Senior Counsel.

I believe a sole proprietor by the name of Mark Goh took issue with an ST journalist who wrote an article relating to the Lehman debacle and in particular questioning whether small law firms could adequately handle such a case. Mark Goh appeared to claim that with modern technology research tools and informal alliances amongst small law firms, they could adequately and competently handle such a case.

I personally have my doubts, more so since these alleged aggrieved retail investors appear unwilling to pay the market rate for such legal services. Furthermore even Tan Kin Kian appeared to have some initial reservations in his blog with respect to Leonard Loo handling this matter and also it would appear that even some of the aggrieved retail investors may have had reservations as well. But they predictably appear to be going along for the ride because Leonard Loo appears to be offering his services at what may be an apparent attractive rate to them and even then some of these aggrieved retail investors appear ungrateful apparently asking for guarantee of success.

So like you said Bro, perhaps these aggrieved retail investors deserve to get screwed by the banks afterall.

Dear Clone

And again Ng E Jay barks up the wrong tree. As pointed out by Porifirio and myself a conflict of interest means some top lawyers will be unable to represent investors due to prior work with the banks in question. There are however top lawyers able to and willing to work for a fee.

For such a complex case I believe paying for top legal talent remains the best option and if the investors are not able to cooperate and pay for the best then they deserve to get screwed by the banks.


With all due respect to the dear learned CTL, he is unfortunately neither a top legal talent though he seems willing to work for free, and free in his case seems to mean two press conferences, and appeal for public donations to his personal account followed by him dropping the case because of excessive work, not someone I would recommend in any way.

Locke
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
So like you said Bro, perhaps these aggrieved retail investors deserve to get screwed by the banks afterall.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a lose-lose situation for the investors. Either they leave what they lost or "lose" money with the legal costs. The banks should have automatically refunded all investors without "eating" a lawsuit.

I hope the PAP suffers at the polls for this. Otherwise, there is no other way.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
I wonder whether the banks have indeed "chopped" all the senior counsels?

I read it from TKL but it is not entirely impossible. I am sure TKL knows what he is saying. There are less than 40 senior counsels in Singapore and given that a number of them are "booked" by the banks and the rest indisposed, it is possible.

In any case, I feel that hiring them may be expensive and good lawyers could do the trick as well.

Never once did I recall TKL saying that lawyers fear taking up the cases. If anything, Philip Jeyaretnam showed no fear when he was defending FEER against the PAP leaders, namely LKY and LHL, recently. I think that is more "scary" than defending minibonds investors.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Probably "indisposed" because these purported aggrieved retail investors want FOC or heavily disocunted legal services.

I read it from TKL but it is not entirely impossible. I am sure TKL knows what he is saying. There are less than 40 senior counsels in Singapore and given that a number of them are "booked" by the banks and the rest indisposed, it is possible.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
On what basis?

From what I understood from TKL, the minibonds was a product of a basket of goods, of which any one of them failed, everything would be wiped out.

I think nobody in the right mind would buy such a product. The only reason for retirees queuing up at the bank and buying these products was because of being told about some "guaranteed" stability.

However, I am no expert and may be wrong.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
With due respect to Tan Kin Lian, I hardly think it is that clear cut.

In any event if it really is that clear cut, then these purported aggrieved retail investors should just put their money where their mouth is, properly engage a top independent local senior counsel and sue the FIs since it such a slam dunk.

From what I understood from TKL, the minibonds was a product of a basket of goods, of which any one of them failed, everything would be wiped out.

I think nobody in the right mind would buy such a product. The only reason for retirees queuing up at the bank and buying these products was because of being told about some "guaranteed" stability.

However, I am no expert and may be wrong.
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
On what basis?

Originally Posted by Perspective
The banks should have automatically refunded all investors without "eating" a lawsuit.

TKL's anyhow-blame has pushed the MAS/FIs to take up defensive approach by dividing out those vulnerable ones, leaving the others having a hard time keeping their heads above the cesspool.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
With due respect to Tan Kin Lian, I hardly think it is that clear cut.

In any event if it really is that clear cut, then these purported aggrieved retail investors should just put their money where their mouth is, properly engage a top independent local senior counsel and sue the FIs since it such a slam dunk.

My own opinion is the legal costs that may be holding people back, not the "clear-cut" aspect.

I wouldn't be the minibonds investor who lost $50,000 and fight the case to victory with legal fees of $60,000. Although I agree with what you said that the investors could pool their resources, they may need more than one lawyer.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro if it is a slam dunk then they would probably get back a substantial amount of their legal costs as well, may be even all if their lawyer plays his cards right and the FIs drag their feet and stone wall.

Like I said before, these purported aggrieved retail investors need to put their money where their mouth is, if they truly think it is a slam dunk case.

My own opinion is the legal costs that may be holding people back, not the "clear-cut" aspect.

I wouldn't be the minibonds investor who lost $50,000 and fight the case to victory with legal fees of $60,000. Although I agree with what you said that the investors could pool their resources, they may need more than one lawyer.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro if it is a slam dunk then they would probably get back a substantial amount of their legal costs as well, may be even all if their lawyer plays his cards right and the FIs drag their feet and stone wall.

Like I said before, these purported aggrieved retail investors need to put their money where their mouth is, if they truly think it is a slam dunk case.

Alright bro, I noted your views.
 
Top