I think Ng E-Jay may have gone abit too far in this article of his.
On what reasonable fair equitable basis does Ng E-Jay think justifies the Lehman Minibonds/Structured Products retail investors to Free or Heavily discounted legal advice?
In any event, I would be surprised if the retail investors would not be able to avail themselves of a top independent Senior Counsel if they were willing to Pay for his professional services, and rightly so I should add, because presently I see no reasonable fair justification for any local legal counsel to provide 'National Service' to this group of retail investors.
Btw Ng E-Jay, if you want a name of a top independent Senior Counsel, I would look no further than the present Singapore law society president himself, Michael Hwang SC
Tan Kin Lian’s final rally for investors at Speaker’s Corner: The authorities have done little to help investors
December 27, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs, Financial Matters
Written by Ng E-Jay
27 December 2008
At the final rally for investors at Speaker’s Corner, Mr Tan Kin Lian lambasted MAS for doing scant little to assist investors, many of whom have lost their life savings. Financial institutions have also given very little compensation to investors, and frequently have dragged the cases and not even bothered to give investors a satisfactory reply.
Addressing a rally of around 150-200 people, Mr Tan Kin Lian gave a brief overview of the actions he has taken thus far. He has submitted a total of 4 petitions over the past three months, of which 3 were presented to MAS. The petitions were aimed at:
asking the Government to look into any possible wrong doings by the financial institutions, in particular, whether the Financial Advisers Act and the Security and Futures Act had been breached,
asking the MAS to investigate the sales training given by the financial institutions to their representatives, and
asking the MAS to review the complaint handling process of the financial institutions, to set up an independent unit to receive and process the complaints, and to encourage the financial institutions to adopt a collective approach in offering fair compensation to the investors.
However, MAS has insisted that it cannot respond to Mr Tan or any individual investor directly, and would only communicate its intentions via official press releases. To date, Mr Tan has not received any communication on whether the specific requests contained in the petitions has been considered or implemented.
Mr Tan Kin Lian also went through the results of the survey which he conducted. The results are posted here.
Out of 16 investors who replied to the survey, the financial institution had rejected 9 cases. Compensation was offered for 1 case, where the amount invested was $20,000 and the investor was younger than 62 years. The rest of the cases are still pending.
Of those decisions already made, the decision were provided after an average of 6 ½ weeks. This is significantly longer than the 4 week period stipulated by MAS.
Out of the 16 cases, 2 have been lodged with Fidrec. One case could not go to Fidrec as the amount of compensation asked for was over $50,000.
Overall, investors expressed discouragement and disappointment at the complaints process.
According to Mr Tan Kin Lian, he estimates that around 95% of the complaints which were received by the financial institutions and which have been given a response have been rejected outright. There are still many cases outstanding which have yet to be given a response, despite MAS’ stipulation that financial institutions should respond to complaints within 4 weeks of receiving them.
Of the few cases that have been submitted to Fidrec, even fewer have received any response whatsoever. It is clear the authorities are pussyfooting and dragging their feet on the matter.
Over the past three months, not much action has been taken by the authorities to address investors rights and concerns, and there is a growing impatience on the ground. The case for a class action lawsuit is getting clearer by the day, despite Mr Tan’s repeated insistence that it should only be used as a last resort.
Singapore lawyers do NOT dare to represent investors
Mr Tan Kin Lian recounted with very grave disappointment that he experienced tremendous difficulty procuring legal assistance for investors. (This is in stark contrast to Ms Sylvia Lim’s 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 Kin Lian.)
Many senior lawyers whom Mr Tan 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.
My response is: 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.
The Minibond group in particular had spoken to 6 or 7 lawyers concerning their case, but none of them were willing to take it up.
Finally however, there was one lawyer who expressed willingness to step forward to represent the Minibond investors. He is Mr Leonard Loo. So far, Mr Loo has managed to contact around 200 investors for possible legal representation. The maximum amount that each investor would have to pay in the event a class action lawsuit is initiated is $4,800.
There are some Minibond investors who are concerned Mr Loo may be too young and inexperienced to take on such a complex case, but Mr Loo assured investors that he is receiving assistance from some senior lawyers on the matter.
So far, Mr Loo is the only lawyer in the whole of Singapore who has not only expressed willingness to represent investors in a class action lawsuit, but has already begun the process of researching into the cases and proactively reaching out to investors.
Mr Leonard Loo will give a briefing to Minibond investors next Tuesday. The details are:
Date: Tuesday 30th December 2008
Time: 7 to 9 .30 pm (registration starts at 6 pm )
Venue: Singapore Polytechnic Graduates Guild House
1010 Dover Road Singapore 139658
Admission: Free (Register online here)
Photo of Mr Leonard Loo at Speaker’s Corner, 27 Dec 2008:
Another lawyer has also come forward to offer some assistance, but he does not know the products very well and is too busy to study them in detail. This lawyer has approached a Queen’s Counsel to seek his opinion on whether a class action lawsuit is feasible. Mr Tan Kin Lian will ask someone to pay the initial consultation fee for the Queen’s Counsel, which will come up to around $10-$20K.
In Mr Tan’s opinion, the entire legal process, if it really does go through, can take a very long time. The bank will also likely lodge an appeal in the event of any ruling in favour of investors. Hence, Mr Tan is of the opinion that investors should carefully consider any settlement offered by the banks.
The banks are unlikely to offer full compensation as they only receive 3-5% commission for selling the product. However, 50% compensation would be deemed fair.
Furthermore, in Mr Tan’s opinion, the banks are only likely to offer compensation to investors who participated in the class action lawsuit.
To wrap up, Mr Tan Kin Lian said that in the past three months of campaigning, the results have been discouraging, but he has done his best. He encouraged investors to join their respective investor groups.
After Mr Tan spoke, Mr Leonard Loo spoke briefly to the crowd, urging them to seek legal help if they have not been fairly compensated. When seeking legal help, investors should get ready the following documents which they exchanged with the financial institutions:
application form for the original product
risk profile analysis
prospectus of the product
Mr Loo also reiterated Mr Tan Kin Lian’s advice that investors should seriously consider any out-of-court settlement offered by the banks.
On what reasonable fair equitable basis does Ng E-Jay think justifies the Lehman Minibonds/Structured Products retail investors to Free or Heavily discounted legal advice?
In any event, I would be surprised if the retail investors would not be able to avail themselves of a top independent Senior Counsel if they were willing to Pay for his professional services, and rightly so I should add, because presently I see no reasonable fair justification for any local legal counsel to provide 'National Service' to this group of retail investors.
Btw Ng E-Jay, if you want a name of a top independent Senior Counsel, I would look no further than the present Singapore law society president himself, Michael Hwang SC
Tan Kin Lian’s final rally for investors at Speaker’s Corner: The authorities have done little to help investors
December 27, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs, Financial Matters
Written by Ng E-Jay
27 December 2008
At the final rally for investors at Speaker’s Corner, Mr Tan Kin Lian lambasted MAS for doing scant little to assist investors, many of whom have lost their life savings. Financial institutions have also given very little compensation to investors, and frequently have dragged the cases and not even bothered to give investors a satisfactory reply.
Addressing a rally of around 150-200 people, Mr Tan Kin Lian gave a brief overview of the actions he has taken thus far. He has submitted a total of 4 petitions over the past three months, of which 3 were presented to MAS. The petitions were aimed at:
asking the Government to look into any possible wrong doings by the financial institutions, in particular, whether the Financial Advisers Act and the Security and Futures Act had been breached,
asking the MAS to investigate the sales training given by the financial institutions to their representatives, and
asking the MAS to review the complaint handling process of the financial institutions, to set up an independent unit to receive and process the complaints, and to encourage the financial institutions to adopt a collective approach in offering fair compensation to the investors.
However, MAS has insisted that it cannot respond to Mr Tan or any individual investor directly, and would only communicate its intentions via official press releases. To date, Mr Tan has not received any communication on whether the specific requests contained in the petitions has been considered or implemented.
Mr Tan Kin Lian also went through the results of the survey which he conducted. The results are posted here.
Out of 16 investors who replied to the survey, the financial institution had rejected 9 cases. Compensation was offered for 1 case, where the amount invested was $20,000 and the investor was younger than 62 years. The rest of the cases are still pending.
Of those decisions already made, the decision were provided after an average of 6 ½ weeks. This is significantly longer than the 4 week period stipulated by MAS.
Out of the 16 cases, 2 have been lodged with Fidrec. One case could not go to Fidrec as the amount of compensation asked for was over $50,000.
Overall, investors expressed discouragement and disappointment at the complaints process.
According to Mr Tan Kin Lian, he estimates that around 95% of the complaints which were received by the financial institutions and which have been given a response have been rejected outright. There are still many cases outstanding which have yet to be given a response, despite MAS’ stipulation that financial institutions should respond to complaints within 4 weeks of receiving them.
Of the few cases that have been submitted to Fidrec, even fewer have received any response whatsoever. It is clear the authorities are pussyfooting and dragging their feet on the matter.
Over the past three months, not much action has been taken by the authorities to address investors rights and concerns, and there is a growing impatience on the ground. The case for a class action lawsuit is getting clearer by the day, despite Mr Tan’s repeated insistence that it should only be used as a last resort.
Singapore lawyers do NOT dare to represent investors
Mr Tan Kin Lian recounted with very grave disappointment that he experienced tremendous difficulty procuring legal assistance for investors. (This is in stark contrast to Ms Sylvia Lim’s 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 Kin Lian.)
Many senior lawyers whom Mr Tan 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.
My response is: 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.
The Minibond group in particular had spoken to 6 or 7 lawyers concerning their case, but none of them were willing to take it up.
Finally however, there was one lawyer who expressed willingness to step forward to represent the Minibond investors. He is Mr Leonard Loo. So far, Mr Loo has managed to contact around 200 investors for possible legal representation. The maximum amount that each investor would have to pay in the event a class action lawsuit is initiated is $4,800.
There are some Minibond investors who are concerned Mr Loo may be too young and inexperienced to take on such a complex case, but Mr Loo assured investors that he is receiving assistance from some senior lawyers on the matter.
So far, Mr Loo is the only lawyer in the whole of Singapore who has not only expressed willingness to represent investors in a class action lawsuit, but has already begun the process of researching into the cases and proactively reaching out to investors.
Mr Leonard Loo will give a briefing to Minibond investors next Tuesday. The details are:
Date: Tuesday 30th December 2008
Time: 7 to 9 .30 pm (registration starts at 6 pm )
Venue: Singapore Polytechnic Graduates Guild House
1010 Dover Road Singapore 139658
Admission: Free (Register online here)
Photo of Mr Leonard Loo at Speaker’s Corner, 27 Dec 2008:
Another lawyer has also come forward to offer some assistance, but he does not know the products very well and is too busy to study them in detail. This lawyer has approached a Queen’s Counsel to seek his opinion on whether a class action lawsuit is feasible. Mr Tan Kin Lian will ask someone to pay the initial consultation fee for the Queen’s Counsel, which will come up to around $10-$20K.
In Mr Tan’s opinion, the entire legal process, if it really does go through, can take a very long time. The bank will also likely lodge an appeal in the event of any ruling in favour of investors. Hence, Mr Tan is of the opinion that investors should carefully consider any settlement offered by the banks.
The banks are unlikely to offer full compensation as they only receive 3-5% commission for selling the product. However, 50% compensation would be deemed fair.
Furthermore, in Mr Tan’s opinion, the banks are only likely to offer compensation to investors who participated in the class action lawsuit.
To wrap up, Mr Tan Kin Lian said that in the past three months of campaigning, the results have been discouraging, but he has done his best. He encouraged investors to join their respective investor groups.
After Mr Tan spoke, Mr Leonard Loo spoke briefly to the crowd, urging them to seek legal help if they have not been fairly compensated. When seeking legal help, investors should get ready the following documents which they exchanged with the financial institutions:
application form for the original product
risk profile analysis
prospectus of the product
Mr Loo also reiterated Mr Tan Kin Lian’s advice that investors should seriously consider any out-of-court settlement offered by the banks.
