Here’s another case where the investors are collectively seeking redress of the case in court. Litigation hearing will commence in February 2009.

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/081217/3/9s5r.html

I am sure these cases will shed lights once the process is completed.

I did nto invest in any of the credit linked notes. I have been advising me against these products for the past year in my blog.

I hope to find a way to get a class action started that does not result in a “bottomless pit”. The first step is to get a Queens Counsel’s opinion on misrepresenations and/or non-disclusres in the prospects. This will apply to all the investors who bought the same product.

I will get someone to fund the QC opinion. If the opinion is strong, we can start a class action based on it. The investors can reimburse the cost of the QC opinion at that time. If the case is not strong, we have to re-think the strategy.

My strategy team has spent a lot of time to meet many lawyers in Singapore. It is a difficult task. Give us some encouragement, rather than make it more difficult for us with your statements.

Didn’t they learnt anything from the bloody ShouZhuo industrial park?!

I mean, who would expect DBS bank with a Country Government backing to sell this kind of stupid products?! Maybe if they look at the fact that the so call one of the 10 world most powerful woman running the GIC, they will think otherwise!

This may interest you.

http://www.singtao.com/yesterday/loc/1210ao14.html

The first known case of civil suit file against DBS-HK on the MiniBond saga.

However, if there is nothin constructive. Maybe you ought to give some time and see if TKL proposal works before judging. Of course, to give those that already lost their hard earned saving some hope. You could help by advising TKL on issue that he might over looked. So as to differentiate yourself from the heartless Elites in Singapore. I think it is alright that you don’t agree with some of the TKL solutions, but then again, it won’t hurt to suggest a better one to his if you have any.

Apolgies from me cost nothing which I am willing to give it to you. However, it really serve no purpose when in actual fact you are demoralizing those people who had already lost their money in the stupid toxic investment!

I think main focus of this discussion should be suggesting on ways and means of getting “some” compensation for the PEOPLE. I believe if the bank is not DBS, our MAS would had react faster to this issue and impartial! This I say it is a national conflict of interest!

Which also the root cause of all problems that Singapore is facing
Now! There is too much state holdings.

So do you pass a fully loaded rifle to a six year old kid.

Complicated prospectus or product manuals / contract is only one part of the whole selling process where the selling institution and representative play a lot of the active (or inactive role) in engaging the buyer. Do not zero in on the more easily visible part of the complicated prospectus or product manuals / contract.

You are prejudice.

If I don’t agree with you, what justifies you to cast me as “one of the PAP elites”? I demand an apology.

It’s heart-breaking to lose all the hard-earned money. Noone expected it. But it is neither right and practical to put the blame on “a complicated prospectus”. Think about it. How easy is it say that a product is unfit to be sold because the prospectus or manual is “complicated”. There are thousands of other products, whether investments or not, that have “complicated” manuals.

The most practical way is to show that:

(1) such complications ONLY exist these structured products, or better still this product. (Even then this may ultimately hold only the Lehman Brothers accountably which is not fruitful.)

(2) the sales person deliberately mis-represented information

Awards – awared

Dear CJC, I am afraid you only get part of the facts right. It is agreeable that most prospectus are complex and hard to understand. Questions are:

1. Vital information such as this is a high risk investment was being highlighted by the sale representative?

2. Are these sale representative even awards that this is a highrisk product in the first place. Since even the expert find it hard to understand the prospectus?

3. At which level did this important piece of information over looked?

4. Did the bank intentionally omitted the “high risk” factor when promoting the product, thinking that it will never given the backing of this investment, it will never collapse!

All the prospectus or even contract term and conditions are complex! However, it is the consumer power to be given all the importances fact when being promoted with the product. If what you say is truth, must as well skip the sale person and throw the prospectus at people and let people go and read it themselves. Why need overhead for sale person?! Problem with sale people are, they only care about how many they are selling and leave the answering to the customer service in the end! To be frank, how many sale people actually care about the quality of their product that they are selling.

For that, I say your argument is naive. Of course, unless you are one of the PAP elites that don’t give a damn of people hard earn money. When one person suffer from failed product, we can say that it is his careless that lead to his undoing. However, if you have so many people suffers from the same consequences. Then I think it is reasonable doubt on the seller!

Pardon me, but i think this is the weakest part of the argument because many other non-structured, honest, and performing products also have complicated prospectus or product manuals. It is just that people are satisfied with them.

Unless the complexity ONLY lies in these structured products, otherwise it is hard to justify why the structured products are unfit to be sold but not others. And pushing in this direction further only makes complainants look sour.

So it seems entirely possible to sue the banks and distributors for mis-selling.

3) Prevent consumers who took risk willingly from a free ride (we have to be just)

1) show that the prospectus is flawed (and all investors of the failed structured products are misled by default)

and

2) the same flaw does not show up in other investments products or any other sort of products with prospectus (so that consumers can’t just demand compensation for ANY transaction they want to revoke)

Why do you think PAP should be the only legitimate channel to address grievances? This is a dangerous thought that will only impede the growth in the electorate’s political sophistication

Why do you think PAP should be the only legitimate channel to address grievances? This is a dangerous thought that will only impede the growth in the electorate’s political sophistication.

I guess you might have missed this question in TWO earlier threads. Hence I am posting the questions here.

I am keen to sign the petition but would appreciate your response to three questions:

1) Which PAP constituency were you serving in for the past 30 years? Just marine parade?
2) Did you hold any appointments such as CCC chairman?
3) Were you ever invited to the party’s ‘tea-session’?

Thanks.