Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The mother of all blanket immunity deals

JACQUIE MCNISH

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 4:25 PM EST 15/06/08

ABCP investors will be required to surrender rights to sue any party if they hope to get their money back ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. garlick toast from Canada writes: silly me,i thought blackmail was illegal.any lawyer proposing that people lose their rights based on a simple majority decision,should be disbarred.
  2. Phil M from Canada writes: This sounds more outrageous the more I learn about it. Is it even legal to make such a demand? Can you imagine a store selling faulty merchandise with false advertising, then offering a partial refund only if you promise never to complain about it?

    What's next, a gag order to prevent individuals from, rightly, vilifying them in the press?
  3. Douglas Ives from Canada writes: Right on Phil M. This is absolutely outrageous! Any investor would be a fool to give up his or her right to sue these unscrupulous scoundrels.
  4. elkay elkay from Canada writes: Maybe if the government actually threw the people in jail who are not living up to their commitments and obligations such as the CEO`s of these companies. Doesn`t responsibility mean anything anymore when you put your name to something. Hey, wouldn`t it be interesting if the regulators, rating agencies, and CEO`s were actually sent to jail. I wonder if it would send a message and maybe help clean up this nonsense.
  5. Carl Hansen from Canada writes: I didn't know that democracy allowed a majority to trample on the rights of a minority. I guess democracy does suck.
  6. D. Smith from Canada writes: The so called retail investors at worst could lose their investment. Best case is they get all back plus a share of the inevitable and winning law suits against the Banks/providers for mis-selling, mismanagement and possibly worse. Other best case, they investment back from insitutions that are rightly worried about their reputations - National and Manu have already done so for their retial investors. Not bad odds since under the Purdey plan there is no guarantee of being paid - ever. Retail investors represent a very small amount of the 32 billion - well under 1 billion so easily doable to make them go away. Purdey has got lost in Bay Street and the Big picture. However, the fly in the ointment is that for once this time - the retail investors hold all the cards and can veto this nonsense. I would suggest that the Retail investor has little to gain from accepting this "offer" to give up legal rights and access to thier oney for years if at all and should press for full and immediate payment in conjunction with voting it down. Let the Banks and Institutions' shareholders and management take it onto their books and sweat it. More likely they will settle with the little guys. Otherwise, not much in the way of bonuses for them in the next couple of years. Bear Sterns shareholders bleated at a buy-out of $2 a share and had $10 a week later for a bankrupt company.
  7. Ted B from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm surprised that there are not already a raft of lawsuits pending.
  8. Paul Warburg from Canada writes: Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html Why Eliot Spitzer was assassinated http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/291.html
  9. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    Mr. Iler says he specified that he wanted his $229,000 invested exclusively in government-backed investments. The credit union put his money into ACBPs. That sounds like fraud. Where are the police?

  10. Michael Juha from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: Sadly, the banks, brokers, and attorneys consider their own assets more important than those of their clients. Is there no fiduciary responsibility required within Canada's financial institutions?

    Canada, like the US, needs much more stringent regulation of financial institutions. And, that regulator needs sharp teeth to assure compliance by the financial institutions.

    We have all had too much of the nonchalance of financiers feathering their own nest at the expense of their clients.
  11. Old Fart from Edmonton, Canada writes: I'll give up my right to sue if the "players" demanding this concession plead guilty to fraud and spend a minimum of 5 years in a maximum security jail.

    Since Eliot Spitzer is currently unemployed, maybe we should invite him to Canada to show how fraudsters should really be treated. Obviously, our "regulators" have no cajones.

    .
  12. stan buell from Markham, Canada writes: Another investment industry debacle. Another host of small investors victimized. Another case of regulatory failure to protect investors. And now the industry proposes investors give up their rights to sue anyone without an offer to make them whole?
    It's time to support the proposal for a Commons Finance Committee inquiry into the ABCP fiasco. Foget about Mulroney & Schreiber. An inquiry into ABCP will bring forward all of the shady dealings of the investment industry and how investors are continually being misled.
    There is nothing new with how investors have been treated except that now it is not only the small retail investor who has been misled. Therefore there is interest in a solution.
    Let's support the proposal for a Commons Finance Committee inquiry.

    We agree that the retail investors should stick together and not agree to the proposal unless they are made whole again.
  13. Little Dickie from Beautiful Downtown Port Dover, Canada writes: This is how the market really works

    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html
  14. R.S. Tse from Canada writes: > Carl Hansen from Canada writes: I didn't know that democracy allowed a majority to trample on the rights of a minority.

    Carl Hansen is right. The Charter of Rights protects the minority.

    I guess that if an individual investor refuses to sign, the Charter of Rights would probably uphold his rights to sue, no matter what the Crawford motion says.
  15. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: # Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: Mr. Iler says he specified that he wanted his $229,000 invested exclusively in government-backed investments. The credit union put his money into ACBPs. That sounds like fraud. Where are the police? * Posted 27/03/08 at 5:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are the police???? HA, HA, HA, HA, the police; Same problem about money laundering in Squamish town since 1982, and still going on!!!! Went to the RCMP 3 times, their a joke!!! Do they work together at times?? I would say-probably. Keep a sharp eye on your CPP, OAS folks, specially in BC.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top