Responsibility?

It has now been more than 2 years since Storm collapsed. Since then the people that lost everything, the people that lost a lot, and the people that lost little (Cassimatis for one) have split into factions. Some blame Storm, some blame the banks, and some blame Storm and the banks. The directors of Storm, of course, blame the banks, and the banks likewise blame Storm. Everyone, in fact, seems to be blaming everyone else for what has transpired. The directors of Storm are blaming the banks for basically closing them down by not extending credit any further. Storm also blames the banks for not notifying it in good  time so that Storm could duly notify its clients by issuing a “storm warning!” The banks in turn are blaming Storm for not notifying its customers (conveniently overlooking the fact that these clients were actually the banks’ customers as well) and so on, and so on, and so on. The only thing we haven’t had yet is a “conspiracy theory”, but I'm sure that’s on the way!

The issues here are simple enough! They are enshrined in commercial law and more specifically the law of contract. Yet, the contractual obligations of all the parties involved rarely get a mention by the past directors of Storm or the banks.

These are the facts! We, the clients of Storm, had, among other things, a contract with Storm Financial. It took the form of a “Statement of Advice”. There was 'offer', 'acceptance' and 'consideration' in the form of fees. Three elements, I might add, that constitute a legal agreement. The fact of the matter is that if Storm had survived its suicidal “I’m all in!" call, to use poker parlance,  with its clients' monies” and actually had some money still, instead of it being buried deep in some Greek water well in Milos or somewhere, we would have sued them for just about everything they agreed to with us but failed to deliver. The SOA that we signed had more holes in it than a colander. Unfortunately, nobody left us a map as to where the loot is buried so that’s a pointless exercise in futility. 

We are led to believe that the Cassimatises suffered as we suffered, but lavish weddings and selling and buying mansions seem to suggest that their idea of suffering is somewhat different to ours.

We also had separate contracts with banks for housing loans, and we had further contracts with banks for margin loans. 

So far, all we have had from the parties concerned is a smokescreen of misinformation. and red-herrings.  We've had representatives and executives officers from the banks trying to tell us that Storm was at fault for not notifying customers. The banks also didn't tell us that Storm had countersigned our contracts with the banks. That's basically what they are trying to claim. Storm must have used invisible ink on these contracts because I sure as hell can’t see 'Storm' mentioned on our contract with these banks in the place where it says, “Customer’s agreement!”

A contract in law is simple enough. The parties that contract are stated on it and the conditions under which they contract are also stated so there can be no misunderstanding. When one or the other of those contractual parties changes the conditions of the contract without notifying the other or does not fulfil the obligations inherent in that document, it’s called breach which is remedied by rescinding the contract, damages or both.

How then can the banks argue that Storm (of invisible ink fame) is its customer which is what they appear to be claiming. They can’t in contractual law because Storm was never a party to the contract between us and the banks. Yet the Slater & Gordon Booklet entitled publication: “Storm CBA Resolution Scheme - Proposal Framework & Advice Booklet” supports such a notion. Everything mentioned in this publication has been hand-fed by the CBA to Slater & Gordon who has meekly passed it on without question. 

Of course, if Slater & Gordon had been worth their salt they would have thrown the legal arguments in this document back in the CBA’s face because almost every point has been based on the assumption that Storm were agents for their clients and were therefore given implied authority to act on their behalf. Both parties have gone ahead and constructed a resolution scheme based on an assumption that has never been proven in fact. Slater & Gordon should hang their heads in shame in the public arena for negotiating a resolution scheme based on the CBA's interpretation of the events. Where's the justice in that? Where's the equity in that? Where''s the impartiality in that?

The truth of the matter is that all the parties involved in this "churning money out of customers" exercise are “Guilty as charged!” and they should all be condemned accordingly. We, the victims of Storm and the banks, not only want the money back that these people stole from us, but we also want to see some criminal prosecutions take place. We are sick and tired of this government and the Regulator, ASIC, making excuses for these criminals. They seek to negotiate with these criminals rather than prosecuting them under the law. 

We want a fair go! We want justice! We want them charged!.