Reporter : Tricia Takanawa

Content : Levitt Robinson, Stewart Levitt, Storm UMIS, ASIC Compensation model, CBA margin loan, Sean McArdle

Tuesday 21^st May 2013

The Plain Truth tagline from our humble beginnings, on every article, on every screen reads – “There is no Justice without Truth”.  We know the following is a cliché and in spite of our dislike of clichés in general, we have no better way of putting it than to say – “THE TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE”.

The publication of this article, the first since we have set up more comprehensive security to protect us for the vicious cyber attacks we have been experiencing, has caused much consternation, debate and soul-searching within our group.  The reason for our inner turmoil has not been the content or the facts we wish to point out, but rather the distress that may be a consequence of pointing out the facts.  Nevertheless, in the end common sense prevailed and whilst we understand our news articles paint certain people into a corner, right must always prevail over wrong.

The Truth emerges from viewing ALL of the facts of a matter.

A lie emerges from viewing – anything less than ALL the facts of a matter.

We are sufficiently across human nature to understand that it has unfortunately become a normal reaction for someone to do any action or utter any word in order to save themselves from drowning.  We are not here to judge such individuals BUT when their actions are so self serving and so damaging to the truth, to other people as well as the greater good, we find ourselves compelled to speak out.

In the current Stewart Levitt / Levitt Robinson class action being heard in the Federal Court in Brisbane with Justice Reeves presiding, former Storm client Sean McArdle gave evidence on his own behalf and under the direction of Stewart Levitt in which he clearly contradicted himself and contradicted the documentary facts.  Sean’s instinct to make it up as he went along and to re-construct evidence in order to support his case for the purpose of surviving, is consistent with the way some other former Storm clients and advisors have given their evidence to not only the courts, but also ASIC and the liquidators.

A case not founded on the truth but rather relying on SOME OF THE FACTS, some outright false evidence and perverse technicalities must ultimately be weak, likely to not succeed, and if it does can only give a very poor outcome.

The best outcome is a just outcome and a just outcome can only emanate from a recognition and acceptance of the truth.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE CBA?

• The CBA was a provider of credit to many people (nothing to do with a UMIS).
• The CBA failed to provide its borrowers and Storm with accurate data with respect to their margin loan accounts (nothing to do with a UMIS).
• The CBA failed to issue margin call notices either to Storm, its advisors or its clients (nothing to do with a UMIS).
• The CBA without authority and without issuing a notice sold down borrower portfolios (nothing to do with a UMIS).

There exists no evidence to show that there was a UMIS.  Rather the correct case against the CBA revolves around its product failures for which it is entirely responsible.

Given the amount of emphasis being relied of a UMIS by both ASIC and Levitt Robinson, The Plain Truth is open to the possibility of such a thing having existed.  All evidence collected to date by us and other ‘evidence’ presented in court so far does not prove that a UMIS existed and in fact goes a long way to proving the contrary argument.  Accordingly we are asking for anyone who is able to explain the rationale behind the belief that a UMIS existed, to do so.

The Machiavellian rational that the end justifies the means has no place in our society and can not lead to a just outcome.  It can be seen in the multitude of transcripts from the Federal Court that the main benefactor from the evidence presented against the CBA…has been the CBA itself.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : Levitt Robinson, Stewart Levitt, Storm UMIS, ASIC Compensation model, CBA margin loan, Sean McArdle

Editor : Perry White

Content : Plain Truth attack, government resources, Carey Ramm

Friday 8th March 2013

Following numerous attempts to disrupt The Plain Truth site using various cyber attacks, a knowledgeable but vicious cyber terrorist has recently waged war on our website. Previous attacks included inserting malware into our code which included the message “SILENCE IS GOLDEN”.

On this occasion the attack was hard and fast and the site was completely smashed requiring the reconstruction of all the files.

Clearly the information we are publishing is hitting a very sensitive soft spot resulting in severe and vicious reactions.

To the perpetrator we say:

‘Do your worst, the truth will prevail. It is not silence that is golden but truth and the justice that comes from such truth. Do not think that you can weaken our resolve but rather you stiffen it!’

The Plain Truth has a couple of suspects for the most recent of attacks including Carey Ramm, however we quickly disregarded Carey Ramm as we don’t think he is smart enough. On the other hand, the person we have in mind for the most recent attack has made suppressing the truth very personal. This is indicated by the level of frenzy in the attack along with the timing of it following our recent articles. We believe the individual concerned has good forensic and computer hacking skills combined with access to government or semi-government resources.

We further believe that the use of these resources was not sanctioned or authorised by the owner of the resources but were used in a surreptitious and sneaky manner to achieve an end.

Having said all the above and in the context of the tragic position of The Plain Truth people, we understand that all of us ex Stormies are frustrated and angry but we should all stick together in search of the “real” truth rather than thinking the truth simply represents the “view” that one holds simply because one holds such a view. Remember the truth requires evidence and documents etc and not simply opinions and self serving rhetoric with no backup.

We will continue to work for everyone for the sole purpose of uncovering the truth to allow YOU to make the wrong-doers accountable.

The Editor
The Plain Truth,
PO Box 2783
New Farm QLD 4005

Content : Plain Truth attack, government resources, Carey Ramm

Reporter : Tricia Takanawa

Content : Levitt Robinson, Levitt Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt

Thursday 21^st February 2013

Further to our breaking news in articles titled “Tony Morris QC fired, CBA relieved” and “Levitt discovers what goes around, comes around…”  the Plain Truth wishes to advise that TRUTH and FACTS have an elegance and resilience all of their own.

In the recent Levitt Robinson Bulletin no 109 posted to all Levitt Robinson Storm Clients on 15 February 2013, Mr Levitt attempted to divert attention from our message by shooting ‘at’ the messenger and continued making false claims.

Mr Levitt asserted that The Plain Truth posted an article online at 4.54am on 12 February 2013.  This assertion is absolutely true, however what Mr Levitt failed to mention was that the time was not 4.54am Australian time.  It was in fact 2.54pm on the afternoon of 12 February 2013 in Australia at the time of posting.  For the readers information The Plain Truth website has been under cyber attack on a number of occasions and as such is hosting the site offshore resulting in a 10 hour time stamp difference between the hosting nation and Australian time for this particular article.  Accordingly The Plain Truth did not receive and post its information 7 hours after the time Mr Levitt claims to have been served but late in the afternoon the day after he was served.

We can confirm categorically that our information was obtained from someone who was at the venue where Mr Levitt spoke. Thereafter we were able to confirm the filing of the claim by Mr Morris against Mr Levitt by searching the Queensland District Court website (see link – http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearching/FileDetails.aspx?Location=BRISB&Court=DISTR&Filenumber=432/13).

In a desperate attempt to rebuild credibility Mr Levitt tried to divert attention away from the facts by muddying the waters with allegations of impropriety based on some sort of conspiratorial timing.  As is now obvious he even got this wrong…because you can’t fake the TRUTH.

Interestingly Mr Levitt was forced to confirm that Mr Morris QC has not been part of the Levitt legal team since October 2012 and further has the temerity to claim that he is disputing the Morris bill on ‘behalf of his clients’.  The real questions here are…

1)      When did Mr Levitt propose to inform these same clients, on whose behalf he is disputing a bill, that a senior barrister on his team was terminated?

2)      We note that it is Mr Levitt that is being sued and not his clients.  Accordingly why the statement – “disputing bills on clients behalf”? Does Mr Levitt propose a further levi(tt) on his clients to cover activities they have already paid for?

3)      More importantly, when does Mr Levitt propose to explain to his clients the reason he terminated Mr Morris?

In spite of legal guidance we (who in the main are also former Storm clients) at The Plain Truth are struggling to comprehend the basis of Mr Levitts UMIS cliam.  If we understand it correctly Mr Levitt and ASIC are claiming that our Storm advisors were part of an evil empire because Storm negotiated for clients to be charged lower fees and interest rates by the banks.  This is perverse and the crew at The Plain Truth unanimously want no part of any compensation that might come from this pound of flesh.

Compensation can only be offered for losses.  How can losses be proved if the activity described led to benefits for clients.  Furthermore even if a UMIS is proved the simple fact that it was unregistered v registered could not have caused a loss unless some egghead is going to argue that losses occurred NOT because markets fell but because something was unregistered and presumably the losses would not have occurred if that something was registered.

The Plain Truth still believes that the most likely avenue for success is in the pursuit of ASIC for gagging Storm and preventing clients from obtaining advise from Storm at the most crucial time.  This together with CBA’s data errors and failure to issue margin call notices as is on the record that they had always done previously led to clients inability to take proactive or evasive action on their portfolios.

Editor Note:

The Plain Truth still stands ready and willing to assist Levitt Robinson with information and evidence against ASIC in the role as a facilitator in the closure Storm.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : Levitt Robinson, Levitt Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt

Document :

2013.02.07 Morris v Levitt application

2013.02.15 Levitt Robinson Information Bulletin no 109

Reporter : Tricia Takanawa

Content : Levitt Robinson, Levitt Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt

Tuesday 12^th February 2013

Further to our breaking news in article titled “Tony Morris QC fired, CBA relieved” about Tony Morris QC on the 31^st Dec 2012, sources have informed us that Mr Morris is suing Levitts to the tune of at least $150,000.  The proceedings have been brought by Mr Morris for fees outstanding to him following Levitt Robinsons refusal to pay Mr Morris for work done and for which Levitts has already collected funds from Storm clients.

Furthermore our source informed The Plain Truth that Mr Levitt was served with papers of claim originating from Tony Morris QC whilst at a meeting of Storm clients at Redcliffe yesterday evening Monday 11February 2013.  This was done after Mr Levitt spent the evening attempting to ‘shore up’ flagging support and keep the money flowing in.

Confirmation of the filing of the claim by Mr Morris against Mr Levitt can be viewed on the Queensland District Court website (see link – http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearching/FileDetails.aspx?Location=BRISB&Court=DISTR&Filenumber=432/13).

This action by Mr Morris QC appears to confirm the view held by The Plain Truth that the unregistered managed investment scheme (UMIS) class action is weak with very low prospects of success.  The Plain Truth still believes that the most likely avenue for success is in the pursuit of ASIC for gagging Storm and preventing from advising its clients at the most crucial time.

Editor Note:

The Plain Truth stands ready and willing to assist Levitt Robinson with information and evidence against ASIC in the role as a facilitator in the closure Storm.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : Levitt Robinson, Levitt Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt

Document :

2013.02.07 Morris v Levitt application

Reporter : Tricia Takanawa

Content : Levitt Robinson Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt, Ron Jelich, Storm Financial court case

Monday 31^st December 2012

Barrister Tony Morris QC who led the charge in the Levitt Robinson / Storm class action against the banks has been given his marching orders by Levitt Robinson. 

In shocking information provided by a credible inside source, The Plain Truth has learned that that the legal firm Levitt Robinson (Levitts) has suddenly sacked its gun barrister Tony Morris QC deflating the class action charge against the banks on behalf of Storm clients.

Whilst the news of the sacking is surprising, even more shocking is the reason given for the sudden axing at such a crucial point in the case before Justice Reeves in the Federal Court in Brisbane.

It is understood that the class action lawyers are burning through money at such a rapid rate that more funds are needed to keep the action alive.  To this end a number of roadshows were organised by Levitts, with the assistance of former Storm advisor Ron Jelich, in order to drum up support and additional funds .  Naturally the cash strapped and exhausted Storm clients who are being asked to cough up the extra dollars, require reassurance that the prospects of winning the case are as good as has always been represented to them.

Mr Morris was asked by Levitts to endorse a level of success for winning the case far in excess of what he believed.  Accordingly his refusal to ‘comply’ with this request, when he didn’t believe it, and in conjunction with Mr Morris’ ‘less than enthusiastic’ response to endorse a potentially misleading level of prospect of success led to his immediate sacking.

Mr Levitt was contacted by us directly via email for a response and to date has remained silent.  Should Mr Levitt make a statement, The Plain Truth will give it a fair hearing and let its readers know.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : Levitt Robinson Storm case, Tony Morris QC, Stewart Levitt, Ron Jelich, Storm Financial court case

Editor : Perry White

Content : website (CBA?) virus, Levitt Robinson, Storm clients, CBA Resolution Scheme

Friday 7^th December 2012 (Pearl Harbour Day)

Hello again.  As you are probably aware we have not posted an article since the 2^nd of October.  The reasons for this are two-fold.  Firstly our entire site suffered a significant viral attack which has now been fixed.  It took us quite a while to find the problem and clean it up because the attack was very sophisticated and corrupted our systems and also our resources are extremely limited relying on a volunteer expert to find the virus and fix it.

The news worthy point of this attack is that along with the disabling elements of the virus a cheeky message was discovered embedded in our code which read – “SILENCE IS GOLDEN”.  This mischief making message may have and probably did originate from someone within the CBA, however our technician informed us that they were unable to trace the virus back to the CBA therefore we are not claiming it as fact but simply suspect and believe that the circumstances and the message is to co-incidental to not have originated within the CBA.  We stress that we are not able to in anyway prove this allegation.

A common theme and mechanism used by ASIC and the CBA to maintain ‘their’ combined deception is to prevent the truth from emerging.  As we have written in many articles the Storm side of the story has been gagged by both the CBA and ASIC from the beginning and shutting down The Plain Truth website via a toxic viral attack is simple one more way of gagging the truth.  The advantage to the CBA and ASIC of only having ‘their’ side of the story heard in many forums is to have ‘bank favourable’ sentiment and decisions made by the courts and their victims.  The consequences of only one side of the story emerging are that CBA / ASIC victims will not receive the proper compensation owing to them.  Once victims have accepted the lies they are being told, victims will sign away their rights to full compensation.  It won’t then matter when the truth ultimately comes out because deeds will have been signed in favour of CBA / ASIC indemnifying these organisations from future actions.

A phenomenon which we have detected is how incredibly disinterested most CBA victims are to actually seek out the truth.  This element of human nature of course is being taken advantage of by both CBA, ASIC and the likes of Levitt Robinson.  We suppose that situations appear obvious to The Plain Truth crew because we have specifically have been searching for and delving into the truth for a long time, never-the-less we see the tragedy of individuals pinning their hopes on 3^rd parties such as ASIC or Levitts or even CBA with its resolution scheme rather than trusting themselves to be able find their own pathway if only they [individuals] would open their eyes to the truth which is under their noses.

In addition to the attack putting us off the air, our writers are exhausted as we all approach the end of the year and will be slowing down for a couple more months to recharge the batteries and recommence giving you relevant and meaningful facts in the new year.

Our articles will not entirely cease but simple slow down for the next couple of months.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : website (CBA?) virus, Levitt Robinson, Storm clients, CBA Resolution Scheme

Apologies for delay in recent updates. We are working through these at present and hope to be back online shortly.

Reporter : Ted Baxter

Content : ASIC case against Storm inaccurate: banks, Storm praised by ASIC Investors ‘in control’, Macquarie UMIS, ASIC court case against Storm, Macquarie barrister John Sheahan SC, Deborah Koromilas ASIC.

Tuesday 2^nd October 2012

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

(Sir Walter Scott).

If it weren’t for the tragic circumstances that CBA’s and now ASIC’s victims now find themselves in, ASIC’s mischief to deflect the spotlight from its own action would be laughable and worthy of an academy award.

On Thursday 27^th Sept and Friday 28^th Sept 2012, in response to the opening statements made by ASIC’s legal team earlier in the week, opposing barristers John Sheahan SC and Andrew Crowe SC made the following points which appeared to have drawn first blood.  These comments were published in recent press articles titled “ASIC case against Storm inaccurate: banks” and “Storm praised by ASIC Investors ‘in control’”.

•      That Mr Myers’ opening for the ASIC case was full of “irrelevance and inaccuracy”. – Sheahan

•      That much of ASIC’s emphasis was on “mocking and sometimes defaming Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis” even though they were not on trial – Sheahan.  This point presumably was designed to sway the mind of Justice Reeves in preparation for his pending ruling in the upcoming Cassimatis strikeout submissions.

•      Both barristers said the watchdog had misinterpreted the piece of legislation that defined managed investment schemes.

•      Both barristers also said that Storm was simply in the business of providing financial advice and then monitoring its clients investments [leaving the banks to monitor the debt].

•      Mr Crowe also criticised ASIC’s allegations that Storm failed to tailor their advice to take account of investors personal circumstances, saying there was evidence to disprove this.

•      That there was “nothing special” about the Bank of Queensland’s business relationship with Storm, and that the bank gave similar reduced interest rates and other deals to non-Storm investors – Crowe.

•      ASIC was launching into an unprecedented argument and using an “arbitrary construct” in manufacturing a case that could affect “hundreds of schemes”. ASIC was unable to produce ANY example where the central role of advising clients and monitoring their position came within being the definition of a managed investment scheme. – Sheahan.

•      The court heard that a managed investment scheme includes characteristics such as whether investors money is pooled or whether members of the scheme lack day-to-day control over the operations of the scheme. Mr Sheahan said that investors had control whether they would listen to advice.

Finally, the following point was made by Mr Sheahan that The Plain Truth feels is extremely relevant and has been aware of for some time now…as has ASIC.  To date, when asked on numerous occasions, ASIC has refused to confirm the below evidence preferring instead to say we have ‘no recollection’.

•      Mr Sheahan pointed out that ASIC had in 2007 examined a prospectus for Storm’s proposed stockmarket float and not raised concerns about it operating a unregistered managed investment scheme. Mr Sheahan presented a letter from an ASIC officer who praised Storm’s processes for providing supplementary advice statements. “It may be a model that can be used by other licensees to assist in servicing the mass market,” the letter said.

The Plain Truth has heard claims made by the Cassimatis’ to the effect that ASIC has on numerous occasions praised Storm for their systems and procedures.  This praise has not been limited to ASIC but has also come from university academics, other advisors and the Financial Planning Association (FPA) (click here for more detail).  The praise by ASIC and others of Storm Financial has not been a one off incident but is a thread that weaves through the fabric of time from the inception of the Storm business in early 1990’s until the torpedoing of Storm by ASIC and the CBA on the 8^th Jan 2009.

The most recent example of such co-operation and praise by ASIC was at a meeting in Storm offices on the 13^th November 2007 where Deborah Koromilas (the ASIC officer at that time) praised Storm and expressed the wish that ‘other advisors had procedures and processes that were as good as Storm’s’.

This 13 Nov meeting was called by ASIC and attended by Deborah Koromilas (ASIC Financial Service Compliance – Assistant Director), Elizabeth Korpi (ASIC Compliance – Lawyer) and Belisa Jong (ASIC Compliance – Manager).  The extent and the essence of the meeting was encapsulated in the following extract from pleadings and has been obtained from our source within ASIC.

1. In the course of the meeting, the said officers of Storm:-

(a)            communicated to the officers of ASIC:-

(i)             the substance of Storm’s advice model;

(ii)            the substance of Storm’s client education process;

(iii)          an explanation of how the Phormula software system interacted with the services Storm provided to clients;

(iv)          responses to all other matters about which they enquired;

Following the meeting Deborah Koromilas again informed Storm that it [ASIC] wished other advisors had procedures and processes that were as good as Storm’s.  Deborah Koromilas although not denying that she said this, has refused to confirm it.

In a move that ASIC was unable to avoid, the letter presented to the court by Mr Sheahan has left ASIC between a rock and a hard place.  We can’t wait to see what flawed logic ASIC will employ to again avoid the potential for them having to tell the truth.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : ASIC case against Storm inaccurate: banks, Storm praised by ASIC Investors ‘in control’, Macquarie UMIS, ASIC court case against Storm, Macquarie barrister John Sheahan SC, Deborah Koromilas ASIC.

Reporter : Ted Baxter

Content : ASIC & CBA compensation, Storm Financial settlement, ASIC gagging, Emmanuel Cassimatis, ASIC Hugh Copley

Wednesday 25^th September 2012

The Plain Truths insider at ASIC, known as ‘Matador’, has provided quite valuable information to us over the last 12 months.  In recent communications Matador cited in internal high level memo which outlined the tactics ASIC expected to use in its cases against the banks and Cassimatis’.

Matador was unable to obtain copy and only had a brief time to read part of the lengthy memo however was able to pass on some pertinent points.

The main thrust of what Matador read appeared to be an instruction to the ASIC legal team to “stay away” from Emmanuel Cassimatis as a witness and under no circumstances were either Emmanuel or Julie Cassimatis to be subpoenaed for ASIC’s case against the banks .

The reason given for this ASIC directive was to prevent Cassimatis from offering evidence which contradicted what ASIC called its ‘relationship based evidence’ in the case against the banks.  Furthermore whilst ASIC funded Storms liquidators (Worrells) to the tune of half a million dollars to build a case against Storm and the Cassimatis’, a further directive was made by the highest levels within ASIC to under no circumstances offer any further funding to Worrells which may enable them to fulfil their duty as liquidators of Storm Financial by representing the best interests of Storm in court.  This directive to withhold funding along with the ‘behind closed doors’ encouragement by ASIC to not have Storm represented in court has had the desired outcome for ASIC where…

STORM AS A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE LAUNCHED BY ASIC HAS NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER.

What democratic society would allow a defendant to be tried, whether guilty or not, without any representation whilst being completely denied any right of reply or response whatsoever?

This tactic is consistent and identical to the tactic used by ASIC from the beginning.  That is, ASIC is [mis]using its power to protect the CBA and cover it own wrongful activities by using all means at its disposal to prevent any communication from emerging from the Storm camp thus ensuring that only the ASIC case is heard.

One should never condone wrongdoing but it happens.  When it does we call the police.  But to have the police help the burglar carry your stuff out to his car is a wrong too far…

In 2008, following discussions with the Commonwealth Bank,  AISC launched an investigation into Storm and extracted an undertaking from directors Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis (click here for related article) which had the effect of gagging any communication with Storm clients.   This prevented Storm clients from being able to obtain advice from Storm advisors at the time they needed it most.  In other words ‘ASIC exceeded its authority’ because it did not regulate or police margin loans and thus stuffed up big time.

From that point on ASIC was forced to either come clean or cover its tracks.  ASIC chose to cover its tracks and the method ASIC has consistently used has been to ‘gag all things Storm’.  By ASIC frenetically attempting to cover their tracks, using the tactics they have been employing to date, ASIC have exposed to the general public that they do in fact have something to hide . One of many examples of the attempt to suppress information has been AISCs keystone cops approach to ‘due process’ or rather, the lack of attention to it as previously mentioned (i.e. no defendant representation or information from defendants).  This approach by ASIC is ultimately doomed and will only waste time and money due to the inevitable appeals that will occur from chasing the wrong people.

The Plain Truth has proof that many Storm people, including Cassimatis, have attempted to meet with ASIC to provide the necessary evidence but have been denied even the right to talk to someone in ASIC face to face. The further the saga continues, the deeper they dig their own hole and the closer they expose themselves to a negative verdict by the court of public opinion.

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : ASIC & CBA compensation, Storm Financial settlement, ASIC gagging, Emmanuel Cassimatis, ASIC Hugh Copley

Reporter : Ted Baxter

Content : ASIC & CBA compensation, ASIC compensation model, Storm Financial settlement, CBA UMIS.

Tuesday 18^th September 2012

The inevitability that ASIC would protect the CBA at all costs finally came to fruition on Friday 14^th September 2012 with the creation of the ‘ASIC and CBA Storm Financial Settlement’ and the ‘ASIC Compensation Model’.  The CBA, because it has the money, was able to buy its way out of prosecution whilst at the same time admitting ‘no liability whatsoever’ or ‘any wrongdoing’ towards Storm clients.

“By settling the ASIC UMIS Proceeding brought against it by ASIC, CBA admits no liability in relation to ASIC’s allegations and the terms of the agreement reached between ASIC and CBA reflect this.” – extract 3.2 from ASIC and CBA Storm Financial Settlement

So, CBA is off the hook for the UMIS…which in the opinion of The Plain Truth did not exist anyway.

However the most astonishing and diabolical component of this whole shame (the ASIC settlement and compensation model) is the CBA obtaining from ASIC, TOTAL IMMUNITY from ALL and ANY Storm related prosecutions, including all margin loan dealings, illegal sell-downs and unauthorised closing of funds.

“The settlement reached between ASIC and CBA means that ASIC will not bring any action against CBA along the lines of the action ASIC has brought on behalf of Mr and Mrs Doyle in the Doyle Proceeding. ASIC will not be taking any other action against CBA.”  – extract 5.1 from ASIC and CBA Storm Financial Settlement.

So much for Sir Ralph’s famous mia culpa – “Our customers can be assured that where we have done wrong, we will put it right.”  The fact is that Sir Ralph, Dame Ina Narev nor their kingdom of CBA have parted with $1 for any wrongdoing.  All settlement deeds, and we mean ALL, have absolved the Commonwealth Bank of ANY wrongdoing with respect to Storm.

The extent of CBA’s power and influence, especially over ASIC, appears to be overwhelming.  One can only imagine the dirt that the CBA has on ASIC to be able to purchase full immunity for such a meagre cost.  The price that the racketeer ASIC is selling Storm clients silence to the CBA for is a mere 0.3% of the banks $88 Billion market capitalisation.  This is equivalent to someone who is worth $1,000,000 compensating a grievous wrongdoing with $3,000 and getting complete immunity.

To make matters worse, the CBA has so far only paid out less than half the amount claimed with the words, “up to” prefacing the last $136M.  The CBA has received immunity from ASIC prosecution by offering an amount of money to victims which is clearly unacceptable to those victims and far short of the extent of CBA’s wrongdoing.  This has been confirmed to The Plain Truth by an independent group of forensic accountants.  The dastardly ASIC Compensation Model provides CBA with immunity even if the aggrieved victims do not accept the minimal compensation offered and it remains in CBA coffers.

Credible information from an internal ASIC source which has come into our possession recently claims that in the recent secret negotiations between CBA and ASIC, the Commonwealth Bank agreed to keep quiet about the role ASIC played in the demise of Storm and the losses suffered by clients.  The Plain Truth must declare however that although we trust our source and find the information consistent with other allegations, we are unlikely to get documentary evidence confirming this assertion.  Our source will however make best endeavours to accommodate us with more than…a statement.

Although we have not seen a deed yet we suspect that claims against ASIC will be prohibited as well as claims against the CBA.  Maybe ASIC has been reading our previous articles, “ASIC ‘PANIC ATTACK’ HAD FATAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STORM CLIENTS.”,  “Part I – ASIC liable for ‘gagging’ compensation”  and “The ASIC ‘gag’ of Storm now exposed as the key for compensation.”, that highlight ASICs involvement and subsequent requirement for them to compensate victims as well.  By creating the ‘ASIC and CBA Storm Financial Settlement’ and any subsequent ASIC disclaimer absolving them of responsibility, ASIC found another method of covering their past mistakes.

At this juncture it is important for those who were unable to speak to their advisor in late 2008 as a result of ASICs gagging that each such individual put in a separate claim for compensation against ASIC.  Such claims should be put directly to ASIC with the question, “WHY DID YOU GAG STORM WHEN ASIC HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER MARGIN LENDING?” and “WHAT IS ASIC GOING TO DO ABOUT COMPENSATING ME?”

The Editor

The Plain Truth,

PO Box 2783

New Farm  QLD  4005

Content : ASIC & CBA compensation, ASIC compensation model, Storm Financial settlement, CBA UMIS.