Reporter : Ron Burgandy
Content : Senator Williams, Emmanuel Cassimatis, Jeremy Cooper ASIC, Tony D’Aloisio ASIC, Storm gagging.
Tuesday 7th August 2012
Billions of dollars were lost and hundreds of families were dispossessed of their wealth as a result of, in the main, two strong and emphatic reactions to the GFC. The first was the self serving and illegal sell down of assets by the Commonwealth Bank in its need to improve its liquidity. The second reaction, and the topic of this article, was the enabling action by ASIC when in order to protect the banking system they gagged Storm and its advisors as well as Storms managing director and its chairman personally.
The Plain Truth has obtained from an ASIC source, copies of documents which remove all doubt about whether the Cassimatis’ were also personally gagged by ASIC and were made subject to the possibility of severe penalties if they disobeyed ASIC directions by disclosing any information.
Below are relevant extracts from an ASIC transcript of a confidential examination dated 16th Dec 2008 that confirms the ASIC gagging order on Mr Cassimatis.
It wasn’t until the 11th Feb 2011, 2¼ years after ASIC first gagged both Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis and ASIC felt safe in removing the gag on the Cassimatis’ that the gagging order was lifted. Below is an ASIC document provided to us by Emmanuel Cassimatis. This document advises Mr Cassimatis that the gagging order first imposed on him from the 16th Dec 2008 had been lifted effective from 11th Feb 2011 (click here to see ASICs revocation of its gagging directions)..
The document confirms that Mr Cassimatis was in fact gagged as he claimed and continues to claim.
In Dec 2008 and since, Storm CEO Emmanuel Cassimatis, has been resolute in his assertion that he and Storm advisors were gagged by ASIC. The effect of this gagging prevented Storm clients from contacting their advisors which resulted in huge portfolio losses for them. The personal gagging of the directors meant that the Cassimatis’ were prevented from letting Storm clients know exactly what the ‘CBA state of affairs’ was thus preventing the truth from emerging in many forums, including the press, the liquidators inquiry and to the world at large.
On the 25th Feb 2009 Senator John Williams had the twin ASIC slippery eels within his reach. To this time the blatant denials by ASIC had managed to convince the press and the public that ASIC had acted honourably and was acting to protect consumers whilst in the same breath denying any prior in camera meetings with the CBA. The Plan Truth has previously established that ASIC secretly met with the CBA (click here for collusion evidence pt 1) (click here for collusion evidence pt 2). One of the issues in question was the personal gagging of the Storm directors. Senator Williams was able to pick up on what may have been a relevant point in spite of the surrounding media circus and surprised Cooper and D’Aloisio with probing questions about the gagging of Storm and ASICs gagging orders on the directors of Storm.
As can be seen in the transcript below from the Senate Estimates Committee hearing, Senator Williams asked a straight question to ASIC about its powers, “Do you have a thing called a section 19?” to which he received the only answer possible, “We do.”
However in answer to Senator Williams question about ASICs exercising of this power, “Did you issue a section 19 on Storm?”, Jeremy Cooper used his considerable ‘experience’ to duck, weave and completely avoid answering the question. This crafty side-stepping by Jeremy Cooper can be seen clearly in both the following transcript and video extracts.
Senator WILLIAMS—Has Storm been gagged at all? Do you know anything about that?
Mr Cooper—Not by us, no.
Mr D’Aloisio—I do not know what you mean by ‘gagged’.
Senator WILLIAMS—Do you have a thing called a section 19?
Mr Cooper—We do.
Senator WILLIAMS—Did you issue a section 19 on Storm?
Mr Cooper—This is getting into the mechanics of our investigation, but certainly that is our investigation power to compel people to answer questions. That is the core tool of our investigations. Section 19 is a section in the ASIC act that allows us to compulsorily examine people to get to the bottom of exactly these sorts of matters.
(click here to view video of ASIC heads (Cooper & D’Aloisio) side-stepping Senator Williams’ probing questions on 25 Feb 09)
Even though the valiant questioning by Senator Williams on the 25th Feb 09 was seemingly fruitless on that day, he was still able to trap this ASIC duo within their own web of lies. As has be seen in documents uncovered by The Plain Truth, ASIC DEFINATELY GAGGED BOTH STORM PERSONNEL and STORMS DIRECTORS EMMANUEL AND JULIE CASSIMATIS.
ASIC used its section 19 investigative powers to completely silence the Storm directors. These powers were designed as an interrogation tool for ASIC to compel people to answer questions for investigative purposes rather than as a gag. ASIC was able conceal topics at its sole discretion simply by including these topics and material in their discussions and questioning of the Cassimatis’. By doing this ASIC was then able to issue gagging orders that anything discussed must remain confidential until such time as ASIC felt safe enough to rescind such orders.
Call us cynical if you like but it seems to The Plain Truth too much of a coincidence that ASICs suppression of information from Storm and Cassimatis commenced the day before CBA began their scripted campaign of Storm being “completely responsible for your financial position” on 17th Dec 08 and was lifted in 2011 well after the majority of Storm clients had been cleaned up by Scattini and CBA’s unsatisfactory settlements in their Resolution Scheme. At the same time Storm advisors and its servants were gagged on the 18th Dec 08.
If ASIC was fair dinkum then it might have saved its credibility by issuing gagging orders on topics they considered particularly sensitive. The Plain Truth and our expert investigators have read many hours of these transcripts and can confidently state that at best, maybe 5-10% of the conversation may have been sensitive in nature. Of course ASIC will claim that every word uttered MAY HAVE BEEN sensitive to their investigation. For ASIC to gag every word stated and for 2¼ years can only be indicative of a gross misuse and abuse of power.
So the question is:
WHY DID ASIC FEEL THE NEED TO GO TO SUCH EXTREMES?
A consistent theme that has emerged from the analysis of a large number of clients that were Storm clients prior to 2006 and in particular the period 2001-04 is that Storm had definite and robust advice in place to handle any margin call notices that the bank may have issued. Further evidence of Storms re-participation strategy can be seen on our previous articles Storm Financials re-participation strategy: Did it exist? and Storm Financials re-participation strategy: Did it exist? (conclusion).
Currently Storm clients broadly fall into two categories.
1) Those who have received partial compensation from the banks based on the deficient Scattini formula. This compensation was mainly from the Commonwealth Bank and to a lesser extent the National Bank. Even though most people have accepted this compensation under duress it has long been suspected to be grossly substandard.
It might be worth noting that within this group of partial compensation clients, The Plain Truth has received credible information that some lawyers have successfully forced the CBA to pay significantly above the Scattini formula for the same circumstances. We also understand that the CBA has also found a ‘back-door’ way of compensating Storm staff and advisors and has already done so in numerous cases.
2) Those who have received nothing to date. A number of these Storm clients are relying on the somewhat tenuous assertion that there existed an Unregistered Managed Investment Scheme.
In the first case above, personal circumstances forced people to accept substandard compensation. In doing so, individuals signed away any rights for further compensation from the bank. For these people, the way is open for them to seek compensation from ASIC for the difference between what they did receive and what they should have received if their portfolios were reinstated. The Plain Truth analysis of the compensation packages received to date indicate that the amount of compensation offered by the banks is only between 25% to 50% of what it should have been.
In the second case individuals still have the hope of obtaining full compensation from their respective bank. However, this is unlikely because lawyers will unfortunately do a deal (as lawyers do) that coincidentally runs along similar lines to the deficient Scattini formula rather than litigate, especially since most can’t afford to litigate.
As The Plain Truth has mentioned in previous articles about ASIC, we will expose the truth however it is up to you, the readers and victims, to take the relevant action. The contact details of people you should approach for explanations are listed below. Please do not forget to take detailed notes or preferably record your conversation.
ASIC contact details:
Greg Medcraft (the guy in the hot seat now) – [email protected]
Hugh Copley (the underling who actually did the gagging)- 0434 565 199 – 07 38674892 – [email protected]
Jeremy Cooper contact details:
Jeremy Cooper (who ordered the gagging to cover his tracks) – 02 9994 7000 – [email protected]
Tony D’Aloisio contact details:
Tony D’Aloisio (the boss at the time who signed off on the order) – [email protected] (mark as attn to Tony D’Aloisio)
Further evidence on the low tactics Tony D’Aloisio employs can be found in an article titled “The watchdog, his wife, and their winery” that was penned by Scott Rochfort, Michael West and Ian Verrander. Click on the link for the full story http://www.businessday.com.au/business/the-watchdog-his-wife-and-their-winery-20110330-1cgca.html
The Editor
The Plain Truth,
PO Box 2783
New Farm QLD 4005
Content : Senator Williams, Emmanuel Cassimatis, Jeremy Cooper ASIC, Tony D’Aloisio ASIC, Storm gagging.
and inquiries by our investigators, The Plain Truth has obtained an extract from The Commonwealth Banks, ‘Risk Management and Margin Calls Procedure Manual’. This extract is from section ‘6.1 Margin Call Letters (Colonial)’ of the CGI procedures manual and puts to bed claims by the Commonweal th Bank that it had changed its procedure from – a) contacting both advisor and client in the case of a margin call to, b) only contacting an advisor who was then responsible for contacting the client of any margin call.
Clearly the normal procedure was to have a copy of the margin call letter sent to all parties to the margin loan, including the advisor and the borrower.
