Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this9:22 am
May 19, 2020
Offline
savemoresaveoften said
I am sure no managers at any bank branches know how many millionaires customers they have off the top of their heads.
The important question is did you actually sign a form that agrees to you are a acredited investor ? if you do, the legals are against you unfortunately.Also where there is a definition of securities on the form is irrelevant. Essentially it asks for if the person has $1MM net investable assets. A house is not an investable asset and that should be obvious.
I dont think its fair to call all of PCU crooks and a scam. I think its only a handful of advisors who thru lack of knowledge and/or greed ended up peddling securities that may not be suitable for the investors. As such I cant say I agree PCU should make everybody whole. Just like those investors who invested in Nortel and Bre-X were not made whole by anybody, whether it is a scam or not.
I just want to say that at no time did I infer that all PCU staff were out to scam.And the question about the millionaires was an I wonder question.
And I have a friend who lost her RRSP with NORTEL-so I know things are not always fair.
If I knew what an accredited investor was I would not have signed.
The adviser(or) was the one who added my house to the list-not me-and I had no idea why he was doing this.Remember-I was not there to buy shares but to renew a GIC that had expired.And after a call yesterday with a legal body I am not even sure this person was a Pace Credit Union employee.He could have worked for Pace securities without the IIROC accreditation.
And-yes-I might be SOL -.
In my case it would have been good to have gotten the papers right away and then look up the terms and realize that it was not right-but that is me.I am not judge-jury-it will all work out in the end.
Thanks for your comment-I did not mean to dis all PCU employees -I am sure the majority are great and helpful-that's why I wondered whether the ones who did NOT sell these things(and thus did not make those nice bonuses) were being interviewed.And I hope those employees get commendations put on their files.
I hope that clears it up a bit for you and others who thought I was being nasty.It was an I wonder .
7:03 am
July 2, 2020
Offline
For those PSC clients that don't check their SPAM / JUNK e-mail folders often, PACE CU provided an updated on July 10.
Follow this link to their MEDIA Centre & click on the the public info they've released.
9:35 am
May 19, 2020
Offline
Elaine said
I just want to say that at no time did I infer that all PCU staff were out to scam.And the question about the millionaires was an I wonder question.
And I have a friend who lost her RRSP with NORTEL-so I know things are not always fair.
If I knew what an accredited investor was I would not have signed.
The adviser(or) was the one who added my house to the list-not me-and I had no idea why he was doing this.Remember-I was not there to buy shares but to renew a GIC that had expired.And after a call yesterday with a legal body I am not even sure this person was a Pace Credit Union employee.He could have worked for Pace securities without the IIROC accreditation.
And-yes-I might be SOL -.
In my case it would have been good to have gotten the papers right away and then look up the terms and realize that it was not right-but that is me.I am not judge-jury-it will all work out in the end.
Thanks for your comment-I did not mean to dis all PCU employees -I am sure the majority are great and helpful-that's why I wondered whether the ones who did NOT sell these things(and thus did not make those nice bonuses) were being interviewed.And I hope those employees get commendations put on their files.
I hope that clears it up a bit for you and others who thought I was being nasty.It was an I wonder .
And I would like to add that this would be a really interesting study for Sociologists or others who want to know how people's mnds work.
We have a lot of employees that were given the opportununity to make money quick -and yet not all the employees did it.
Maybe a Manager had said "we are not doing that here,case closed"
This is all really important and a lot of info can be mined with the the proper questonaires.
I really do hope Pace is doing this or is allowing an outside company come in and ask the questions.It would show a lot about who should -or should't -be allowed to work in the financial sector.Just my opinion
6:41 am
May 15, 2020
Offline
Eves and Klees. Wonder how long its going to take to uncover whatever Mr. Eves gained from all of these payoffs. Leaves one to wonder if the entire PSC Division and was created to sustain all of these people on the take, but maybe some of those answers will come next month in the hearings when the brothers come up from the Caymans.
https://www.shrinkslessorsquare.ca/945-former-mpp-frank-klees-and-pace-credit-union
5:54 pm
July 21, 2020
Offline
Greetings. This is my first post on the matter and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed all the information. I am surprised to see the lack of posts for several days. My immediate question is to ask if anyone is contacting lawyers for individual or class action advice or waiting for the dust to settle from EY and Fasken?
6:45 pm
June 8, 2020
Offline
Hi there, I think investors are waiting for a variety of next steps. Were you an investor in Pace Securities?
8:13 pm
July 21, 2020
Offline
Yes, like many, a long time PCU member, trusting the organization I invested with PS and purchased PFL.
9:47 pm
June 22, 2020
Offline
Here’s some interesting reading about parent company’s being held liable for the actions their foreign subsidiary.
I wonder how the law would apply to an Ontario corporation and its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary.
3:16 am
July 2, 2020
Offline
dwgcs said
My immediate question is to ask if anyone is contacting lawyers for individual or class action advice or waiting for the dust to settle from EY and Fasken?
I can only speak for myself, but YES & YES.
7:38 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
Investor1 said
Here’s some interesting reading about parent company’s being held liable for the actions their foreign subsidiary.I wonder how the law would apply to an Ontario corporation and its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary.
Ontario Business Corporations Act subsection 92(1) says the following:
Shareholders’ liability limited
92 (1) The shareholders of a corporation are not, as shareholders, liable for any act, default, obligation or liability of the corporation except under subsections 34 (5), 108 (5) and 130 (5) and section 243. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 92 (1); 2011, c. 1, Sched. 2, s. 1 (6).
The UK Supreme Court decision mentioned in the Financial Post article did not say that the parent company was liable. The decision declined to summarily dismiss the lawsuit and that the lawsuit could proceed to a trial. There's a big difference between allowed to proceed to a trial and winning the trial.
As well, since the Canadian constitution was signed by the Queen in 1982, UK court decisions no longer matter in Canada.
8:08 am
June 22, 2020
Offline
Also from the article “ The emerging trend that has seen international plaintiffs permitted to proceed with claims against Canadian parent companies for the allegedly wrongful activity of their foreign subsidiaries means that the corporate veil is no longer a silver bullet to the heart of a plaintiff’s case,” says Michael Finley, a lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office.”
This emerging trend allowing a Canadian parent to be held liable for the actions of a foreign subsidiary is relatively new, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out for Canadian subsidiary’s of a Canadian parent.
8:51 am
July 5, 2020
Offline
Investor1 said
Here’s some interesting reading about parent company’s being held liable for the actions their foreign subsidiary.I wonder how the law would apply to an Ontario corporation and its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary.
Interesting article!
These paragraphs are also interesting “ Although Canadian and English courts have historically recognized that parents can be liable for subsidiaries who have “in substance taken over the management of the subsidiary,” the Vedanta case goes further.
As the U.K. Supreme Court saw it, a parent’s liability is also engaged when the parent has advised a subsidiary as to “how it should manage a particular risk.” This included laying down “group-wide policies” that contain “systemic errors” or taking “active steps” to have subsidiaries implement the policies. Indeed, the court went so far as to state that a parent could be liable to third parties harmed by subsidiaries even if it merely “holds itself out” as exercising a degree of supervision over the subsidiary.”
And “ The decision signals a broadening of liability that a parent company may incur to those who are harmed by the actions of a subsidiary,” Rosenthal said. “It’s not a sea change in the law, but it is an incremental step towards a new look at corporate social responsibility.”
While decisions of U.K. courts do not bind Canadian judges, they have historically been highly influential. That’s significant because Canadian courts have arguably been trending in the same direction. So while our judges have not gone so far as to pierce the corporate veil or to adopt a broad approach to the “duty of care,” they have been reluctant to summarily dismiss claims against parents based on wrongs committed by subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions.”
I’m sure the lawyers will be lining up for this one!
9:19 am
May 19, 2020
Offline
Doubt there will be too may lawyers unless they are working for free.
Pace Credit Union can afford to have lawyers make up a survey ,analyze those results,have different affected members interviewed by the law firm.
All without the members who are getting the surveys being provided with legal help.
I was daft once -I guess they figure I am just daft.
Not sure I have much trust left.
Not sure who is paying for these high end lawyers.
Are they working for me-as a member of Pace Credit Union or against me -as someone who was affected by this Pace Financial issue?
9:38 am
July 5, 2020
Offline
Elaine said
Doubt there will be too may lawyers unless they are working for free.
Pace Credit Union can afford to have lawyers make up a survey ,analyze those results,have different affected members interviewed by the law firm.
All without the members who are getting the surveys being provided with legal help.
I was daft once -I guess they figure I am just daft.
Not sure I have much trust left.
Not sure who is paying for these high end lawyers.
Are they working for me-as a member of Pace Credit Union or against me -as someone who was affected by this Pace Financial issue?
Plenty of lawyers will be interested because they will work on a contingency where they get paid as part of the class action settlement.
Pace and it’s wholly owned subsidiaries all have liability insurance for their directors and business liability coverage.
That is what the lawyers will go after.
Any lawyer hired by Pace is working for Pace and not in the interest of members. Any survey they send is just window dressing.
Pace shared their customer data with investment advisors from pace securities and even split commissions between the PSC and PCU staff.
So PCU was clearly “in charge “ of PSC and selected and hired its directors.
I heard that Pace sent out another reminder to do the survey, clearly affected members have been advised to reply until advised by legal counsel.
Do not trust Pace or their lawyers who are working against you not for you.
12:33 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Elaine said
…
All without the members who are getting the surveys being provided with legal help.
I was daft once -I guess they figure I am just daft.
Not sure I have much trust left.
Not sure who is paying for these high end lawyers.
Are they working for me-as a member of Pace Credit Union or against me -as someone who was affected by this Pace Financial issue?
Their lawyers are likely working for them, the credit union. It is an open question whether they would be working for you or against you as a result.
The lawyers could be fact finding, gathering the legal arguments that you would be using against the credit union, or a bit of both. It depends on what the survey is asking.
Perhaps take the survey to a lawyer and hear what he or she recommends. Yes, that would likely involve paying legal fees.
University of Toronto's Faculty of Law runs legal clinics to provide supervised experience for their law students. Not sure this kind of situation is one that is in their mandate. Perhaps they can help or provide referral to lawyers who could help. Contact info is at Downtown Legal Services: Contact us
2:32 pm
July 5, 2020
Offline
Here is a little more information about section 92 of the OBCA and its “exceptions”.
Here is section 92 below:
Shareholders’ liability limited
92 (1) The shareholders of a corporation are not, as shareholders, liable for any act, default, obligation or liability of the corporation except under subsections 34 (5), 108 (5) and 130 (5) and section 243. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 92 (1); 2011, c. 1, Sched . 2, s. 1 (6).
This legal definition above is very broad and does not differentiate the type of corporation or shareholder as it mentions professional corporations and just regular corporations (but I will just stick with what exactly is written in the OBCA).
Now there are many ways to interpret the rules but here is an example: If a retail investor buys shares in Telus, they, the retail investor are not liable for the actions of Telus as per the definition above. However, if Telus owns a subsidiary that behaves badly and gets into in trouble, then Telus may be sued for the actions of that subsidiary as Telus is the owner/shareholder of the troublesome subsidiary. This is consistent with what the Canadian lawyers stated in the article that was posted earlier by Investor1.
Also from section 92 of the OBCA: “except under subsections 34 (5), 108 (5) and 130 (5) and section 243.”
Not sure about all of these exceptions, but let’s see what section 108 (5) says:
“Cannot contract out of liability
(3) Subject to subsection 108 (5), no provision in a contract, the articles, the by-laws or a resolution relieves a director or officer from the duty to act in accordance with this Act and the regulations or relieves him or her from liability for a breach thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 134 (3).”
Clearly there have been several breaches in which PCU, it’s lawyers and “other” lawyers will be looking into with great interest.
Hence the existence of director’s and corporate liability insurance which the lawyers will target either from the parent, PCU or its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Also interesting of note from the OBCA is section 3.4
“ No limit on professional liability
3.4 (1) Subsection 92 (1) shall not be construed as limiting the professional liability of a shareholder of a professional corporation under an Act governing the profession for acts of the shareholder or acts of employees or agents of the corporation. 2000, c. 42, Sched., s. 2.”.
The above mentions professional corporations and does not distinguish it from other corporations hence the vagueness of the OBCA and the need for sound legal advice in interpreting it correctly.
It will be interesting to see how the various legal teams interpret the OBCA (if it applies in this case) as well as the new precedents set forth in the cases mentioned in the article provided by Investor1.
4:06 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
One can't own a corporation. One owns shares of a corporation or is a shareowner of the corporation. It's just loose English to say someone owns a corporation when the person owns all the issued shares of the corporation.
“Cannot contract out of liability" refers to directors and officers. Both have to be real people. Neither a director nor an officer can be a corporation. As well, it specifically refers to breaches of "this Act", the OBCA, and not any other act, like the Securities Act (Ontario).
Professional corporations are those allowed by certain professions, like medical doctors, that have personal professional liability. It allows a doctor, for example, to incorporate his/her practice for tax planning and ordinary business liability purposes without shielding the doctor from personal professional liabilities, like medical malpractice.
If shareowner immunity can be used to shield shareowners from the $40+ billion of environmental cleanup costs of old oil and gas wells in Alberta, it can certainly shield a shareholder from $50 million of liability.
6:07 pm
May 19, 2020
Offline
Norman1 said
Elaine said
…
All without the members who are getting the surveys being provided with legal help.
I was daft once -I guess they figure I am just daft.
Not sure I have much trust left.
Not sure who is paying for these high end lawyers.
Are they working for me-as a member of Pace Credit Union or against me -as someone who was affected by this Pace Financial issue?Their lawyers are likely working for them, the credit union. It is an open question whether they would be working for you or against you as a result.
The lawyers could be fact finding, gathering the legal arguments that you would be using against the credit union, or a bit of both. It depends on what the survey is asking.
Perhaps take the survey to a lawyer and hear what he or she recommends. Yes, that would likely involve paying legal fees.
University of Toronto's Faculty of Law runs legal clinics to provide supervised experience for their law students. Not sure this kind of situation is one that is in their mandate. Perhaps they can help or provide referral to lawyers who could help. Contact info is at Downtown Legal Services: Contact us
A lawyer should know better than to send around surveys .They still have not told me who is paying for their lawfirm.They are getting info so it does not happen again.How much do you think that info is worth?
6:17 pm
July 5, 2020
Offline
The survey has been sent out by the credit union using a free tool called Survey Monkey which the credit union can easily track.
If they need a survey now, it simply demonstrates the lack of control and oversight that they ignored in the first place.
Pace is paying for the law firm with members money.
That is why members will consult their own legal counsel because a lawsuit will trigger the credit unions liability coverage unless they come to their senses and make this right before the bad publicity causes them further harm.
6:59 pm
May 19, 2020
Offline
Pace got off to the right start on this by letting Barbara call affected members.Lately it seems she is quiet.Gagged somewhere in the back closet?She would (should )have given proper advice to her children.We are her clients.She is a lawyer.I wonder how that would pan out in court.
Quit the charade Pace ,before things get so bad that members not affected get ticked off about you using their money to fight their own members.
Please write your comments in the forum.