Vestar legal case – Cornwell v Syms, Purvis, Curtin and Perris
By VoV | Vestar Legal Action | Monday 28th November 2011After reviewing the Armitage v Church case, and the successful application by Bret Jackson and Kenneth Swain for summary judgement/strike out of the claims against them in the Luscombe v O’Sullivan, Syms, Purvis, Gaylard, Jackson, Swain, Curtin and Perris case, the following situation can be described.
Case law now exists that suggests Vestar is in the clear for recommending Bridgecorp. Going by case law, the Courts will deem it was an appropriate investment for Vestar to recommend because of its Lloyds insurance and the existence of an adequate ratings report.
There will undoubtedly be other investments that the Courts will deem to have been appropriate.
If the Cornwells win, the best-case scenario is damages of $105,000 plus costs. The likely scenario is $60,000 plus costs.
Any costs awarded are likely to be no more than half the Cornwell’s actual costs.
If the case proceeds to a full hearing in the High Court, the Cornwell’s total costs will be in the order of $250,000. The defendants’ costs will be in the order of $350,000.
A possible likely scenario is therefore that the net cost of the Cornwell case will be $125,000 ($250,000 actual cost less 50% that the defendants are ordered to pay) and the damages awarded $60,000.
That’s a net cost of $125,000 less $60,000 damages the defendants must pay for their actions that led to the Cornwell’s losses, which equals a net loss of $65,000.
In other words, the financial outcome will likely be $65,000 worse than if the case had not been taken at all.
But there is no guarantee of winning. This is what is know as “litigation risk”.
If the case goes the other way and the Cornwells do not win, they will receive no compensation and face a cost of $250,000 for their case and maybe half of the defendants’ costs of $350,000 – an all-up cost of $425,000. Ouch.
Armed with knowledge of the two recent relevant cases, both sides have therefore agreed not to proceed to trial. This is a rational, pragmatic approach by both sides.
Tags: Armitage v Church, Bret Jackson, Bridgecorp, Cornwell v Syms Purvis Curtin and Perris, Gaylard, Jackson, Kenneth Swain, Lloyds insurance, Luscombe v O'Sullivan Syms, Luscombe v O'Sullivan Syms Purvis Gaylard Jackson Swain Curtin and Perris, Purvis, Swain
Monday 28th November 2011 at 3:21 pm
So if one is told that ones investments are underwritten by Lloyds of London we take it to mean that is not true.
So does that mean it was a High Risk investment even if the advisor knew one to be a low risk investor, yet for some financial gain on someones part that small incidental was conveniently over looked?
Win win for Vestar and lose lose for investors.
Win win for advisors and lose again for investor.
Yes things are certainly looking up for investors, seems like there was never any hope. So what money is left we just shut up and keep it in out pockets, the only ones gaining from court cases are guess who?
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 5:49 pm
Thank you Vern for all the blogs and work you put into getting the ‘case’ thus far. There must be many cartons of data and useful information for the FMA or any other apropriate bodies who, I hope, will take over our fight for justice. I expect Lawrence also has much legal data etc he’s worked on to date which would be helpful.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 6:12 pm
@HC
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 7:55 pm
Lawrence/Barry/Vern,
A brief note of thanks for your efforts re the Vestar claim. I know that it has taken a considerable amount of your time and effort (and no doubt an enormous amount of emotional energy). While the outcome is disappointing I certainly understand and agree with the logic of the recent decision not to proceed.
Barry’s recent email indicates that the FMA is now involved and likely to pursue legal remedies. Is this now simply a matter of waiting to see what happens next?
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 7:57 pm
@Graeme
Thanks for the positive feedback. It has indeed taken much emotional energy!
Re the FMA, yes, we just have to wait and see what eventuates now.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 8:41 pm
Hi Vern. Just wanted to say many thanks.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 at 8:42 pm
@LAH
You are most welcome. Thanks for the feedback
Wednesday 30th November 2011 at 7:17 pm
Thank you Vern for your work on my behalf. My thanks also to your helpers, and to the dogged efforts of the EUFA team. You kept giving me hope, but more than that, as I mentioned to Barry K., you made me feel that I was not alone.
Yours in gratitude…John C.
Thursday 1st December 2011 at 10:15 am
@John Corner:
Thanks for the feedback John. My aim was to do what I could to help the cause by volunteering to help EUFA via this blog. But I think you’ve identified the biggest benefit we’ve delivered to burnt investors – the knowledge that you are not alone. There were many, many of us, but no way to get in touch or compare notes and share stories until this blog came along. I’m really pleased to have been able to help.
From a personal perspective, it was important to me to do something constructive because doing nothing and remaining silent would have effectively been condoning Sym’s and Purvis’ behaviour.
We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I think regulatory change will come about because of people like us taking a stand and making noise, but I’m not convinced it will be enough. We don’t need disclosure statements; we need advisors and promoters to be accountable and face criminal convictions if they do wrong.
Thursday 1st December 2011 at 7:58 pm
Hi Vern, thanks to all concerned for all your work. I believe we signed a form ages ago with EUFA that we would get compensation from any cases that the authories prosecuted. How do we go about this if the FMA succeed. I thought there was a case recently which said only people who had registered would be compensated. Who do we get in touch with to follow this up?
I have been rung by finance companies looking for clients and have been furious at them. They are only pimps for the big boys who see ordinary people as just cash cows. People beware of this. We do not need burning twice and these vultures and their henchmen are still looking for business (our money).
My condolences to all of us. We deserved better. Good luck to the FMA.
Thursday 1st December 2011 at 8:31 pm
Thanks again for all you all did for us all. We did feel that we were not alone and you have all made the right decision not to continue as the big boys have all banded together and this includes politicians, judges and the top 1 percent wealthy. Were we naive to expect justice especially as as we have a government lead by a PM with roots in the financial industry?
Saturday 3rd December 2011 at 10:06 am
Thank you Vern and all of those who supported and assisted you in this long process. I’d have preferred a more optimistic outcome however, as you point out, there seems little to be achieved in throwing good money after bad