The Australian and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) came forward on 17 September and announced it had formed its own version of a Storm Financial resolution scheme.
Almost two years after the December 2009 fall of the advice group, ANZ has followed Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s (CBA) lead and plans to offer compensation to former Storm clients.
In principle it’s a good move. Not only will it hopefully encourage other banks caught in the Storm net to offer similar compensation, it will hopefully help move further towards closing the Storm chapter for good.
Since the advice group’s collapse, there has been little to no closure for clients, it has painted the advice industry in a poor light and a number of Australian banks with Storm exposure have been left red faced if they have recorded a profit this year.
Though, outside of the banks and those who held the puppet strings within Storm, another fight is brewing.
There have been murmurs within Storm investor camps that litigators involved in putting forward client claims have begun fighting internally.
It is believed litigators Slater & Gordon and Levitt Robinson Lawyers have come to blows (metaphorically speaking) over knowing whose client is whose.
Slater & Gordon are claiming all clients under its CBA resolution scheme are theirs, whereas rumour has it the firm is also claiming clients who are either with Levitt Robinson or considering joining Levitt Robinson are also theirs. This is, of course, unconfirmed.
It’s ironic really. With regard to the whole knowing your client rule, many would argue the collapse of Storm would never have happened if all involved knew their client.
However, the client appears to be the only one left out here once again.
According to the Storm Investors Consumer Action Group (SICAG), there is one case that speaks volumes about how the litigators involved in the CBA resolution scheme seem to have lost the human element in this disaster.
In a statement released by SICAG earlier this month, the group released details of a male client who suffered a life-threatening heart condition during the course of considering the proposal put to him under the CBA resolution scheme.
The client returned to work but subsequently suffered a stroke, the statement said.
“The medical prognosis was conveyed to Slater & Gordon with a request that they seek from CBA a further extension beyond the deadline of 1 September,” it said.
“Representation to the CBA on behalf of the client by Slater & Gordon ran to a one-line email stating: ‘Any ideas on what you want to do?'”
The response from CBA was to provide an extension of two weeks, which they suggested was adequate for the client to put in place power-of-attorney provisions to facilitate the conclusion of the proposal.
“The client’s medical prognosis cannot be described here but suffice to say that it is unlikely he will ever be able to return to the workforce. It is also a matter for some conjecture whether he would be legally capable of granting a power of attorney to his wife, due to his current medical condition,” SICAG said.
“Accordingly we allow members of the media and press to form their own opinion as to what interpretation they place on these events.”
The relaying of this statement is by no means intending to point the finger at the litigator or CBA. It is merely an example of how such a situation can get out of hand, with money and power thought to be the only outcome. Though the frailty of human life needs to return as the key focus.
