Update received today from the administrator.
How can I keep up to date with further developments?
Updates are being posted on our website,
= KPMG UK =.
Thank you Rigel7 for that,and PBoyles for the CIPF pdf - these will be very useful here in Australia for the following reasons:
Deloitte have been appointed interim administrator for MFG Australia it seems.
However their fees are atrociously OUTRAGEOUS and seem totally disconnected from the job at hand. Deloitte are "estimating costs at around $1,000,000 per month." And if that money is NOT held by the trading arm of MFG, then it must come from somewhere.
Deloitte will move to ensure they get paid, and anything left will be distributed to interested parties. That is excessive and unfair, and unnecessary when compared to what is usually the case in winding up defaulting companies.
What is at stake here is not so much the company (MFG) itself, but the moral issue of segregation of client funds and accounts. Deloitte are now saying that:
"Client's funds are NOT segregated as far as the administrators are concerned. They will be treated as CREDITORS."
"Creditors" are entities who are owed money. ie ... entities who made loans to MFG.
If you are a client of MFG in Australia, you are being treated as if you "made a loan to MFG and MFG owe you that money back."
When you deposited money in your MFG a/c you did
not knowingly "loan" them money, because that money was segregated as "yours" to be purely used for
YOUR trading - not the trading by the parent company.
If this issue is not resolved in favor of the clients in this case, it leaves the entire industry at risk. For example, here in Australia, the Regulators, ASIC, rquire that client's funds be segregated from the company funds - ie protected.
But an administrator can over-ride that rule it seems, and here is where the 'moral" dilemma occurs. Unless the regulator - ASIC in Australia - steps in to prevent Deloitte from accessing client funds, then a precedent will be set that will rumble right through the industry.
My submission is that the Administrator CAN NOT over-ride the corporations law, and client's funds are NOT to be treated as creditor's funds. That is the whole point of segregation, and the intent and inference that was made when the account was established.
Here is an excerpt from correspondence I am receiving from a MFG client in Australia who has over $165,000 at risk, if Deloitte is allowed to ride rough-shod over the rules and regulations:
Have the Administrators liaised/consulted with and sorted permission/approval from either ASIC, SFE, the Federal Treasury and or the RBA for their planned treatment of segregated accounts and which part of the Corporation’s Law are they following and relying upon? And if not have they informed out of courtesy either ASIC, SFE, the Federal Treasury and or the RBA of their planned treatment of segregated accounts?
It is not good enough for clients to simply sit back and allow administrators to graze on the funds - feed at the trough - of clients, just because they are the administrators.
Clients need to become activist in their hard questions to the administrators, and get involved and in dialogue with the FSA, ASIC, CIPF or whatever governing body there is in your area.
If the governing regulator can NOT oversee the greedy activities of ruthless administrators when it comes to their own duty of protection towards the industry they are lawfully mandated to administer themselves, then the whole industry is at risk of anarchy, insofar as what companies can and can not do.
This is notwithstanding whether that company is a trading company, as is/was the case with MFG, or whether the administrator is is the case with Deloitte or KPMG or other receiver, or the government or industry regulator, which is the FSA, or ASIC, or other similar legally mandated regulator in your area.
people need to contact their regulator, whether clients of MFG or not, to begin expressing their severe concerns regarding the true meaning and status of the word "segregated."
If "segregated" only means "unless in liquidation" then I seriously suggest traders think about the amount of money, and the importance of that money to them, that they have deposited with any broker, anywhere.
It is not good enough for a receiver to simply rewrite the rules and laws to suit their own greedy desires.
Such activity is predatory.
Administrators and receivers, liquidators etc ALSO are governed by Corporations Law. It is incumbent upon the politics and regulations of enforcement bodies to insist on behaviour of these parasitical receivers, within the Corporations law, the moral law, and the full intent of the law, regarding the fine print contained in client agreements, set up and established at the time the agreement with MFG was entered into (ie at the time your account was established and set up.)
I am going to be asking some serious questions of IG Markets now, in the light of segregated funds being not-so-segregated, when it suits the whim of someone else who has a duty to discharge he corporate laws.