Pace Securities | Page 27 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Pace Securities
January 2, 2021
5:09 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2265
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
521sp_Permalink sp_Print

I don't really follow the analogy of someone coming into your house to steal stuff, if I understand right some adults freely signed papers and entered into contracts with another party that they thought would pay them very nice interest rates higher than the going GIC rates the rest of us were getting. And maybe a bit of wilful blindness, I don't know. From my reading of these posts, seems to be some fault/blame to be apportioned to each side.
But at this point people will just have to wait to let the process play its way out.

January 2, 2021
5:31 pm
Douglas Thomson
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
June 8, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
522sp_Permalink sp_Print

The Pace Securities advisors defrauded clients by convincing them they were putting their money into a investment with bond-like security. They were enabled by the credit union. It was simple fraud. Whether that’s a matter for civil court, or criminal, remains to be seen.
(Cue “Norman’s” hand-washing)

January 2, 2021
5:31 pm
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
523sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bill said
I don't really follow the analogy of someone coming into your house to steal stuff, if I understand right some adults freely signed papers and entered into contracts with another party that they thought would pay them very nice interest rates higher than the going GIC rates the rest of us were getting. And maybe a bit of wilful blindness, I don't know. From my reading of these posts, seems to be some fault/blame to be apportioned to each side.
But at this point people will just have to wait to let the process play its way out.  

I got the bit of sarcasm in your earlier post.I was willing to remove my money to get a better rate at The Hydro Credit Union(of which I also belong)The rates at Pace were much less than at Hydro Credit Union.Ready to walk with my money when someone said-wait forgot-last day of this deal.I had no idea that there was Pace Securities and Pace as I had switched over when ALtrans was bought out .I never had a GIC with PACE,I have done investments in the past for my RRSP and the bottom line is I do not lose my capital.There was never any of that discussion in the room.As far as I knew I was buying a PACE branded GIC,I was never given any paperwork afterwards ,so this idea of bonds was something knew to me,I did not walk out of that room with bonds or anything.When I was able to renew a year later for another GIC the rate was much better and I just did it at the counter.Wondered why I was not in the room but whatever.Funny thing was-I got a call after my GIC would have expired asking if I had any money to invest and I said I had already bought a GIC.He said -you know we are the ones with the good interest-I said you said it was a deal that had expired.And that made me wonder.
And believe it or not-so I don't get tempted by these promotions I never look at the flyer that covers the statement(no online banking) and one time I was overdue with my BELL bill because they were sending it with a wraparound FIBE thing and it would just go in recycling.
So-that's my story-and it may be different than many others-but when you are selling this crap without doing the Know Your Client,and to some people with dementia,and in a Credit Union-it is theft.
But think whatever you want-you are anonymous and I have put myself out there.

January 2, 2021
6:12 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2265
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
524sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine, I don't at all doubt anything you've said, I've read enough posts here to know that there certainly appears to have been some deception, etc. But Angelofdebt says "You don't need to explain" whereas my point is precisely the opposite, i.e. some day Pace and you may/will have to explain to someone your positions, your sides. And one of my first priorities would be having ready a clear rationale of why my signature on the documents I signed should be disregarded. A freely-given signature by a capable adult on a contract document is a pretty big deal, normally.

January 2, 2021
6:23 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3789
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
525sp_Permalink sp_Print

Loonie said

If Eves is not being pursued by authorities, then I'd say he thinks he's darn lucky.
He is a former finance minister and premier, for goodness sake! He was far from naive about financial matters. It's not reasonable to think he didn't have the wits to know what sort of company he was keeping.…

Many of these ex-politicians are not necessarily experts themselves. They relied on the expertise from the staff behind the scenes like the deputy minister and other public servants in the ministry.

But, they are well recognized like a celebrity. Their celebrity is used to lend credibility to a company that needs it. I think the term for such people is "financial gigolo". Former out-of-work politicians, ambassadors, and astronauts are popular choices when a "financial gigolo" is needed.

It is a warning sign when the company board is filled with such people!

It is likely that former Chairman Eves relied on regular information from the compliance officer McRae and the ultimate responsible person Thomson. Thomson likely didn't send a memo out that he was running the PACE Financial investments outside of the constraints in the offering memorandum.

January 2, 2021
7:03 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3789
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elaine said
Of course if I had gone in to invest something what you are saying has some merit.
I went in to renew a GIC that had expired.Went to the front desk at Pace Credit Union at East Mall and when I said that I could get a better interest rate somewhere else someone said-oh wait-we have a special that is expiring today-
I had never been in Pace before (actually I had been in to get money out for work being done) but had never been to get a GIC.I thought this was normal at PACE.When I went to renew a GIC that had not yet expired a year later and the GIC rate was adequate I said that I would get it and was surprised I was not taken into the ROOM.
This was theft. At a Credit Union.Of 100 thousand dollars.I was in there to get a GIC and I was never given any paperwork to show otherwise.This is theft.Plain and simple and if a smart guy like you can't get it then I can't help you.Maybe repeating it over and over again will help you to understand(if in fact you want to understand)But I do appreciate your input and I can't expect you to remember all of us.I was very naive.I did not expect something like this at a Credit Union.
The chips will fall where they may- if I play by your rules someone at the very least stole 3 thousand dollars from me(when I got the paperwork from E&Y the commission was 3%)A real human being-who pocketed that money along with others that pocketed money from it.

Don't focus too much on that 3%. It is better to focus on potentially recovering the other 97%! If you can come out of this 97% whole, then that would be tolerable.

I do remember your story. I had suggested you see a lawyer to see what your legal position is.

You are in a complex situation and didn't seem to have much documentary or circumstantial support for your version of what happened.

FSRA likely looked into your complaint. As part of the investigation, they interviewed the PACE Credit Union person who handled your transaction. He likely disputed your account of what happened.

Two different stories. Your signature on the share purchase form. No evidence of a substantial $100,000 GIC purchase. Maybe you were tricked. Maybe you were not tricked and are now just trying to dodge the huge loss on the preferred shares.

You can see how FSRA or anyone else could have doubts about your version of what happened.

It is hard to sustain accusations of theft when there is evidence you literally signed the $100,000 over. sf-frown That's why I suggested you contact a lawyer about the situation.

It is really unfortunate that you got caught up in this private shares garbage. Years ago, only wealthy "accredited" investors or friends/family could lose money on such shares.

January 2, 2021
7:28 pm
Douglas Thomson
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
June 8, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
527sp_Permalink sp_Print

This is the important part...“Thomson likely didn't send a memo out that he was running the PACE Financial investments outside of the constraints in the offering memorandum.

January 2, 2021
7:43 pm
Douglas Thomson
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 11
Member Since:
June 8, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
528sp_Permalink sp_Print

Exactly, it’s an ego play. Vampire indeed.

January 2, 2021
8:22 pm
Yaftica
Interwebs
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 62
Member Since:
May 15, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
529sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wow, only 8 months into this thread, I hope more join in so it gets more interesting in 2021. This site should thank us for generating this traffic. I’m sure the CU’s PR crew loves it. And yet ... So much yet to discuss, especially when the bloodshed really begins.

January 2, 2021
8:37 pm
Angelofdebt
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 8
Member Since:
January 2, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
530sp_Permalink sp_Print

The credit unions PR crew have been useless. They have tried reaching out to various posters on here pretending to offer solace and a listening ear. They are just testing the vehemence. Be sure that it is strong. Especially when funds start to be withdrawn. They are about as fake and insincere as Barb Dirks biweekly then monthly updates. Remember those? Created to waste time and make people think the CU is looking out for them. As fake as a wedding cake. David Finnie better read this site and get caught up quick. The affected will not back down. We will bring facts and will expose this as much as needed. The whole ship goes down if needed. Happy New Year Pace Credit Union!

January 2, 2021
10:10 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 6831
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Norman1 said

Loonie said

If Eves is not being pursued by authorities, then I'd say he thinks he's darn lucky.
He is a former finance minister and premier, for goodness sake! He was far from naive about financial matters. It's not reasonable to think he didn't have the wits to know what sort of company he was keeping.…

Many of these ex-politicians are not necessarily experts themselves. They relied on the expertise from the staff behind the scenes like the deputy minister and other public servants in the ministry.

But, they are well recognized like a celebrity. Their celebrity is used to lend credibility to a company that needs it. I think the term for such people is "financial gigolo". Former out-of-work politicians, ambassadors, and astronauts are popular choices when a "financial gigolo" is needed.

It is a warning sign when the company board is filled with such people!

It is likely that former Chairman Eves relied on regular information from the compliance officer McRae and the ultimate responsible person Thomson. Thomson likely didn't send a memo out that he was running the PACE Financial investments outside of the constraints in the offering memorandum.  

My opinion of what is "likely" is quite different.

I am aware that some former politicians are sought for endorsements and very rewarding directorships (e.g. Mike Harris and Chartwell, which runs quite a few long term care homes in Ontario), and others are avoided like the plague and have trouble getting a job.

These people are brought on board not just because of name recognition per se, but because they know the ropes of government, what you can likely get away with and what you can't, and for the very large number of people in positions of power whom they can phone up and have an influential chat with. A sitting premier of any stripe is almost certainly going to pick up the phone when a former one calls.

And I am aware that cabinet ministers and even premiers often rely on the input of their senior staff, but that they also ignore it, and are also influenced by many other factors including their own knowledge and judgment.

That's their job, to juggle all these inputs and make wise decisions, whether the input is from staff, lobbyists, donors, pollsters, whatever.

What that experience gives them, if they didn't have it before, is, or can reasonably be expected to be, insight into the wiles and motives of those who approach them to ask for their involvement. If they come out of all that political experience naive, then they would have to be cognitively deficient.

I have not heard the answer to the question of how Eves or the other cabinet minister got involved in this fiasco. I have not heard what their past relationships may have been. I have not heard how the project was presented to them. If these questions have been addressed, I've missed it. I also don't know what they principals expected to get out of this but I'm sure they weren't into it for sport. A former premier can be very well rewarded with directorships etc., and doesn't have to lend his name for free. If he does, it suggests a strong personal relationship of trust; if he doesn't, it suggests an expectation of significant personal gain.

My sense of what was "likely" is that he knew what he was getting into. He's a graduate of Osgoode Law School and has been a practising lawyer. I don't think he's naive. I think he knows how to protect himself.

January 2, 2021
11:35 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3789
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
532sp_Permalink sp_Print

Loonie said

My opinion of what is "likely" is quite different.

My sense of what was "likely" is that he knew what he was getting into. He's a graduate of Osgoode Law School and has been a practising lawyer. I don't think he's naive. I think he knows how to protect himself.

For those same reasons, I don't think Eves would have knowingly become chairman of the board of a startup investment dealer that was breaking OSC rules.

An implosion, like PACE Securities, won't look good on the resume afterwards. As well, there could be serious consequences when things go wrong. In the YBM Magnex fiasco, the OSC staff asked that, as one of the directors, David Peterson be sanctioned with a five to ten year ban on being a director for any public company.

The corporate director positions are paid positions. So, a former politician is not lending his/her credibility for free.

Keep in mind the directors are not required to shadow the day-to-day employees and can miss things. In the Home Trust problems around 2015, the board didn't know that their mortgage underwriters had been "phantom ticking" mortgage applications when the work to verify applicant's income was not actually done.

January 3, 2021
5:15 am
savemoresaveoften
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 475
Member Since:
March 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
533sp_Permalink sp_Print

To be fair, Norman and Bill are really pointing out the reality, and I dont believe they have a hidden agenda.
This is what I think will ultimately happen after all the dust have settled:

1) Pace CU will be merged/swallowed by another CU, the deal will either be brokered by the authority or it will simply happen naturally cuz the Pace brand name is not viable. I am not talking about financial viability, but rather people will avoid the name given the bad publicity

2) Its more of a wish than reality for those affected to get 100% of their money back. Look at the Lehman minibond fiasco in Asia during 2009/2010. That is almost identical to what happened here.

3) A capable adult's signature on multiple documents are a very powerful tool and the court will weigh that heavily. Unless the documents clearly stated principal protection plus the word GIC, multiple signed documents mean the investors accept the risk in the eye of the court. You will have a much better chance if you can demonstrate you only purchased GIC before and zero exposure to ANY risk investment ever (stocks, mutual funds, corporate bonds) etc If you fit this description, the KYC rule is in your favor for 100% recovery. You still need to launch a separate lawsuit and opt out of the class action.

4) Mediation process is not to determine 0% or 100% compensation. It is to come up with a number somewhere in between to avoid a trial. Pace has very little risk if investors demand 100%, they will simply have it sort out in court which will take some time, a scenario that only makes the lawyers rich. For those who think Pace has huge reputation risk if this drag on, you are wrong. Making investors whole in this case is a pretty heavy blow if not fatal from a financial standpoint. And Pace do have the legal ground in their favor unfortunately.

January 3, 2021
5:21 am
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
534sp_Permalink sp_Print

It is such a mess.
All us adults signing contracts .
It is our fault
A similar thing happened with Chit-Chat Hearing.My disabled son went and had his ears tested and signed something and that was for hearing aids.He is deaf in one ear (no hearing aid can help) and he had so much wax in his other ear that St. Mike's hospital had a hard time getting it out later.The company harassed us for months.The owner yelled at me and said they were doing a service to seniors.
That company is no longer in business and the salesperson for the company that took over said they heard the story over and over again and apologized for what happened.
But Chit-Chat hearing was allowed in seniors homes for years preying off the seniors as they were allowed to go into their residence and sell crap.
It does not seem that a lot of companies have any kind of moral compass any more.
Norman-you have given me a great idea.If FSRA LIKELY interviewed the salesperson I should be able to get a copy of the interview that MAY have happened.Thanks for that.

January 3, 2021
5:55 am
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
535sp_Permalink sp_Print

savemoresaveoften said
To be fair, Norman and Bill are really pointing out the reality, and I dont believe they have a hidden agenda.
This is what I think will ultimately happen after all the dust have settled:

1) Pace CU will be merged/swallowed by another CU, the deal will either be brokered by the authority or it will simply happen naturally cuz the Pace brand name is not viable. I am not talking about financial viability, but rather people will avoid the name given the bad publicity

2) Its more of a wish than reality for those affected to get 100% of their money back. Look at the Lehman minibond fiasco in Asia during 2009/2010. That is almost identical to what happened here.

3) A capable adult's signature on multiple documents are a very powerful tool and the court will weigh that heavily. Unless the documents clearly stated principal protection plus the word GIC, multiple signed documents mean the investors accept the risk in the eye of the court. You will have a much better chance if you can demonstrate you only purchased GIC before and zero exposure to ANY risk investment ever (stocks, mutual funds, corporate bonds) etc If you fit this description, the KYC rule is in your favor for 100% recovery. You still need to launch a separate lawsuit and opt out of the class action.

4) Mediation process is not to determine 0% or 100% compensation. It is to come up with a number somewhere in between to avoid a trial. Pace has very little risk if investors demand 100%, they will simply have it sort out in court which will take some time, a scenario that only makes the lawyers rich. For those who think Pace has huge reputation risk if this drag on, you are wrong. Making investors whole in this case is a pretty heavy blow if not fatal from a financial standpoint. And Pace do have the legal ground in their favor unfortunately.  

Now you tell me!
To be fair-after going through the legal stuff with my son I know full well how much a lawyer on my own would cost.100 G would be around the starting point-and since there was a class action Osgoode Hall Legal Clinic would not help.
If a know your client thing is having someone say-wow-you own a house in Toronto-you must be rich-and me thinking he was just talking-not filling out forms.And putting me as an accredited investor.It would be interesting to know just how many ACCREDITED INVESTORS Pace Security had.Wealthy beyond all means.That would be a fun fact.maybe someone can produce that little tid-bit of info.

January 3, 2021
8:30 am
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3789
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
536sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine said
It is such a mess.
All us adults signing contracts .
It is our fault

It is not quite like that. As savemoresaveoften mentioned, being legally at fault doesn't mean that one is necessarily 100% responsible for the result.

Once a loss has been established, there will be arguments back and forth about who is responsible and how much responsible (from 0% to 100%).

Judge could find that one is 80% responsible and the other person is 20%. If the one asking for compensation is found to be 80% responsible for the loss, then that person will only be awarded 20% of the loss.


But Chit-Chat hearing was allowed in seniors homes for years preying off the seniors as they were allowed to go into their residence and sell crap.
It does not seem that a lot of companies have any kind of moral compass any more.

Norman-you have given me a great idea. If FSRA LIKELY interviewed the salesperson I should be able to get a copy of the interview that MAY have happened.Thanks for that.

Unfortunately, when there's money or a sales commission to be made, there's temptation to do bad things, especially if the person needs that commission to pay next month's rent or put food on the table.

It is standard procedure to get the story from both sides. If it ends up in court, judge would want to hear from both sides.

You definitely can ask for a copy. I'm not sure FSRA would be obligated to give a copy right now. If this lands in court, you and your lawyer definitely be entitled to a copy then as part of the discovery process.

January 3, 2021
8:50 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
537sp_Permalink sp_Print

Douglas Thomson said
The Pace Securities advisors defrauded clients by convincing them they were putting their money into a investment with bond-like security. They were enabled by the credit union. It was simple fraud. Whether that’s a matter for civil court, or criminal, remains to be seen.
(Cue “Norman’s” hand-washing)  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-agencies-battle-over-who-dropped-the-ball-as-pace-credit-union-back/

If the Credit Union could have just stood by the signature, they would have given everyone a copy of their papers which they did not do.

With 700 investors! Clearly they were hiding something from the beginning.

January 3, 2021
9:03 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
538sp_Permalink sp_Print

Loonie said

My opinion of what is "likely" is quite different.

I am aware that some former politicians are sought for endorsements and very rewarding directorships (e.g. Mike Harris and Chartwell, which runs quite a few long term care homes in Ontario), and others are avoided like the plague and have trouble getting a job.

These people are brought on board not just because of name recognition per se, but because they know the ropes of government, what you can likely get away with and what you can't, and for the very large number of people in positions of power whom they can phone up and have an influential chat with. A sitting premier of any stripe is almost certainly going to pick up the phone when a former one calls.

And I am aware that cabinet ministers and even premiers often rely on the input of their senior staff, but that they also ignore it, and are also influenced by many other factors including their own knowledge and judgment.

That's their job, to juggle all these inputs and make wise decisions, whether the input is from staff, lobbyists, donors, pollsters, whatever.

What that experience gives them, if they didn't have it before, is, or can reasonably be expected to be, insight into the wiles and motives of those who approach them to ask for their involvement. If they come out of all that political experience naive, then they would have to be cognitively deficient.

I have not heard the answer to the question of how Eves or the other cabinet minister got involved in this fiasco. I have not heard what their past relationships may have been. I have not heard how the project was presented to them. If these questions have been addressed, I've missed it. I also don't know what they principals expected to get out of this but I'm sure they weren't into it for sport. A former premier can be very well rewarded with directorships etc., and doesn't have to lend his name for free. If he does, it suggests a strong personal relationship of trust; if he doesn't, it suggests an expectation of significant personal gain.

My sense of what was "likely" is that he knew what he was getting into. He's a graduate of Osgoode Law School and has been a practising lawyer. I don't think he's naive. I think he knows how to protect himself.  

Loonie said

My opinion of what is "likely" is quite different.

I am aware that some former politicians are sought for endorsements and very rewarding directorships (e.g. Mike Harris and Chartwell, which runs quite a few long term care homes in Ontario), and others are avoided like the plague and have trouble getting a job.

These people are brought on board not just because of name recognition per se, but because they know the ropes of government, what you can likely get away with and what you can't, and for the very large number of people in positions of power whom they can phone up and have an influential chat with. A sitting premier of any stripe is almost certainly going to pick up the phone when a former one calls.

And I am aware that cabinet ministers and even premiers often rely on the input of their senior staff, but that they also ignore it, and are also influenced by many other factors including their own knowledge and judgment.

That's their job, to juggle all these inputs and make wise decisions, whether the input is from staff, lobbyists, donors, pollsters, whatever.

What that experience gives them, if they didn't have it before, is, or can reasonably be expected to be, insight into the wiles and motives of those who approach them to ask for their involvement. If they come out of all that political experience naive, then they would have to be cognitively deficient.

I have not heard the answer to the question of how Eves or the other cabinet minister got involved in this fiasco. I have not heard what their past relationships may have been. I have not heard how the project was presented to them. If these questions have been addressed, I've missed it. I also don't know what they principals expected to get out of this but I'm sure they weren't into it for sport. A former premier can be very well rewarded with directorships etc., and doesn't have to lend his name for free. If he does, it suggests a strong personal relationship of trust; if he doesn't, it suggests an expectation of significant personal gain.

My sense of what was "likely" is that he knew what he was getting into. He's a graduate of Osgoode Law School and has been a practising lawyer. I don't think he's naive. I think he knows how to protect himself.  

Ernie Eves has not responded to any requests for interviews. (I wonder why?).

Even if he wasn’t running day to day operations, he was still a board member and was compensated by PSC and clearly knew more than the average person.

January 3, 2021
9:06 am
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
539sp_Permalink sp_Print

Norman1 said

Elaine said
It is such a mess.
All us adults signing contracts .
It is our fault

It is not quite like that. As savemoresaveoften mentioned, being legally at fault doesn't mean that one is necessarily 100% responsible for the result.

Once a loss has been established, there will be arguments back and forth about who is responsible and how much responsible (from 0% to 100%).

Judge could find that one is 80% responsible and the other person is 20%. If the one asking for compensation is found to be 80% responsible for the loss, then that person will only be awarded 20% of the loss.


But Chit-Chat hearing was allowed in seniors homes for years preying off the seniors as they were allowed to go into their residence and sell crap.
It does not seem that a lot of companies have any kind of moral compass any more.

Norman-you have given me a great idea. If FSRA LIKELY interviewed the salesperson I should be able to get a copy of the interview that MAY have happened.Thanks for that.

Unfortunately, when there's money or a sales commission to be made, there's temptation to do bad things, especially if the person needs that commission to pay next month's rent or put food on the table.

It is standard procedure to get the story from both sides. If it ends up in court, judge would want to hear from both sides.

You definitely can ask for a copy. I'm not sure FSRA would be obligated to give a copy right now. If this lands in court, you and your lawyer definitely be entitled to a copy then as part of the discovery process.  

Wow Norman- this is interesting- suggesting a judge would rule on theft or fraud based on whether the person needed the money for rent.I guess I should try that.Go steal something because I am in need and know that the judge will empathize with me.
I guess this goes for all the advisors.The judge will sympathize with them because they need to make payments on that nice new Tesla they bought.And they ,too ,have a mortgage-so maybe the judge will say I need to give them more money.

January 3, 2021
9:12 am
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3789
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
540sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine said

…It would be interesting to know just how many ACCREDITED INVESTORS Pace Security had.Wealthy beyond all means.That would be a fun fact.maybe someone can produce that little tid-bit of info.

There are at least three accredited investors judging from the number of investors who put $1+ million into the shares. This is Table 7.2 on page 26 of Motion Record, December 22, 2020:

Value of Preferred
Shares at Cost
Number of Investor
Claimants
Aggregate
Investment
$25,000 or less 320 $2,893,460
$25,001 to $200,000 348 $25,974,490
$200,001 to $750,000 39 $14,082,680
$1,000,000 or more 3 $3,847,570
Total Amount Invested $46,798,200

Could be more of them as some accredited investors may not have invested $1 million or more. This couple is likely an accredited investor who invested around $500,000. Their story is on page 29:

(b) CK and JK are husband and wife. They retired in March 2020. Together they had invested nearly half a million dollars in the Preferred Shares, representing approximately half of their retirement savings. Their financial plan is dependent on those funds, and they need to know the time frame for resolution so that they can plan accordingly.

Please write your comments in the forum.