Pace Securities | Page 28 | 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 3, 2021
9:24 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elaine said

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.  

Exactly Elaine! The “they needed money” excuse.

FRSA even wanted to go after individual employees according to the article but PACE wouldn’t agree. Obviously they don’t want their employees turning on them and saying they were pressured to sell and targeted their own members first.

As for the broken procedures that let to this, when you sign up 700 investors most or whom are members, and don’t give ANY of them a copy of the papers they signed, the procedure wasn’t broken, it was working like a well oiled fraudulent machine.

As for blame, PCU has already admitted they are at fault and FSRA believes they are at fault there isn’t any customer vs PACE % nonsense.

PACE also wants to blame FSRA as well because of obvious incompetence and conflicts of interest during their first time as administrator.

Although It will be hard for PACE to blame FSRA for their own actions, IIROC had been sounding the alarm for quite some time so it wouldn’t just be the “word” of PACE vs FSRA, it would be PACE and IIROC vs FSRA.

This PRRR law firm is smart to leave the regulator out of this current case and focus on the matter at hand, however, I do not believe that FSRA is entirely blameless here but that will be a separate matter for PACE and IIROC to work with.

The upcoming IIROC hearing in February will be quite insightful into this matter.

January 3, 2021
9:24 am
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4116
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
542sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine said

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.

That's not the case! You are mixing criminal and civil law.

In criminal law, it is guilty or not guilty. Jail or not jail. There is no 20% guilty, 80% guilty, and so on.

When one is trying to recover money, instead of put someone in jail, it is civil law. That's where the 0% to 100% responsibility comes in.

If my car is damaged because I drove accidentally into someone's house and I sue the homeowner for having their house in the way, the homeowner can argue that I'm at least 99% responsible for the damages to my car. After all, I drove the car into their house which was not moving and hasn't moved in decades!

January 3, 2021
9:27 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
543sp_Permalink sp_Print

Angelofdebt said
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!  

I’m interested to see what type of PR the new PACE CEO is going to use since FSRA is already of the position that they are to blame.

January 3, 2021
10:03 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
544sp_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)  

Although this current case is a business/civil case I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other potential investigations especially with the Smiths and their “web of deals”. It’s been quiet about them lately but I’m sure we’ll hear something about them.

January 3, 2021
11:20 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
545sp_Permalink sp_Print

Dave_1 said
If I'm to believe all the reporting in Mr Bradshaw's Dec 28th Globe & Mail article -

    FSRA and your expert hired consultant, & IIROC..... you guys knew in June 2019 there was nefarious activity going on at PACE Securities. YOU KNEW ! You were at the controls ! And didn't stop it !

You guys could have stopped all preferred share purchases in FHH in June 2019. How many millions got invested in June 2019 & later ? How many investor claimants could have dodged this bullet in June 2019, had you guys just done the right thing & pulled the plug ?

I have no idea of the numbers, but my simple minded brain says a $20+M problem is easier to solve than $60+M.

Honest mistake or incompetency ? I'm just shaking my head in wonderment. You might want to ask for a refund from your expert hired consultant at KSV Advisory.

In the meantime, us lowly retail investors go after the other bad actors (Smith father/son duo, Thomson, McRae, Eves, PACE, & other directors) & rightfully so. And FSRA sits on the sidelines smiling & singing the MC Hammer song "U Can't Touch This". or was that "U Can't Touch Us" ?

  

Although PRRR has left FSRA out of this current action, it will be interesting to see what IIROC has to say during the upcoming hearing in February.

It may certainly be precedent setting for the matter at hand and potential future legal actions.

Although according to the article, PACE fought to leave individual PCU and PSC employees out as they were just “following orders” but I wonder if they will be vulnerable to future sanctions?

I’m sure they are all “lawyering” up.

January 3, 2021
11:26 am
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
546sp_Permalink sp_Print

Norman1 said

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.

  

The accredited investors I am referring to are not the ones that actually have (OR HAD) but the ones who had it signed on the documents that they were accredited.That will be a completely different number.What I would like to know how many people were DESIGNATED as accredited investors

January 3, 2021
11:55 am
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The interesting thing is that NO ONE, over 700 investors was given any documentation.

Everyone had to request it afterward.

The documents said “Customer must receive a copy within 2 business days for the contract to be valid” so the whole “signature defence” for PCU is clearly moot.

Since the Credit union held those documents, they could have added anything they wanted to them and since no one had a copy, it is everyone’s word against them or at least the signature defence is off the table, otherwise they (PCU) would have been using it.

January 3, 2021
12:31 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2449
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
548sp_Permalink sp_Print

I would never leave without a copy of a document I had just signed, I think that's pretty standard practice for many of us. Seems very odd to me that not one of 700 people were like me and refused to leave until they had been given a copy - ? Must be more to it.

January 3, 2021
12:32 pm
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
549sp_Permalink sp_Print

I actually called everyone I could think of to cancel once I got the documents from Ernst and Young.The customer has 2 business days to cancel from receipt of the documents-I think that is what the wording was.So I cancelled
Still don't have my money back

January 3, 2021
12:34 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4116
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
550sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine said

The accredited investors I am referring to are not the ones that actually have (OR HAD) but the ones who had it signed on the documents that they were accredited.That will be a completely different number.What I would like to know how many people were DESIGNATED as accredited investors

I didn't run into any breakdown of the number of investors and their class. One can't really tell with some of the lower investment amounts:

Value of Preferred
Shares at Cost
Number of Investor
Claimants
Aggregate
Investment
$25,001 to $200,000 348 $25,974,490
$200,001 to $750,000 39 $14,082,680

Someone who had $100,001 to $200,000 of shares would have to be designated as an "accredited investor" to buy that in one shot.

But, an "eligible investor" can buy up to $100,000 in a 12 month period. The investor who bought $150,000 of shares could have been designated an "eligible investor" and bought over more than one 12-month period.

January 3, 2021
12:35 pm
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill said
I would never leave without a copy of a document I had just signed, I think that's pretty standard practice for many of us. Seems very odd to me that not one of 700 people were like me and refused to leave until they had been given a copy - ? Must be more to it.  

The advisor said they would get back to everyone. This occurred in the PACE Credit Union branch on a Saturday when most office stationary was conveniently unavailable. And then time passed. And here we are.

January 3, 2021
12:46 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4116
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
552sp_Permalink sp_Print

Elaine said
I actually called everyone I could think of to cancel once I got the documents from Ernst and Young.The customer has 2 business days to cancel from receipt of the documents-I think that is what the wording was.So I cancelled
Still don't have my money back

If it were only as easy as that! sf-laugh

Who is the contract with? PACE Credit Union, PACE Securities, or PACE Financial?

The money was eventually sent to PACE Financial. If the contract was with PACE Financial, then PACE Financial is responsible for returning the money. Unfortunately, because of that serious "accident" with the junk bonds, PACE Financial no longer has the money to return.

January 3, 2021
12:56 pm
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

We’ll find out more as PRRR and PCU continue to mediate so we may hear something earlier in the new year if mediation goes well.

The IIROC hearing is in February, but I don’t recall the exact date.

So new relevant facts will become available soon although the Globe article will certainly bring people up to speed.

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

January 3, 2021
1:42 pm
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
554sp_Permalink sp_Print

member said
But how many had it written on their documents-when they obviously were not-like me-how many people banking at Pace would be accredited investors?Unless you can look at all 700 documents you won't know how many of us were considered "accredited"

The advisor said they would get back to everyone. This occurred in the PACE Credit Union branch on a Saturday when most office stationary was conveniently unavailable. And then time passed. And here we are.  

Norman1 said

Elaine said

The accredited investors I am referring to are not the ones that actually have (OR HAD) but the ones who had it signed on the documents that they were accredited.That will be a completely different number.What I would like to know how many people were DESIGNATED as accredited investors

I didn't run into any breakdown of the number of investors and their class. One can't really tell with some of the lower investment amounts:

Value of Preferred
Shares at Cost
Number of Investor
Claimants
Aggregate
Investment
$25,001 to $200,000 348 $25,974,490
$200,001 to $750,000 39 $14,082,680

Someone who had $100,001 to $200,000 of shares would have to be designated as an "accredited investor" to buy that in one shot.

But, an "eligible investor" can buy up to $100,000 in a 12 month period. The investor who bought $150,000 of shares could have been designated an "eligible investor" and bought over more than one 12-month period.  

January 3, 2021
1:44 pm
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
555sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bill said
I would never leave without a copy of a document I had just signed, I think that's pretty standard practice for many of us. Seems very odd to me that not one of 700 people were like me and refused to leave until they had been given a copy - ? Must be more to it.  

That makes you an investor and me someone who buys GIC's.
Which I have left many Altrans offices without having copy

January 3, 2021
2:10 pm
Investor1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
June 22, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
556sp_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)  

That’s why PCU and PRRR are keeping at as a civil matter because that is why the corporate liability insurance not only covers court costs but also settlements which are obviously negotiated with the insurance company.

If it were to be a criminal matter, the liability insurance would not cover this. After speaking with several lawyers, there needs to be a “triggering” event such as mediation or litigation to trigger the corporate liability insurance.

The globe article also stated that the sum that PRRR was seeking would be devastating if not for insurance policies that can offset some of the costs.

This is how Exxon settled their multi billion settlement several years ago, by using their insurance and not their own cash/equity/capital to pay.

But this is where it gets complicated with multiple parties involved but PACE and FSRA both agree that PACE is at fault and hence the mediation in an attempt to solve this before resorting to a trial.

The findings from IIROC’s disciplinary hearing will also help establish responsibility in addition to IIROC’s earlier concerns about PCU and PSC.

We’ll see how it plays out in the coming weeks/months.

January 3, 2021
3:20 pm
savemoresaveoften
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 577
Member Since:
March 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
557sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bill said
I would never leave without a copy of a document I had just signed, I think that's pretty standard practice for many of us. Seems very odd to me that not one of 700 people were like me and refused to leave until they had been given a copy - ? Must be more to it.  

I am perplexed by that too. How can someone invest $250k+ not ask for at least some kind of proof that they ‘gave’ Pace the money and what they ‘bought. And not a single person followed up to request for the ‘missing’ paper work ?

I never heard of Pace but saw them offering 30mth GIC back in 2018 at a good rate. So I became a member and went to the office for paper work and stuff. I received a copy of all the paperwork before I walked out the door.

January 3, 2021
3:44 pm
member
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
July 5, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
558sp_Permalink sp_Print

Although PCU “conveniently” wasn’t able to provide copies of documents at the time, they provided statements in the mail and online.

Anytime someone asked for their documents there was always a delay.

This is where PCU violated the trust of existing customers who had already trusted their institution.

January 3, 2021
3:57 pm
Elaine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
559sp_Permalink sp_Print

So you got your membership paperwork -along with the GIC paper
For me-it was the last day of the deal
The guy did not know whether it would got through
H would have to work on it all night
Got a call a few days later and he said it made it in.
As far as I was concerned it as like any GIC's I had gotten from Altrans.
Never even thought about it until I got the letter from Ernie and buds saying they were spliting the shares.Concerned me because I am not an Ernie Eves fan.They said to put the bonds with my other bonds(what other bonds? the only other bond I have is my great grandfather's from WW1 -a German bond)
I think at that point I was either under a bedbug infestation(from my son's living quarters)My ex had died or my basement had flooded.Just was not something that was as important as all the other stuff.
But I would be interested in what other people thought when they got that letter.Did they have bonds?It is all very puzzling how over 700 people could be swindled like this.And it is interesting that it is only 700.Why didn't other people buy in?Did they know it was crooked?

January 3, 2021
5:25 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7130
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
560sp_Permalink sp_Print

Norman1 said

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.  

<br

I think we are drawing very different conclusions from the same information.

In sum, he was a big boy. He knew what he was doing.

However, I have no vested interest in this situation, and those who do don't seem interested in this dialogue, so I will close now.

Please write your comments in the forum.