@Pschiff can you tell us what the remit of this lawyer is that you hired? What has this lawyer discovered so far ?Pschiff said:
I can't place any pressure on OCIF or the receiver. There already is a lawyer involved that talks with OCIF and the Receiver on behalf of the bank. I hired his firm on my own. No bank money was used. I cant even really criticize OCIF as they forced me to sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement.
Click to expand...
Unbelievably insulting to customers that they continue to use the same statement month after month with no explanation for the delay.Radko said:
Another useless update from Qenta, the liquidation process is ongoing...
Click to expand...
Would have exact same questions to you... let's hope we can get a useful answer!orion7352 said:
@Pschiff can you tell us what the remit of this lawyer is that you hired? What has this lawyer discovered so far ?
Does the Receiver and OCIF have to engage with this lawyer ?
Unbelievably insulting to customers that they continue to use the same statement month after month with no explanation for the delay.
Click to expand...
orion7352 said:
The Receiver has no photos of himself on his website and no images of himself anywhere on the Internet. The firm has no Google reviews either . Not one.
I think it tells you a lot about him. Aloof, incommunicative, unresponsive, total disregard for customers. It all heightens suspicions.
OK so while the Portuguese government had a freeze on the account he had an excuse not to communicate with customers. But since then he hasn't said anything. I think if any of us were the Receiver we would want to keep customers informed and reassure customers. But he has said nothing at all.
Click to expand...
spiderman said:
In the previous bank liquidation I experienced, the receiver sent lengthy reports to all customers. It ended bad, but at least we were informed.
Click to expand...
There is a high probability in what you say. Note that Peter has been forced to sign a special agreement that allows him to sit back and not interrupt this very complicated situation called return of funds to the owners. The world has seen scams better than this one, that is for sure. We could write a book titled "How to f**k a client in broad daylight and not be held accountable".orion7352 said:
So the Receiver's strategy is to take money every month from customers through fees until there's nothing left for customers. Maybe this was the plan all along between OCIF and the Receiver.
Click to expand...
regi said:
There is a high probability in what you say. Note that Peter has been forced to sign a special agreement that allows him to sit back and not interrupt this very complicated situation called return of funds to the owners. The world has seen scams better than this one, that is for sure. We could write a book titled "How to f**k a client in broad daylight and not be held accountable".
Click to expand...
@Pschiff said a few days ago that he has a lawyer in Puerto Rico. Can't this lawyer question the Receiver and OCIF about what's going on ?regi said:
There is a high probability in what you say. Note that Peter has been forced to sign a special agreement that allows him to sit back and not interrupt this very complicated situation called return of funds to the owners. The world has seen scams better than this one, that is for sure. We could write a book titled "How to f**k a client in broad daylight and not be held accountable".
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you that some legal action is needed at this time.orion7352 said:
@Pschiff said a few days ago that he has a lawyer in Puerto Rico. Can't this lawyer question the Receiver and OCIF about what's going on ?
If the Receiver is not trying to return customers' money but is only focused on prolonging the situation, then this is a clear fraud that the lawyer that Peter/EPB has hired should pick up on.
Click to expand...
I'm happy for Peter. I hope we will also have a chance to sign an agreement with the receiver to get back our money too.regi said:
There is a high probability in what you say. Note that Peter has been forced to sign a special agreement that allows him to sit back and not interrupt this very complicated situation called return of funds to the owners. The world has seen scams better than this one, that is for sure. We could write a book titled "How to f**k a client in broad daylight and not be held accountable".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so optimistic. It doesn't look like the story about getting back the money ( too soon ).ATNTESTING said:
I'm happy for Peter. I hope we will also have a chance to sign an agreement with the receiver to get back our money too.
Click to expand...
regi said:
There is a high probability in what you say. Note that Peter has been forced to sign a special agreement that allows him to sit back and not interrupt this very complicated situation return of funds to the owners. The world has seen scams better than this one, that is for sure. We could write a book titled "How to f**k a client in broad daylight and not be held accountable".
Click to expand...
ATNTESTING said:
I'm happy for Peter. I hope we will also have a chance to sign an agreement with the receiver to get back our money too.
Click to expand...
I agree with @regi .I am very concerned about the integrity and motivation of the Reveiver and OCIF. I increasingly feel we need our own legal representation as customers.regi said:
I wouldn't be so optimistic. It doesn't look like the story about getting back the money ( too soon ).
Click to expand...
One of the big differences is that when EPB was put into receivership it had no debt, and more than enough cash to immediately return all money to depositors. Normally when a bank is put into receivership, it's bankrupt and so it takes a long time to sort out the mess, and figure out who gets what. This may be the first time in history that a completely solvent bank, without a single loan, no secured creditors, or even a single past-due bill, was put into receivership. Also, receivership is normally a last resort, if there are no better alternatives available. In this case, Qenta was willing to buy the bank, immediately inject another $7 million in capital, and assume all of the bank's liabilities.spiderman said:
In the previous bank liquidation I experienced, the receiver sent lengthy reports to all customers. It ended bad, but at least we were informed.
Click to expand...
@Pschiff is it possible for your lawyer in Puerto Rico to put pressure on the Receiver to be more transparent with customers as to what the problems are and what he is doing to fix the problems?Pschiff said:
One of the big differences is that when EPB was put into receivership it had no debt, and more than enough cash to immediately return all money to depositors. Normally when a bank is put into receivership, it's bankrupt and so it takes a long time to sort out the mess, and figure out who gets what. This may be the first time in history that a completely solvent bank, without a single loan, no secured creditors, or even a single past-due bill, was put into receivership. Also, receivership is normally a last resort, if there are no better alternatives available. In this case, Qenta was willing to buy the bank, immediately inject another $7 million in capital, and assume all of the bank's liabilities.
Click to expand...
Pschiff said:
One of the big differences is that when EPB was put into receivership it had no debt, and more than enough cash to immediately return all money to depositors. Normally when a bank is put into receivership, it's bankrupt and so it takes a long time to sort out the mess, and figure out who gets what. This may be the first time in history that a completely solvent bank, without a single loan, no secured creditors, or even a single past-due bill, was put into receivership. Also, receivership is normally a last resort, if there are no better alternatives available. In this case, Qenta was willing to buy the bank, immediately inject another $7 million in capital, and assume all of the bank's liabilities.
Click to expand...
This "first time in history" confirms my belief that it was planned. Someone felt a great opportunity for easy money that belongs to someone else. The rest was just good poker game. We can all agree that this should not normally happen. They tried to grill your good name. They did practically everything they could to prevent the transfers from going out. I'm not the conspiracy type. But I've been in business too long. It's hard not to believe it's about money. This shitty world sleeps on the money.Pschiff said:
One of the big differences is that when EPB was put into receivership it had no debt, and more than enough cash to immediately return all money to depositors. Normally when a bank is put into receivership, it's bankrupt and so it takes a long time to sort out the mess, and figure out who gets what. This may be the first time in history that a completely solvent bank, without a single loan, no secured creditors, or even a single past-due bill, was put into receivership. Also, receivership is normally a last resort, if there are no better alternatives available. In this case, Qenta was willing to buy the bank, immediately inject another $7 million in capital, and assume all of the bank's liabilities.
Click to expand...