acting for a number of EPB customers... means not all?
and not you?
I don't understand what you mean.
It's like some customers will get back their money but not all?
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
and not you?
I don't understand what you mean.
It's like some customers will get back their money but not all?
It means some customers are working with them but not all of themATNTESTING said:
acting for a number of EPB customers... means not all?
and not you?
I don't understand what you mean.
It's like some customers will get back their money but not all?
Click to expand...
Yes I think a few customers have hired this law firm. So those customers have simply been better informed than we have but they are not going to be ahead of anyone else in being paid out.
So don't worry we are not going to be disadvantaged.
Hopefully the OCIF announcement will come out within the next 2 weeks. Apparently OCIF have already been working on it for 2 weeks. Legal bureaucracy is slowing it down.
You know as much as I do now and we are in the same position. The law firm were very honest. They said at this stage there is no need for us to hire this law firm. The resolution is in progress with OCIF.
orion7352 said:
I just had a good online meeting with one of the top lawyers in Puerto Rico. They have acted for OCIF in other liquidations.
They know this case very well and are already acting for a number of EPB customers.
They asked me not to mention their name at this stage because they are not acting for me right now.
They know that Lugo Mender is a poor communicator and OCIF is also aware that the communication with EPB customers has been bad.
Basically OCIF is taking charge of the situation and there are some legal changes required to Qenta's purchase of EPB to be done before OCIF can make the announcement.
OCIF is somehow going to do the wire transfers. The guy didn't know precisely the mechanics of this . Customers will have to resubmit their wires because the old ones have expired.
I asked about whether there would be deductions. They said at this stage that customers are likely to be repaid in full.
This law firm didn't think at this stage that EPB customers had a claim against the Receiver or OCIF. So we left it that if the situation did not work as planned that I would then re-engage with this law firm.
Like everything with the EPB saga we will only believe it when we see it.
But the call was encouraging.
Click to expand...
Thank you for telling us, I'm glad the lawyer you contacted was familiar with the case.
I will start having faith again when we know that Novo bank has started transferring the funds, until then it's all up in the air...
Thanks again!
Radko said:
Thank you for telling us, I'm glad the lawyer you contacted was familiar with the case.
I will start having faith again when we know that Novo bank has started transferring the funds, until then it's all up in the air...
Thanks again!
Click to expand...
You are welcome. I wanted to tell other victims as soon as I finished the call and hopefully make customers feel a bit more secure. The lawyer said I could pass it on to other victims provided I didn't mention his law firm.
The lawyer I spoke to was first class. He actually started his career in OCIF and so he knows OCIF and the Commissioner very well. I think he agreed to the call just to reassure me. He wasn't touting for business.
I got the impression that OCIF might not be using Novo Bank for the wire transfers but the lawyer wasn't sure about the mechanics. We will have to wait for the OCIF announcement.
Obviously Lugo Mender is a competitor firm and Puerto Rico is a small place. So everyone knows each other. So he doesn't want me mentioning his law firm. But if things don't work out as planned then I will definitely use them.
I did ask him if I could divulge the information to other victims because I told him that people were really anxious after all this time.
He did mention an alternative arrangement for transfer which I presume was the California bank idea. Apparently that arrangement was an old idea that would need re-establishing. Hopefully OCIF isn't thinking of using that.
I agree it's all words right now and the only thing that counts is when the wire transfer hits your account. I have been feeling pretty miserable about the situation for the last few weeks but I feel more encouraged today. I don't think there is a conspiracy to defraud us. Just a Receiver that is very poor at communicating and has got himself in a muddle.
Oh yes he also said the remuneration situation of Lugo Mender charging monthly was not normal. The usual arrangement is to bill for hours with explanation for the billing.
That is not true. I am not setting the bank up for anything, as I have no control whatsoever over this process. When the liquidation first stated I expected that around $1 million would be left over for me at the end. At this point I don't expect to receive anything.Winston Smith said:
Over the last year, in one of the many statements via Qenta/EPB, we were told that the problem was no longer the receiver and that Novo Banco were keeping our money. And then, when we almost mounted a legal defence in Portugal, we were told that it was all hush hush and the Portuguese Government itself were investigating us all. Then we were told that Novo Banco were holding our money again. Last month, EPB told us our money had been released from Novo Banco but changes in the SWIFT system meant that Qenta/EBP were having trouble making the transfers. When I mentioned that this excuse was ridiculous it went very quiet.
And now, out of the blue we are back to the bloody receiver and more whining about how much it is costing Mr Schiff but unlike Mr Schiff, EPB clients can't afford the Luxury of the Grosvenor apartments in Mayfair or flights to Connecticut.
Once more, we need to start a class action together to fight to get our money back. As it it is, it is obvious that Schiff is setting this up to return pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...
The receiver does bill by the hour. He just invoices monthly. Those monthly invoices are about $10K. He does not just bill a flat $10K per month.orion7352 said:
You are welcome. I wanted to tell other victims as soon as I finished the call and hopefully make customers feel a bit more secure. The lawyer said I could pass it on to other victims provided I didn't mention his law firm.
The lawyer I spoke to was first class. He actually started his career in OCIF and so he knows OCIF and the Commissioner very well. I think he agreed to the call just to reassure me. He wasn't touting for business.
I got the impression that OCIF might not be using Novo Bank for the wire transfers but the lawyer wasn't sure about the mechanics. We will have to wait for the OCIF announcement.
Obviously Lugo Mender is a competitor firm and Puerto Rico is a small place. So everyone knows each other. So he doesn't want me mentioning his law firm. But if things don't work out as planned then I will definitely use them.
I did ask him if I could divulge the information to other victims because I told him that people were really anxious after all this time.
He did mention an alternative arrangement for transfer which I presume was the California bank idea. Apparently that arrangement was an old idea that would need re-establishing. Hopefully OCIF isn't thinking of using that.
I agree it's all words right now and the only thing that counts is when the wire transfer hits your account. I have been feeling pretty miserable about the situation for the last few weeks but I feel more encouraged today. I don't think there is a conspiracy to defraud us. Just a Receiver that is very poor at communicating and has got himself in a muddle.
Oh yes he also said the remuneration situation of Lugo Mender charging monthly was not normal. The usual arrangement is to bill for hours with explanation for the billing.
Click to expand...
Last edited: Jun 7, 2023
Call me naive but I think Peter wants the best outcome for customers.
He is a victim too of OCIF's decision to go through a totally unnecessary liquidation. The closure by OCIF was a political action. Unfortunately we all have to accept the reality of the situation right now.
Without Peter, customers would have been totally in the dark for the last few months but we have to accept that Peter isn't in charge of the liquidation process and the Receiver isn't telling him everything either.
He is a victim too of OCIF's decision to go through a totally unnecessary liquidation. The closure by OCIF was a political action. Unfortunately we all have to accept the reality of the situation right now.
Without Peter, customers would have been totally in the dark for the last few months but we have to accept that Peter isn't in charge of the liquidation process and the Receiver isn't telling him everything either.
Thanks, this is helpful to me too.orion7352 said:
I just had a good online meeting with one of the top lawyers in Puerto Rico. They have acted for OCIF in other liquidations.
They know this case very well and are already acting for a number of EPB customers.
They asked me not to mention their name at this stage because they are not acting for me right now.
They know that Lugo Mender is a poor communicator and OCIF is also aware that the communication with EPB customers has been bad.
Basically OCIF is taking charge of the situation and there are some legal changes required to Qenta's purchase of EPB to be done before OCIF can make the announcement.
OCIF is somehow going to do the wire transfers. The guy didn't know precisely the mechanics of this . Customers will have to resubmit their wires because the old ones have expired.
I asked about whether there would be deductions. They said at this stage that customers are likely to be repaid in full.
This law firm didn't think at this stage that EPB customers had a claim against the Receiver or OCIF. So we left it that if the situation did not work as planned that I would then re-engage with this law firm.
Like everything with the EPB saga we will only believe it when we see it.
But the call was encouraging.
Click to expand...
The one thing this lawyer said that I disagree with is that I think the customers DO have a valid claim against OCIF. The liquidation though a receiver, and the press conference OCIF held, were clearly not in the best interest of customers. The Commissioner had two vastly superior alternatives to safeguard customers. The best one was to allow the sale to Qenta. The other was to allow a voluntary liquidation without a receiver and without holding an unnecessary, politically-motivated press conference about irrelevent allegations of money laundering and tax evasion, that resulted in the Novo freeze.
I also think there is a valid claim against the receiver, but that could also be on OCIF for having appointed a receiver with zero banking experience to run the unnecessary liquidation of a bank.
This lawyer just likely doesn't have enough background facts or information to realize the validity of these claims. I can be helpful in that respect if anyone wants to go in that direction.
Last edited: Jun 7, 2023
The lawyer I spoke to today has a vested interest. He wants more assignments from OCIF in the future, so I guess he's going to say there isn't a case to claim.Pschiff said:
Thanks, this is helpful to me too.
The one thing this lawyer said that I disagree with is that the customers do have a valid claim against OCIF. The liquidation though a receiver, and the press conference OCIF held, were clearly not in the best interest of customers. The Commissioner had two vastly superior alternatives to safeguard customers. The best one was to allow the sale to Qenta. The other was to allow a voluntary liquidation without a receiver and without holding an unnecessary, politically-motivated press conference about irrelevent allegations of money laundering and tax evasion, that resulted in the Novo freeze.
I also think there is a valid claim against the receiver, but that could also be on OCIF for having appointed a receiver with zero banking experience to run the unnecessary liquidation of a bank.
This lawyer just likely doesn't have enough background facts or information to realize the validity of these claims. I can be helpful in that respect if anyone wants to go in that direction.
Click to expand...
He was an experienced guy so he probably knows a claim against the Receiver or OCIF wouldn't get through a Puerto Rican court.
Customers just have to accept reality and hope that OCIF can find a practical way to refund customers and we can all move on with our lives. I don't want to sue anyone. I just want my money back and live the few years left of my life in peace.
Last edited: Jun 7, 2023
It's difficult to find anyone in Puerto Rico willing to challenge the government. Everyone wants to work with the government, as they have so much money to pay out, or stay in their good graces to peddle their influence to regulated companies, like IFEs. Even the media is reluctant to report negatively on the government, as the government is the biggest advertiser in Puerto Rico. No one wants to piss off their biggest customer.orion7352 said:
The lawyer I spoke to today has a vested interest. He wants more assignments from OCIF in the future, so I guess he's going to say there isn't a case to claim.
He was an experienced guy so he probably knows a claim against the Receiver or OCIF wouldn't get through a Puerto Rican court.
Click to expand...
I can believe it. We all just have to work within the reality of the situation. It's no different to a lot of countries in the world.Pschiff said:
It's difficult to find anyone in Puerto Rico willing to challenge the government. Everyone wants to work with the government, as they have so much money to pay out, or stay in their good graces to peddle their influence to regulated companies, like IFEs. Even the media is reluctant to report negatively on the government, as the government is the biggest advertiser in Puerto Rico. No one wants to piss off their biggest customer.
Click to expand...
The receiver billed the bank over $17K for the month of May. I think that is excessive, especially since I think his services actually subtracted value. That is particularly true with the respect to the $500 Currency Matters Receivable he blew. His failure to perform a very simple task , that would have taken less than one hour to complete, caused the bank to lose out on a $500K payment it otherwise would have received.
Pschiff said:
The receiver billed the bank over $17K for the month of May. I think that is excessive, especially since I think his services actually subtracted value. That is particularly true with the respect to the $500 Currency Matters Receivable he blew. His failure to perform a very simple task , that would have taken less than one hour to complete, caused the bank to lose out on a $500K payment it otherwise would have received.
Click to expand...
The question is, what is the Receiver charging for? Nothing seems to be happening, is he sending a detailed invoice or just the bill for $17K?
Yes, but its hard to tell what exactly was done during the billable time, or if any of the "work" billed for was productive or necessary. The receiver really doesn't answer to anyone, so the conflicts of interest are huge. That is why I tired my best to prevent the bank from being put into receivership in the first place. But the OCIF Commissioner wouldn't budge. Not only did she refuse to allow Qenta to buy the bank and put in more capital, but she refused to allow me to put in extra capital to better protect customers , then "voluntarily" liquidate the bank myself without a receiver.Radko said:
The question is, what is the Receiver charging for? Nothing seems to be happening, is he sending a detailed invoice or just the bill for $17K?
Click to expand...
So given that the Receiver continues to bill but we see no evidence or have no news of progress what do you suggest customers do ?Pschiff said:
Yes, but its hard to tell what exactly was done during the billable time, or if any of the "work" billed for was productive or necessary. The receiver really doesn't answer to anyone, so the conflicts of interest are huge. That is why I tired my best to prevent the bank from being put into receivership in the first place. But the OCIF Commissioner wouldn't budge. Not only did she refuse to allow Qenta to buy the bank and put in more capital, but she refused to allow me to put in extra capital to better protect customers , then "voluntarily" liquidate the bank myself without a receiver.
Click to expand...
Should we hire the lawyer I spoke to last week so that we get more information and use the lawyer as oversight of the Receiver and OCIF - if that is possible for a lawyer to do ?
The lawyer I spoke to last week said it would take OCIF 2 to 3 weeks to come out with an announcement. OCIF had already been working on it for 2 weeks by last Wednesday. So 3 weeks is up tomorrow.
You can do so if you want to. I have no idea if that will speed things up or slow things down. My lawyer has not been able to make much progress, and I am as incentivized as anyone to bring this to a conclusion as fast as possible.orion7352 said:
So given that the Receiver continues to bill but we see no evidence or have no news of progress what do you suggest customers do ?
Should we hire the lawyer I spoke to last week so that we get more information and use the lawyer as oversight of the Receiver and OCIF - if that is possible for a lawyer to do ?
Click to expand...
Yes it's always difficult to know what to do but so far it seems the Receiver and OCIF think customers can wait forever.Pschiff said:
You can do so if you want to. I have no idea if that will speed things up or slow things down. My lawyer has not been able to make much progress, and I am as incentivized as anyone to bring this to a conclusion as fast as possible.
Click to expand...
The one thing I know for sure is that neither OCIF nor the receiver gives a dam about me. In fact, the OCIF Commissioner is clearly out to get me. Since dragging this out hurts me, that could be part of the problem.orion7352 said:
Yes it's always difficult to know what to do but so far it seems the Receiver and OCIF think customers can wait forever.
Click to expand...
Pschiff said:
The one thing I know for sure is that neither OCIF nor the receiver gives a dam about me. In fact, the OCIF Commissioner is clearly out to get me. Since dragging this out hurts me, that could be part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Have you thought about having a conversation with the Commissioner in person to try to find out what her problem is, and why are they dragging this whole situation so much?
The lawyer I spoke serms to have a good relationship with the Commissioner. Obviously they would be reluctant to act against OCIF I would imagine which wouldn't be so good for customers if we want to hold OCIF to account.Radko said:
Have you thought about having a conversation with the Commissioner in person to try to find out what her problem is, and why are they dragging this whole situation so much?
Click to expand...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.