DislikedVery simple, the reason why creditor approval is needed is court costs including defense (e.g. traders with negative balance) lawyer costs need to be paid UPFRONT to the court in case they lose,Ignored
DislikedI signed no such contract.
Oh, that's OK then. If you did not sign any contracts then you did not have any money with Alpari and did not trade, you do not have anything to worry about.
DislikedIf client agreements are as solid as you say, then we wouldn't have seen trader complaints lead to hefty fines on brokers by financial regulation authorities.
Brokers are fined for breaching the regulation, not contracts. So far regulators do not have any issues with this. If you think that this is the first time someone had a negative balance you are mistaken, it happens all the time. It is by far margin the largest of such events, but it is one from many. As now, clients run around send angry letters to FCA, to their MP's, ombudsman and so on, some even try to sue, but unfair execution is very difficult to prove even in futures market where every price is recorded. Here KPMG will contact the liquidity provider to confirm where the orders were actually executed. Liquidity provider will confirm the price and KPMG will consequently confirm your balance (positive or negative). If you do not agree with that you do not have a choice, but to sue Alpari. Alternative is ignoring their demands and waiting while they come to you with bailiffs.