Brokers chasing you for negative account balance | Page 28 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Brokers with Negative Balance Protection 41 replies

Brokers that liquidate accounts at zero before negative balance occurs 22 replies

When would chasing a trade be worth it to you? 17 replies

What brokers would you want to use if you had 100k + million + account? 6 replies

Can someone answer question about Brokers chasing stops? 7 replies

Attachments: Brokers chasing you for negative account balance
Exit Attachments

Brokers chasing you for negative account balance

  • #541
  • Feb 13, 2015 10:42am Feb 13, 2015 10:42am
Quoting Mevo
{quote} Oh Wookey, do you have a clue all the mentionned brokers are market makers ? They are the counterpart of all customers trades. You would be correct on an actual MARKET. I doubt they want to defend such a case in a court if law.
​Not all mentioned brokers are market makers. Most of the market makers hedge the total position to avoid loss, so they are still exposed to the real market. Most of the big market makers (Oanda, FxPro) forgive negative balances. Smaller brokers are not really independent market makers like Oanda, they are mostly white labels or work with one liquidity provider who is holding them now by the balls, so they do not have a choice but to go after the clients with negative balances.

It does not matter if the broker is a market maker or not. It matters what is in your contract. Have you seen that losses can exceed your balance? Or the price is not guaranteed? Or that illiquid market may move a lot without any price in between? Have you see the point where it is clearly stated that you are responsible for all negative balances? All brokers have to do is to present the contract and your balance in the court to get a decision. If you want to challenge the contract or execution the burden of proving it is on you. Do you have any legal argument? Any point of your contract broker has breached? Any regulation the broker has breached? I do not say it is impossible to challenge, but so far no one has presented any legal argument.
Wookey
  • #542
  • Feb 13, 2015 11:19am Feb 13, 2015 11:19am
Quoting Silver777
{quote} I highly doubt Alpari UK or KPMG will chase any retail trader with negative balance. Take a look at this earlier post from a person who got legal advice from several lawyers in Germany: http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...33#post8021933
​It is not so rosy as this person pictures it. Obviously KPMG will go to English court. and try to obtain European Enforcement Order (EEO). Once the EEO certificate is issued the judgment is treated as if it had been delivered by the court of the enforcing member state.
Now a debtor can avoid being issued an EEO, but they have to do it in the English court. It is not very difficult, consult your lawyer of how to do it. However, even if you avoid being issued EEO, KPMG will still be able to obtain the court confirmation of your debt in the English court. After that by Brussel Convention (which is 44/2001), it is a matter of registering the court decision in the enforcing country, but not a whole new process. Formalities are different for each EU country but as long as they are fulfilled, the enforcing court should declare the judgment enforceable without re-examining the case. I am sure KPMG had vast experience in enforcing decisions across the whole EU and knows how to do it. You can challenge the decision, but only if the judgement contradicts your local laws.
Wookey
  • #543
  • Edited 12:24pm Feb 13, 2015 12:01pm | Edited 12:24pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} ​It is not so rosy as this person pictures it. Obviously KPMG will go to English court. and try to obtain European Enforcement Order (EEO). Once the EEO certificate is issued the judgment is treated as if it had been delivered by the court of the enforcing member state. Now a debtor can avoid being issued an EEO, but they have to do it in the English court. It is not very difficult, consult your lawyer of how to do it. However, even if you avoid being issued EEO, KPMG will still be able to obtain the court confirmation of your debt...
Hey,

Yes, the situation is rosy ;-)

I was told about this possibility too. The lawyer said that "If I were KPMG I would sue them all in UK first in order to get a title fast, since I am sure that many of them won't even respond to foreign court mail or even think about disputing the place of jurisdiction.". He also said "It would also save them a ton of money for translation fees if they'd start in UK".

Disputing the place of jurisdiction is trivial however, and since Alpari targeted international customers, had a German subsidiary and even used German as negotiation language, it would become virtually impossible for them to argue why a German consumer still should be sued in the UK.

Therefore he told me to relax many times!

Also if you wanted to make absolutely sure that they have to sue you where you live you could simply sue them first after receiving their first threats via mail in which you are asked to pay back amount X. It is called negative action for a declaratory judgment (Or in German "negative Feststellungsklage"). You basically ask the local court to rule that their claim is invalid (before Alpari actually sues you). In this case you could easily choose the place of jurisdiction (but you would have to pay the court fee upfront!).

So long story short: I was informed about these possibilities and still told to be very relaxed about the situation. The European Enforcement Order (EEO) is only meant for uncontested claims. Look it up on Wikipedia (can't link it here): European_Enforcement_Order: "... The EEO is applicable only in relation to uncontested claims. Uncontested claims are defined in Article 3 of the regulation as one of the following". But this IS a contested claim, since virtually all clients will dispute it.

Most people (including me) could never vaguely pay back the amounts asked and these lawsuits can easily take YEARS and cost them 10-20k EACH, which they would have to pay upfront. Even if they win after many years and DO get a title against former clients.. what's the percentage of people that are actually able to pay their claims? My guess is that they can recover maybe 10-20%. Therefore my guess is that they will come up with a very generous offers of compromise (10-30%). They already said that they are "willing to talk" about the "individual situation" with clients. That's just a sugar coded version of "we know our position is weak and therefore we'd like to avoid a lawsuit". Otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. It was suggested to me to ignore all these offers, since, in his opinion, they could never win in court.

But to be clear: People NEED to seek legal advice when they receive anything via mail obviously, but the situation is not remotely as hopeless as many emotional people claim it to be. It's actually very good which has been confirmed to me independently by 4 lawyers now.
  • #544
  • Edited 12:58pm Feb 13, 2015 12:43pm | Edited 12:58pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} Hey, Yes, the situation is rosy ;-) I was told about this possibility too. The lawyer said that "If I were KPMG I would sue them all in UK first in order to get a title fast, since I am sure that many of them won't even respond to foreign court mail or even think about disputing the place of jurisdiction.". He also said "It would also save them a ton of money for translation fees if they'd start in UK". Disputing the place of jurisdiction is trivial however, and since Alpari targeted international customers, had a German subsidiary and even...
Hmm. .....after reading your post, I looked up EEO in Wikipedia and found this:

"The EEO can be only be used in civil or commercial matters and specifically does not apply to the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; social security; arbitration."

Does this mean KPMG can not use EEO since Alpari is insolvent?
  • #545
  • Edited 1:00pm Feb 13, 2015 12:50pm | Edited 1:00pm
Quoting Silver777
{quote} Hmm. .....after reading your post, I looked up EEO in Wikipedia and found this: "The EEO can be only be used in civil or commercial matters and specifically does not apply to the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; social security; arbitration." Does this mean KPMG can not use EEO since Alpari...
You are right, I should have investigated further on this. Apparently it cannot be used in the winding-up of insolvent companies. But even if it could it is only designed for undisputed claims.
  • #546
  • Feb 13, 2015 1:01pm Feb 13, 2015 1:01pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} Hey, Yes, the situation is rosy ;-) I was told about this possibility too. The lawyer said that "If I were KPMG I would sue them all in UK first in order to get a title fast, since I am sure that many of them won't even respond to foreign court mail or even think about disputing the place of jurisdiction.". He also said "It would also save them a ton of money for translation fees if they'd start in UK". Disputing the place of jurisdiction is trivial however, and since Alpari targeted international customers, had a German subsidiary and even...
​So what is your legal standing? Are you saying that KPMG cannot enforce your debt in Germany if it is confirmed by the UK court? Or you think that KPMG will not bother to enforce it? Or you think you can successfully challenge the enforcement order in Germany court? I can assure you KPMG will not enforce it, as soon as it gets the court decision and after the due date it will sell it to German collectors and you will have to deal with them. Yes, they will not get a lot, but the law require them at least to try. Other brokers may choose to not do anything, but KPMG does not have a choice.

To contest the UK decision you have to present yourself in the UK court. It is easy, but you or your representative has to do it.
Wookey
  • #547
  • Feb 13, 2015 1:02pm Feb 13, 2015 1:02pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} You are right, I should have investigated further on this. Apparently it cannot be used in the winding-up of insolvent companies. But even if it could it is only designed for undisputed claims.
​It cannot be used for you to sue Alpari, because Alpari is insolvent. But you are not. So KPMG can use EEO to enforce against you.
Wookey
  • #548
  • Feb 13, 2015 1:05pm Feb 13, 2015 1:05pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} Of course they can it says that it is used for winding up insolvent companies :-) But I was told that EEO is an instrument that is designed for undisputed claims only, claims that you agree on. But in Alpari's case most people would probably not agree, they would dispute the claim.
OK, sorry for not making this clear. I edited my previous post to highlight the relevant parts.

I meant that Wikipedia stated that the EEO specifically does not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies......etc.

I was also going to post the part of EEO relating to uncontested claims before I saw your post. Maybe I was a lawyer in a previous life, I find this stuff interesting.

So does this mean that KPMG can not use EEO since Alpari is insolvent?

Ok, I saw that you answered my question......thanks
  • #549
  • Feb 13, 2015 1:15pm Feb 13, 2015 1:15pm
and now Eur/Chf the movie

Inserted Video
  • #550
  • Feb 13, 2015 1:17pm Feb 13, 2015 1:17pm
sorry the link didnt work

Inserted Video



otherwise youtube.com and search for Hitler snb
  • #551
  • Edited 1:34pm Feb 13, 2015 1:20pm | Edited 1:34pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} ​So what is your legal standing? Are you saying that KPMG cannot enforce your debt in Germany if it is confirmed by the UK court? Or you think that KPMG will not bother to enforce it? Or you think you can successfully challenge the enforcement order in Germany court? I can assure you KPMG will not enforce it, as soon as it gets the court decision and after the due date it will sell it to German collectors and you will have to deal with them. Yes, they will not get a lot, but the law require them at least to try. Other brokers may choose...
My position is that

1.) They cannot legally sue me in UK if I dispute the claim, since I am a consumer and local laws and EU law clearly say, that in this case they must sue me at my residence.
2.) Even if they COULD then I could easily dispute the decision if it differs from German law. German law is very consumer friendly and tons of their business terms would be void here because they are suprising, discriminatory or simply immoral.
3.) Also I could easily force them to sue me in Germany by using the "negative Feststellungsklage" (proactively sueing them here when first mail by KPMG arrives.)

I would never need UK legal representation or appear in any UK court for this. I deeply researched for 3 weeks now and asked one lawyer specialized in international law and one specialized in banking / finance law + 2 "normal" lawyers from friends and family. All answers were the same
  • #552
  • Feb 13, 2015 2:00pm Feb 13, 2015 2:00pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} My position is that 1.) They cannot legally sue me in UK if I dispute the claim, since I am a consumer and local laws and EU law clearly say, that in this case they must sue me at my residence. 2.) Even if they COULD then I could easily dispute the decision if it differs from German law. German law is very consumer friendly and tons of their business terms would be void here because they are suprising, discriminatory or simply immoral. 3.) Also I could easily force them to sue me in Germany by using the "negative Feststellungsklage" (proactively...
​At the moment, by the contract between you and Alpari you owe to Alpari. In the process of unwinding by KPMG your debt will be confirmed by the UK court and sold. Of course, KPMG very unlikely to sue you themselves, unless probably you are one of the 9 big losers. They will group debtors by countries and try to sell to local enforcers. If you are only one debtor in Germany or your collective debt is very small, you can celebrate, but if it is substantial someone will come after it. Enforcing debt is a big business and companies working there know a lot of ways to do it. Believe me, it is not unique case there are plenty of debt enforcement cases within the EU happening every day. Do you think that if a Greek person borrowed money from a German bank they may relax and do not pay because nothing the bank can do? I know of successful enforcements of debt to UK company even in Russia.

So, I hope you understand that enforceability of the recognized debt is not an issue. The thing you can challenge are the debt itself. But so far I have not heard any legal arguments against it? Do you know what point of contract Alpari breached? Or what law makes this contract void?
Wookey
  • #553
  • Feb 13, 2015 2:29pm Feb 13, 2015 2:29pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} ​At the moment, by the contract between you and Alpari you owe to Alpari. In the process of unwinding by KPMG your debt will be confirmed by the UK court and sold. Of course, KPMG very unlikely to sue you themselves, unless probably you are one of the 9 big losers. They will group debtors by countries and try to sell to local enforcers. If you are only one debtor in Germany or your collective debt is very small, you can celebrate, but if it is substantial someone will come after it. Enforcing debt is a big business and companies working...
No, I don't own to Alpari because according to local law there are a ton of arguments against that position. I simply dispute the claim which follows a lawsuit (which I'll have to pay if I am wrong).

Peoples situation here is entirely individual. Who signed which contract from what country? What was promised to them, when were they closed, what was their individual situation, etc etc. Alpari's signup froms also were highly different through the years, especially when informing about risks. I know because I collected many different versions of them from other people. Because of this highly individual nature of cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to give any generalized advice, even for a lawyer.

Also UK courts are in no position to decide about my debt. EU law clearly states that I have to be sued in my country of residence and there is no instrument they could use to get a legal title against me in UK court (which I could not easily dispute in Germany).

A few weeks ago I was in panic after reading many of these "shut up and pay"-posts like yours. That's when I started researching and organizing a chat group with people that are in the same situation. As I said I have now consulted lawyers and got the clear response, that their position is extremely weak in a German court and there is not much they can do against me from the UK. I was told not to worry. Period :-) I don't know if that's true or not but I believe in such an opinion more than any advice obtained from internet forums.

I can only advise other people in this situation not to listen to negative background noise in online communities and to seek legal advice before responding to any mail or before paying any money to them.
  • #554
  • Feb 13, 2015 2:35pm Feb 13, 2015 2:35pm
Quoting buddy1
{quote} No vendetta here Buddy boy, just look at the facts. Ever watched this film buddy?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_BoyIf not I suggest you do so.
But the facts are that you do have an agenda, which is decidedly pro IC Markets and anti Pepperstone - so telling me to look at the facts doesn't really alleviate my concerns that you are part of either paid forum advertisement by IC, or perhaps even Andrew Budzinski himself. Saying you don't have a vendetta while simultaneously starting threads to trash their reputation shows that you aren't concerned with telling the truth if it gets in the way of bringing down Pepperstone. This sort of crap really puts me off IC markets - brokers shouldn't be trashing other brokers on forums just because they get more media attention, or to take attention off their own ugly media scrutiny (I.E the article on IC's fake margin calls).

I suggest you tone it down, because at the moment no-one is going to take you seriously. You are contradicting yourself with double standards - when it doesn't apply to Pepperstone it is the client's fault:

Quoting buddy1
Yep. Its up to us to trade responsibility, we cant go blaming our brokers for poor trading decisions or expect them to protect us. I think traders need to stand up and become accountable for their actions. The problem is that too many traders are now claiming no responsibility for their poor judgment, this is totally irresponsible.
But when it relates to that specific broker, they must be scammers and the client is free of responsibility? Pull your head in, everyone can see through that sort of hypocrisy.
"Don't Panic..."
  • #555
  • Feb 13, 2015 2:47pm Feb 13, 2015 2:47pm
Quoting Halifax
{quote} But the facts are that you do have an agenda, which is decidedly pro IC Markets and anti Pepperstone - so telling me to look at the facts doesn't really alleviate my concerns that you are part of either paid forum advertisement by IC, or perhaps even Andrew Budzinski himself. Saying you don't have a vendetta while simultaneously starting threads to trash their reputation shows that you aren't concerned with telling the truth if it gets in the way of bringing down Pepperstone. This sort of crap really puts me off IC markets - brokers shouldn't...
It looks like your the one that works for a specific broker here Buddy boy. On your profile you say you live in Zimbabwe yet you contstantly mention Australia and Australian brokers etc, we are not stupid.. You then say that I have double standards, phewww who are you kidding. Any broker that says they have negative balance protection but chases negative balances should be shot, if you were half clever you would be able to see that this is why FXCM wrote off 90% of their negative balances, yet other brokers that claim negative balance protection are still chasing debt (like your broker), NOW THATS WHAT I CALL DOUBLE STANDARDS. We will see which brokers end up I court with their clients soon I guess. Please go away little troll.
  • #556
  • Feb 13, 2015 2:53pm Feb 13, 2015 2:53pm
Quoting buddy1
{quote} It looks like your the one that works for a specific broker here. On your profile you say you live in Zimbabwe yet you contstantly mention Australia and Australian brokers etc, we are not stupid.. You then say that I have double standards, phewww who are you kidding. Any broker that says they have negative balance protection but chases negative balances should be shot, if you were half clever you would be able to see that this is why FXCM wrote off 90% of their negative balances, yet other brokers that claim negative balance protection are...
I am clearly Australian, and I trade with Pepperstone - I have never denied either of those things. Having my profile set as Zimbabwe is just a joke, obviously.
"Don't Panic..."
  • #557
  • Feb 13, 2015 3:43pm Feb 13, 2015 3:43pm
Quoting r4in123
{quote} No, I don't own to Alpari because according to local law there are a ton of arguments against that position. I simply dispute the claim which follows a lawsuit (which I'll have to pay if I am wrong). Peoples situation here is entirely individual. Who signed which contract from what country? What was promised to them, when were they closed, what was their individual situation, etc etc. Alpari's signup froms also were highly different through the years, especially when informing about risks. I know because I collected many different versions...
​I have never told anyone to shut up and pay, I am just saying that doing nothing is a sure foot receipt for trouble. I do not know any lawyer who would simply said to relax and do nothing when you are clearly obliged to pay by the contract. If you do nothing KPMG will obtain EEO against you without any problems. I see only 3 options:
1. KPMG or broker does not bother to chase you.
2. You successfully prove that Alpari breached the contract.
3. You prove that the contract between you and Alpari violates German laws.

If you think one of the cases apply to you then by all means relax.
Wookey
  • #558
  • Feb 13, 2015 3:46pm Feb 13, 2015 3:46pm
Quote
Yep. Its up to us to trade responsibility, we cant go blaming our brokers for poor trading decisions or expect them to protect us. I think traders need to stand up and become accountable for their actions. The problem is that too many traders are now claiming no responsibility for their poor judgment, this is totally irresponsible.
Yep agree, and to take this one step further you have articles like these which elude to where the real problem is when retail trading, the 'untouchables' to retail traders, ie banks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...some-customers
Quote
Citigroup paid the heftiest penalty in November when regulators in the U.S. and Europe fined six banks a total of $4.3 billion. Investigators found traders colluded to rig currency benchmarks and boost their own profits at the expense of pensioners, investors, companies and ordinary citizens. Criminal probes of banks are still pending in the U.S.
My comments are not to be taken as trading advice, not a financial advisor
  • #559
  • Feb 13, 2015 4:11pm Feb 13, 2015 4:11pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} It does not matter if the broker is a market maker or not. It matters what is in your contract. Have you seen that losses can exceed your balance? Or the price is not guaranteed? Or that illiquid market may move a lot without any price in between? Have you see the point where it is clearly stated that you are responsible for all negative balances? All brokers have to do is to present the contract and your balance in the court to get a decision. If you want to challenge the contract or execution the burden of proving it is on you. Do you...
In this situation, it doesn't matter if your broker is a market maker or not ????
There is a HUGE LIE in all this story: If the price of EUR/CHF went down in a few seconds, or a big gap happened because there was effectively no liquidity, I wouldn't say anything. Now it isn't what happened, just have a look at EBS, FxAll or even Interactive brokers. There has been plenty of trading and NO GAP AT ALL in any CHF pair.

I'm pretty sure you know how a MARKET works as you spoke about this. I'm pretty sure you understand how an order book works. If there wasn't any CHF liquidity like market makers are claiming, the prices would have fallen due to the lack of liquidity. Now, what all this market makers did is that they suspended quotes and trading for MORE THAN AN HOUR, and THEY CREATED A GAP in CHF pairs by suspending things. And this gap (100% fake and created) is what caused the negative balances and huge losses.

There were USD/CHF BUY limit orders sitting at the brokers for example. What they did is execute all this orders at their limit price while waiting until it SUITS THEM to execute the stop sell orders on the pair.

Who is responsible for liquidity on the products ? The trader or the market maker ? Is it the trader's fault if the market maker chose the wrong liquidity provider and didn't manage to execute their hedge ? (which may not be the case at all ).You are going to argue that it's OK and acceptable that this market makers offer leverage trading and can suspend everything when they decide ? Technically and legally, the COUNTERPART of all trades is the market maker. What they do or don't behind is THEIR problem. They can take the risk, hedge it, or whatever, it's their business. Accepting: "Oh, there was no liquidity" is accepting: We will execute any of your losing trade but not allow you to execute any winning one, or we will cancel it afterwards. A market maker IS a provider of liquidity, it's their job. If they don't know how to do it well, they have to change, not pass the loss to the customers.

Just look at the definition of what a "MARKET MAKER" is. For example the SEC defines it as "a firm that stands ready to buy and sell a particular stock on a REGULAR and CONTINUOUS basis at a publicly quoted price" (http://www.sec.gov/answers/mktmaker.htm)

Now, I understand the situation. But legally, I doubt they want to ask a court to condamn traders to pay something they are charging because they decided it unilaterrally. I doubt they want to have traders argue that their stop should have been honored because it was the market maker's responsability.

You are right about their contracts: We shouldn't have accepted to do business with companies that have contracts that basically say: "We can do whatever we want, no matter how outrageous and wrong, and you just can't say anything about it" because it's exactly what they say. That's the exact problem of all these contracts: They pretty much say the same everywhere, they plan in advance any situation possible that may arise one day, and plan the best outcome for the company so that they can then say: But, you signed it !

Nothing say a court of law can't rule their contracts as abusive, and they pretty much are.
This story could be what you find in a dictionnary at the definition of "conflict of interest".
They can present the contract and your balance in court, sure. But I wouldn't like to be them when the question of how such a balance happened and they have to justify their claim is legitimate, which isn't. Does all this make sens to you ? Or you are still thinking all these people owe them 100% of their negative balance?
  • #560
  • Edited 4:41pm Feb 13, 2015 4:15pm | Edited 4:41pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} ​I have never told anyone to shut up and pay, I am just saying that doing nothing is a sure foot receipt for trouble. I do not know any lawyer who would simply said to relax and do nothing when you are clearly obliged to pay by the contract. If you do nothing KPMG will obtain EEO against you without any problems. I see only 3 options: 1. KPMG or broker does not bother to chase you. 2. You successfully prove that Alpari breached the contract. 3. You prove that the contract between you and Alpari violates German laws. If you think one...
I know that you didn't directly say "shut up and pay". I just get this impression when reading between the lines in some people's postings.

I don't say that doing nothing is the proper way to deal with this. As I have stated before: Whenever you get mail - be it from court or Alpari / KPMG - you should consult a lawyer first. The advice given to me for my specific situation was, that it would be best to do nothing and wait until German court documents arrive. (And to dispute all claims sent to me - be them from UK court or KMPG/Alpari directly). A professionals recommendation might be highly different for other people in a similar situation.

And no. I am not "clearly obliged" to pay by the contract (See? That's what I mean by "shut up and pay"). The case is extremely complex. Different contracts were signed by different people in different situations living in different jurisdictions, etc. It is impossible to make any generalized statement about these cases therefore nothing is "clear".

I for myself will dispute certain terms about the risk warning, the technical availability of the platform, hidden conflicts of interest and many more things that will - according to my lawyers - ultimately have a high probability of their claim to be rejected. It can be a long fight but things are not looking as grim as some people suggest in these forums. As I said this was the advice given to me for my specific situation. Other people's results may vary obviously.

1.) They will
2.) Yes, I will do prove that parts of these contracts are void in my jurisdiction
3.) Yes, I will

That's why I will relax, yes :-) I am just saying that it's not really helpful to scare people by giving the impression that anything about this case is "clear" or obvious. All cases are highly individual and professional counseling is needed to make a proper decision.

Oh and getting an EEO against me is impossible. It cannot be use for winding up insolvent companies and can only be used for undisputed claims. Check my posts from before. It's also in the Wikipedia article about EEOs.
0 traders viewing now