Brokers chasing you for negative account balance | Page 31 | 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

  • #601
  • Feb 17, 2015 3:09am Feb 17, 2015 3:09am
Guys, I wasn't having any CHF position opened, but I do hope the situation gets resolved for you.
Even though there is always a risk warning "Your losses may exceed your deposit", the whole situation is horrible...

All the best my friends!
If you need any additional exposure for your case - write me and I will publish it on my site.
  • #602
  • Feb 17, 2015 8:48pm Feb 17, 2015 8:48pm
Quoting Silver777
{quote} I just did some research and neither an EEO nor the Brussels Convention can be used in relation to insolvency process. KPMG can and will be able to enforce uncontested debt, but not negative balances where the trader does not agree to it. I am also highly doubtful that KPMG/Alpari can sue in court for establishing debts after the time insolvency, because an insolvent company is judgement proof and can't be countersued. Otherwise I could start 2 companies, make one insolvent to the other and then go sue everyone else in the world without...
EEO and the Brussels Convention cannot be used in insolvency process. But it does not apply to this case. If you were a creditor of Alpari you would not be able to use them to extract your money. You would have to do it in normal insolvency process. Since Alpari is insolvent, Alpari will not sue you either. KPMG is representative of Alpari creditors and the UK court can sue and can use EEO or Brussels Convention because neither you nor KPMG is an insolvent company.

Unless you are in the top 9, you will not get a lawsuit from KPMG, collecting money is not their business. Your debt will be sold or probably given to collectors as soon as you fail to pay and respond to warnings in due time. It will not happen very fast the law is generous to debtors, but eventually it will happen. There are pan-European debt collectors who will be happy to enforce it anywhere within the EU.

While for majority of the debt will be easy to find debt collectors the top 9 may be not so. The probability of personal bankruptcy is very high and likelihood that the person has enough assets is quite low. So in this case KPMG may have to act on its own.

If you owe significant for you amount of money seek a good legal advice from the lawyer who has actual experience in this field, ask them for the past cases of negative balances and how they were decided and what can help in yours. I know for sure at least one case when a person was seeking a negative balance relief and tried to claim unfair execution. His case was dismissed and he was liable not only to pay the full debit, but also broker's attorney fees. I know there were other similar cases, but I do not follow this closely.
Wookey
  • #603
  • Feb 18, 2015 3:28am Feb 18, 2015 3:28am
Please tweet this petition and sign it. We need people to be aware of losses and aware of the lack of help once the damage has been done

https://www.change.org/p/tracey-mcde...ter_responsive
  • #604
  • Feb 18, 2015 5:34am Feb 18, 2015 5:34am
Quoting wookey
{quote} EEO and the Brussels Convention cannot be used in insolvency process. But it does not apply to this case. If you were a creditor of Alpari you would not be able to use them to extract your money. You would have to do it in normal insolvency process. Since Alpari is insolvent, Alpari will not sue you either. KPMG is representative of Alpari creditors and the UK court can sue and can use EEO or Brussels Convention because neither you nor KPMG is an insolvent company.
EEOs cannot be used for disputed claims. Please check what was written a few posts ago (Or see Wikipedia entry on EEOs)

Quoting wookey
Unless you are in the top 9, you will not get a lawsuit from KPMG, collecting money is not their business. Your debt will be sold or probably given to collectors as soon as you fail to pay and respond to warnings in due time.
A title by KPMG can only be sold if it was confirmed by a court or if you do not dispute it. People WILL dispute it, therefore scaring people with an imminent arrival of debt collectors is neither constructive or realistic. Debt collectors only take action after the court confirms the debt (if it was disputed). This can take many YEARS from now on.
  • #605
  • Feb 18, 2015 5:37am Feb 18, 2015 5:37am
Quoting wookey
{quote} EEO and the Brussels Convention cannot be used in insolvency process. But it does not apply to this case. If you were a creditor of Alpari you would not be able to use them to extract your money. You would have to do it in normal insolvency process. Since Alpari is insolvent, Alpari will not sue you either. KPMG is representative of Alpari creditors and the UK court can sue and can use EEO or Brussels Convention because neither you nor KPMG is an insolvent company. Unless you are in the top 9, you will not get a lawsuit from KPMG, collecting...
Wookey,

I don't disagree with you, I don't know enough about UK insolvency to know what KPMG or UK court can do without creditors approval, e.g. suing the top 9.

Quote
Your debt will be sold or probably given to collectors as soon as you fail to pay and respond to warnings in due time.

*I* have no debt

This is where I don't agree, there is no debt from negative balance. There is a claim that could turn into a debt if uncontested by the trader. So if a trader with negative balance disputes the claim, then there is no debt and then KPMG would need to go into the trader's home country to get a judgement (claim that becomes debt) in court. My point was that, EEO and the BC can't be used here since the contested debt would need to first be proved by the contract between Alpari (not KPMG or UK court) and the trader in the trader's home country.

Quote
If you owe significant for you amount of money seek a good legal advice from the lawyer who has actual experience in this field, ask them for the past cases of negative balances and how they were decided and what can help in yours.

I agree 100%

Quote
I know for sure at least one case when a person was seeking a negative balance relief and tried to claim unfair execution. His case was dismissed and he was liable not only to pay the full debit, but also broker's attorney fees. I know there were other similar cases, but I do not follow this closely.

Interesting, do you have any more details about this case or was it discussed on the forum?
  • #606
  • Feb 18, 2015 7:35am Feb 18, 2015 7:35am
Quoting Halifax
{quote} Imagine my surprise that buddy1 has been banned for having an additional user-name, and his thread to bash Pepperstone locked for being allegations of a competing broker: http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=524831 Talk about a sickening marketing campaign. I wish brokers would be constructive rather than attacking each other. Surely there could be some co-operation between them rather than underhanded mud-slinging and planted forum trolls. How can we ever know what is fact or just a paid marketing smear campaign?
Why am I not surprised. Kudos to the mods for this one. (Regarding buddy)

On another note:

I still cannot believe that this thread has the steam it has. I cannot believe for 1 second, that if the shoe was on the other foot and people got slipped 'positively' for 4000 pips that they would be having this same discussion, instead it would be the brokers asking for their money back and the people telling them to quite simply 'Fuck off'. That's the difference. The fact that so many people leveraged themselves to the hilt thinking this was going to always remain and then getting caught blindsided, just as the brokers were, and are still complaining is just ........ I mean seriously, did people just check their risk at the door before loading up positions closer to the peg, putting SL (if they bothered too at all) just behind it. Please.

I guess people just want shit regulated more and more and more, because hey if there's anything lacking in this world it's regulation. Perhaps Forex trading should go to 10:1 leverage or even better 1:1, so that people are forced to pony up sufficient capital to trade for any chance of gains.

Guess that's the new world. Everyone wants something for nothing, risk free, all gains hey and when they don't get their way they throw a temper tantrum.
  • #607
  • Feb 18, 2015 8:50am Feb 18, 2015 8:50am
I want to share with you a few clarifications.

The FX brokers are NOT your agent. They do not act on your behalf and go to the market to execute your orders. There is no "market", it is just you and the broker trading to each other. And this is called a principal-to-principal relationship.

The prices you see on the trading platform provided by the FX brokers, are all tradable prices. That is, the fx broker quote you a price, and if you accept it, you hit the button (or via stop order), the transaction is completed. This process involves offer and acceptance and the transacted price CANNOT be changed unless both parties agree.

The FX brokers quote prices by subscribing to market data feeds, which there are examples like Reuters, InteractiveData, etc. After the SNB annoucement, these streaming prices were kind of in an orderly fashion, especially in the first few minutes after the annoucement. Then there are gaps, but a most a few hundred pips. EURCHF did not fall from 1.2000 directly to 1.0500 in the next second.

Being a FX broker has to manage market risks. If a client long EURCHF before the SNB annoucement, and if SNB lifts the floor, the broker loses money if he doesn't have a long position with his external trading counterparty. But if he holds a long position outside, he also takes the risk that the trading counterparty gap down EURCHF from 1.2000 directly to 1.0000, say, on a manual quoting. Then the FX broker's hedge position is killed, before he close out his clients' position on a margin cut. However, this is NOT a reason that the FX broker can amend the completed trades with you, just because that he loses money outside with a bad trading counterparty. What he should do was, to quote a price he want to trade, always. He can quote you 1.1500 when Bloomberg contributors quoting 1.1800, it is his right to do so. But he cannot change a price he quoted and you accepted.

And on margin call and cut, it is a function of the trading platform that the FX broker provides you as a package of the service. He quotes you a tradable price, and the system algorithm detects that your margin short-fall, and then the system close out your positions. This is what supposed to be. So if your trading platform did not stop loss, and the price streaming was continuous according to the fx broker's tradable price, then you have the right to complain the margin call / cut function of the system.
  • #608
  • Feb 18, 2015 11:08am Feb 18, 2015 11:08am
Quoting Wblom
I want to share with you a few clarifications.
...
You are absolutely right. Most people that trade with market makers have no idea that there really is no "market" and therefore MMs will have a very hard time arguing in court that their LPs had a problem and therefore they were not willing / able to honor stops. It is just you and the MM making deals. If they have a problem on their side it is not of the clients concern.
  • #609
  • Feb 18, 2015 5:41pm Feb 18, 2015 5:41pm
Quoting Wblom
I want to share with you a few clarifications.
I'm glad new members are registering to write some clever posts, thank you Wblom !
Because whatever razor can't believe, on my side I just can't believe what he's writing. "people got slipped 'positively' for 4000 pips ".
I agree the never say never thing, but that never has happened and never will. As Wblom correctly wrote, market makers control the quotes and control the execution, they would never let such a thing happen.
  • #610
  • Feb 18, 2015 6:55pm Feb 18, 2015 6:55pm
Quoting r4in123
EEOs cannot be used for disputed claims. Please check what was written a few posts ago (Or see Wikipedia entry on EEOs)
I was talking about insolvency and EEO. Whether is contested or not depends on debtor.

Quote
A title by KPMG can only be sold if it was confirmed by a court or if you do not dispute it. People WILL dispute it, therefore scaring people with an imminent arrival of debt collectors is neither constructive or realistic. Debt collectors only take action after the court confirms the debt (if it was disputed). This can take many YEARS from now on.

You owe the money by the contract and you owe it to Alpari. KPMG is acting on behalf of the creditors you do not owe anything to KPMG. This debt does not require a court confirmation since you agreed to cover all negative balance when you signed the contract. Since there is negative balance you have contractual obligation to pay it. Alpari creditors can decide to sue you to enforce the debt, in this case you will not see debt collectors you will see bailiffs who you will not be able to negotiate with.

Debt collectors work with contractual debt. If you have a credit card and fail to pay its bill you will not get sued, you will hear from the collectors. The same with utility or phone bills. Now there is no possibility to hide from this debt inside the EU. Only if you do not have any assets and live not at your known address and do not need to have bank account for the next 6 years.
Wookey
  • #611
  • Feb 18, 2015 8:03pm Feb 18, 2015 8:03pm
Quoting Silver777
Wookey, I don't disagree with you, I don't know enough about UK insolvency to know what KPMG or UK court can do without creditors approval, e.g. suing the top 9.
Why do you think KPMG will not get creditor approval? After all it is in the interest of all creditors to recover as much money as possible. Here we are talking about $1m+ debts. Certainly a good reason for action.

Quote
*I* have no debt This is where I don't agree, there is no debt from negative balance. There is a claim that could turn into a debt if uncontested by the trader. So if a trader with negative balance disputes the claim, then there is no debt and then KPMG would need to go into the trader's home country to get a judgement (claim that becomes debt) in court. My point was that, EEO and the BC can't be used here since the contested debt would need to first be proved by the contract between Alpari (not KPMG or UK court) and the trader in the trader's home country.

As I wrote in my previous post you signed a contract where you agreed to cover negative balance. Negative balance exist so you have contractual obligation to cover it. You will receive as clients of other brokers a formal demand to pay. You will have a choice: pay it, settle it or ignore it. If you pay it, it's over. If you ignore it then the debt will be counted as uncontested and goes to the next stage (collectors or obtaining an EEO). If you decide to settle it you have 2 choices: either you negotiate a smaller amount / payment scheme or you are contesting the existence of the negative balance. In the latter case you have to respond with your arguments to KPMG. KPMG and Alpari lawyers will look at your arguments and decide if they accept them and consider your debt settled or decline it and insist on payment. You may contest again, but at some point they will issue the final demand which you will not be able to contest with them either pay or not. However, you will still have an ability to settle the debt in court. In this case you have to sue Alpari in English court (or the court specified in your contract if you are not Alpari client).

From my point of view if you decide to go this way you have to prove in court that your broker breached the contract (for example, if you are able to prove that the price adjustment was not lawful you will be relieved from the part of the debt resulted from that adjustment, or if the court finds out that the liquidity provider actually had executed position at 1.18 while your statement shows 0.96 then the court will relieve you from that part of the debt). Or you can prove that the whole contract is against the law and has to be deemed void. I do not know anything about it, you should ask a specialist in English law.
Wookey
  • #612
  • Feb 18, 2015 8:58pm Feb 18, 2015 8:58pm
Quoting wookey
{quote} Why do you think KPMG will not get creditor approval? After all it is in the interest of all creditors to recover as much money as possible. Here we are talking about $1m+ debts. Certainly a good reason for action. {quote} As I wrote in my previous post you signed a contract where you agreed to cover negative balance. Negative balance exist so you have contractual obligation to cover it. You will receive as clients of other brokers a formal demand to pay. You will have a choice: pay it, settle it or ignore it. If you pay it, it's over. If...
So what would happen if I owed a negative balance to Alpari (thankfully I do not), had no money and was living in a house that was not made out in my name? Could the house be seized under these circumstances?

Wookey, you sound quite knowledgeable in this area so this question is aimed at you.
  • #613
  • Feb 18, 2015 11:35pm Feb 18, 2015 11:35pm
Quoting Richy1985
{quote} So what would happen if I owed a negative balance to Alpari (thankfully I do not), had no money and was living in a house that was not made out in my name? Could the house be seized under these circumstances? Wookey, you sound quite knowledgeable in this area so this question is aimed at you.
I cannot give legal advices, only my opinion. And my opinion is that only your own assets can be seized. If the house is not yours it is safe. Some lawyers can point out a theoretical possibility of connecting you and the house, if for instance you gave it to your relative after the debt happened, this action can be counted as debt evading (basically, the court decides that the whole purpose of that deal was to remove the house from potential assets seizure) then the house can be seized, but it is all quite specific for each case you need a real lawyer to sort it out.

Any asset can be seized only by your local court of law. A broker or hired debt collectors can sue you to enforce the debt, but before it they will try to negotiate. Only if you refuse to negotiate they will go to court. That is the worst case scenario. The enforcement order from court will follow you everywhere, hiding any assets or income from it is a criminal offence. Even if you owe a million pound it is not worth trying, better to negotiate. They will be willing to negotiate and significantly reduce the amount.
Wookey
  • #614
  • Feb 19, 2015 12:49am Feb 19, 2015 12:49am
Quoting wookey
{quote} Why do you think KPMG will not get creditor approval? After all it is in the interest of all creditors to recover as much money as possible. Here we are talking about $1m+ debts. Certainly a good reason for action. {quote} As I wrote in my previous post you signed a contract where you agreed to cover negative balance. Negative balance exist so you have contractual obligation to cover it. You will receive as clients of other brokers a formal demand to pay. You will have a choice: pay it, settle it or ignore it. If you pay it, it's...
As previously somebody mentioned they have to prove the negative balance first and than it becomes debt. At the moment it is just a number they think you should paid them so they can cover their a***s and even make some money. They cannot just send an email claiming that you you need to pay back XXX amount of money.

Which AlPari lawyers? Who is going to pay them to sit there and try to force customers world wide to pay the money back? One lawyer's salary is probably more than what 50% of individuals' negative balance...
Based of which contract? The one that is saying you can loose more then your initial investment? If that is the only thing they have, they can wipe their xxx with it.

And please STOP saying that they will sell the debt, since they cannot do that as easy as you are trying to force people here to believe. There are procedures to follow, case to win on court before they can sell the debt. I am not sure who do you work for or what are your goals on this forum, but you do seem very interested in to have everybody scared and pay the money back with no fighting over it at all.
  • #615
  • Edited 8:06am Feb 19, 2015 7:02am | Edited 8:06am
Quoting wookey
{quote} Why do you think KPMG will not get creditor approval? After all it is in the interest of all creditors to recover as much money as possible. Here we are talking about $1m+ debts. Certainly a good reason for action.
Very 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, because Alpari is insolvent

Creditors include the account holders with positive balance, ask them if they want to pay some of the money owed to them upfront to cover legal costs so they MIGHT get all of their money (Those with accounts >50K GBP) several years later where winning and losing will be all based on Alpari's client agreements, execution policies and financial regulations.

Quote
As I wrote in my previous post you signed a contract where you agreed to cover negative balance. Negative balance exist so you have contractual obligation to cover it. You will receive as clients of other brokers a formal demand to pay. You will have a choice: pay it, settle it or ignore it. If you pay it, it's over. If you ignore it then the debt will be counted as uncontested and goes to the next stage (collectors or obtaining an EEO). If you decide to settle it you have 2 choices: either you negotiate a smaller amount / payment scheme or you...

I signed no such contract.

If 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.

Here is what I think will happen, based on what I have researched:

1. Less than 50% chance that 9 large traders (e.g. those that make up >50% of total negative balance) get sued, because this will need to be done in the traders' home countries once the claims are contested and of course they will be contested when we are talking about millions.
2. KPMG will send emails to other traders with neg balance saying they need to cover -> Some traders will pay, others negotiate, some will dispute that they owe nothing, some will ignore.
3. KPMG MIGHT go to UK court to get a title (and possibly EEO and/or BC) against those that dispute and/or those that ignored (but this is doubtful since insolvent companies can't use EEO or BC and this will also cost money that Alpari creditors will have to agree to pay these costs) -> Those traders will be contacted by the court, shown the process and that they have Alpari claiming money is owed -> traders will go online and dispute Alpari/KPMG's claim (yes, this can be done online), maybe some will still ignore
4. If Step 3 above is successful then those that ignored MAY get a title against them (or Maybe not if EEO or BC can't be used in insolvency), those who disputed will get no title against them -> edit: I forgot to mention that if Alpari/KPMG get a title for debts in the UK and EEO and/or BC can't be used, then Alpari/KPMG have to go and get it enforced themselves through the local courts in the debtors' countries, by first getting it recognized, legitimized and then enforced (also very costly that will need to be paid for by Alpari creditors, this is why EEO and BC exist)
5. If Step 3 is not successful due to Alpari being insolvent (unable to get EEO or BC) or traders disputing the claim in UK court (online), then there is no choice but to either forgive the negative balances or sue the neg balance traders in their individual home countries (good luck with asking Alpari creditors to cover these costs!)

R4in123, Mevo, Mojo123: if you are reading this, I would appreciate your opinions, is this how you understand it?
  • #616
  • Feb 19, 2015 7:25am Feb 19, 2015 7:25am
Anyone with any opinions on IG and their chasing of negative balances?
  • #617
  • Feb 19, 2015 8:40am Feb 19, 2015 8:40am
Quoting mojo123
{quote} As previously somebody mentioned they have to prove the negative balance first and than it becomes debt. At the moment it is just a number they think you should paid them so they can cover their a***s and even make some money. They cannot just send an email claiming that you you need to pay back XXX amount of money. Which AlPari lawyers? Who is going to pay them to sit there and try to force customers world wide to pay the money back? One lawyer's salary is probably more than what 50% of individuals' negative balance... Based of which contract?...
He is a person who has written posts everyday justifying the brokers right to sue clients.He has gone to the
extent of fighting tooth and nail for this.Who is he?Any guesses?
  • #618
  • Feb 19, 2015 9:39am Feb 19, 2015 9:39am
Quoting Silver777
{quote} Very simple, the reason why creditor approval...
Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too. Unlike Wookey's opinion that we signed a contract that says that we will cover negative balance things are a lot more complicated. It is not that simple because, there are a ton of arguments to counter their request... for example business terms are invalid in my jurisdiction that come surprising or are discriminatory. As I already said there are lots of different contracts Alpari sent out. Therefore it is impossible, even for an expert, to give a generalized statement on these cases. They are highly individual and need to be checked individually by a lawyer once any Mail arrives at your door. Making people scared of debt collectors is not helpful at all. This process will take years to resolve, not days or month.

My comments to your points invidually:

1.) I think they will sue all the top traders with highest priority. Those guys must be high net worth individuals where it should be profitable to follow the case.
2.) Yes, KPMG (for Alpari) will send Mails asking people to pay neg balance and possibly offer them a deal (like "pay 50% and that's it"). If people refuse to answer court mail they might succeed in getting a valid claim in UK. Sending mails is cheap and it will scare lots of people that will just pay.
3.) Yes, I see it that way too.
4.) Yes, I see it that way too.
5.) Yes, I see it that way too.

Long story short. They will have to sue most people in their home jurisdictions. This is a very long and costly process and laws in most countries greatly vary. Things are not as simply as some people claim "You signed a contract, therefore you must pay". It is way, way more complicated and highly individual. This makes things very costly for the Administrators and they need to carefully select which clients to sue and which ones to let go (or offer deals).
  • #619
  • Feb 19, 2015 10:26am Feb 19, 2015 10:26am
Quoting mojo123
{quote} As previously somebody mentioned they have to prove the negative balance first and than it becomes debt. At the moment it is just a number they think you should paid them so they can cover their a***s and even make some money. They cannot just send an email claiming that you you need to pay back XXX amount of money.
Yes, agreed. Otherwise every broker in the world would have gone after negative balances. I suspect most brokers know this as well and therefore decided to forgive negative balance as a marketing campaign.

Quote
Which AlPari lawyers? Who is going to pay them to sit there and try to force customers world wide to pay the money back? One lawyer's salary is probably more than what 50% of individuals' negative balance...

Alpari creditors, of course!

Lawyers will only get involved if someone is bankrolling / financing the lawsuits and they get paid, in this case it would have to be Alpari creditors. I believe in this case, all of the costs will have to paid in advance including court costs and defense lawyer costs. I wonder if the insolvent company could be counter sued and how that would work, I know there are limitations, but this would be interesting to follow.

Quote
Based of which contract? The one that is saying you can loose more then your initial investment? If that is the only thing they have, they can wipe their xxx with it.

ROFL!!

I got a real belly laugh after reading this one!

And these contracts are exactly what the future lawsuits against the largest 9 neg balance traders will be based on. I just can't see it happening.

Quote
And please STOP saying that they will sell the debt, since they cannot do that as easy as you are trying to force people here to believe. There are procedures to follow, case to win on court before they can sell the debt. I am not sure who do you work for or what are your goals on this forum, but you do seem very interested in to have everybody scared and pay the money back with no fighting over it at all.

I don't know if wookey has a hidden agenda, but he does blurt out plenty of dangerous half-truths.
  • #620
  • Feb 19, 2015 10:48am Feb 19, 2015 10:48am
Quoting r4in123
{quote} Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too. Unlike Wookey's opinion that we signed a contract that says that we will cover negative balance things are a lot more complicated. It is not that simple because, there are a ton of arguments to counter their request... for example business terms are invalid in my jurisdiction that come surprising or are discriminatory. As I already said there are lots of different contracts Alpari sent out. Therefore it is impossible, even for an expert, to give a generalized statement on these cases. They are highly...
Yes, I agree. There are so many counter arguments especially the part about the contracts implying the trader has infinite risk in neg balance, and the broker in charge of the trade execution (essentially deciding how much neg balance to give the trader) but the broker not having any responsibility for failure of platform, liquidity, execution, broker's own trading servers or broker violating their own customer agreement / TOS. Yes, many broker contracts really do say these things.

Any defense lawyer would have a field day with this. This is why I also believe that there is a low chance that we see lawsuits against the largest 9 traders with neg balance, because it will be based on these contracts and agreements.

And here's a real doozy that I noticed. The Friday before Alpari filed for insolvency it declared Force Majeure (FM) for closing clients' open positions, the declared Force Majeure is permanent and still in place. Currently KPMG are looking at execution levels for all affected clients, this is after FM was declared. According to EU regulations, FM must be applied in good faith, meaning that if FM is declared then nobody wins or loses and both parties are relieved of their contractual responsibilities. FM application is complicated, but the way I interpret this is that if Alpari declared FM to avoid paying winners, it can not legally demand money from traders as FM (applied in good faith) dissolves all parties from contractual obligations. And traders are having their closing positions adjusted AFTER FM was declared. I wouldn't be surprised if defense lawyers will use this.

I also agree with you that the fact that there are so many different contracts with customer will make this very complicated. And if there are lawsuits, they will go on for years. Great time to be a lawyer!
1 trader viewing now