Alpari UK bankruptcy update: 79 cents on the dollar | Forex Factory

Options

Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

KPMG update on Alpari UK bankruptcy 1 reply

Alpari US vs Alpari UK 20 replies

Alpari NZ vs Alpari UK 7 replies

Alpari Direct Pro vs Alpari MT4 Pro 4 replies

Alpari Russia, Alpari UK or MIG??? 5 replies

Alpari UK bankruptcy update: 79 cents on the dollar

  • #1
  • First Post: Aug 17, 2016 7:08am Aug 17, 2016 7:08am
Alpari UK bankruptcy update: 79 cents on the dollar to be refunded as KPMG fees top 10 millio

It has been more than 19 months since the bankruptcy of FCA-regulated retail forex broker Alpari UK, and things arent totally unwound quite yet.

Special Administrator KPMG reported that it now expects Alpari clients to eventually receive back 78.3 to 79.7 cents on the dollar when all is said and done from the Estate, or about $77 million.

To date (through to July 18), $51.3 million had already been returned.

So what happened to all the other money?

https://www.leaprate.com/2016/08/alp...op-10-million/
  • #2
  • Edited 10:38am Aug 17, 2016 10:27am | Edited 10:38am
Quoting PoundTrader
Alpari UK bankruptcy update: 79 cents on the dollar to be refunded as KPMG fees top 10 millio It has been more than 19 months since the bankruptcy of FCA-regulated retail forex broker Alpari UK, and things arent totally unwound quite yet. Special Administrator KPMG reported that it now expects Alpari clients to eventually receive back 78.3 to 79.7 cents on the dollar when all is said and done from the Estate, or about $77 million. To date (through to July 18), $51.3 million had already been returned. So what happened to all the other money? https://www.leaprate.com/2016/08/alp...op-10-million/...
I thought the majority of the clients got their money back already through FSCS. KPMG sure knows how to make money, charging $200 per lunch as billable hours. Way to go, taking $15 million dollars for themselves.

WHY should the fees come out of client funds? There is a reason WHY client funds are segregated so it's separate from everything else. Expenses for accounting firms and legal firms to wind down a business should be operating expenses for the company if the firms were hired by the company and client funds are not allowed to be used for operating expenses for the firms.

In this case, it's FCA who hired KPMG to sort out this mess, it should be FCA who should pay for it. Alpari clients didn't hire no KPMG!! So WHY should the clients pay for them? This is ridiculous!!
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #3
  • Aug 17, 2016 12:31pm Aug 17, 2016 12:31pm
Quoting Forexia
{quote} I thought the majority of the clients got their money back already through FSCS. KPMG sure knows how to make money, charging $200 per lunch as billable hours. Way to go, taking $15 million dollars for themselves. WHY should the fees come out of client funds? There is a reason WHY client funds are segregated so it's separate from everything else. Expenses for accounting firms and legal firms to wind down a business should be operating expenses for the company if the firms were hired by the company and client funds are not allowed...
  • #4
  • Aug 17, 2016 1:10pm Aug 17, 2016 1:10pm
Quoting Forexia
{quote} I thought the majority of the clients got their money back already through FSCS. KPMG sure knows how to make money, charging $200 per lunch as billable hours. Way to go, taking $15 million dollars for themselves. WHY should the fees come out of client funds? There is a reason WHY client funds are segregated so it's separate from everything else. Expenses for accounting firms and legal firms to wind down a business should be operating expenses for the company if the firms were hired by the company and client funds are not allowed...
This is exactly why I have no problem trading with an unregulated broker, especially in the US. At least they're getting 79 cents on the dollar, in the US, they would get absolutely nothing.
  • #5
  • Aug 17, 2016 1:15pm Aug 17, 2016 1:15pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} This is exactly why I have no problem trading with an unregulated broker, especially in the US. At least they're getting 79 cents on the dollar, in the US, they would get absolutely nothing.
Those with accounts 50k or under can claim the difference from FSCS so what's the problem. Those with larger accounts should know better. Ultimately UK government pays the bill again and only winner is KPMG.
  • #6
  • Aug 18, 2016 1:03am Aug 18, 2016 1:03am
Quoting Forexia
{quote} I thought the majority of the clients got their money back already through FSCS. KPMG sure knows how to make money, charging $200 per lunch as billable hours. Way to go, taking $15 million dollars for themselves. WHY should the fees come out of client funds? There is a reason WHY client funds are segregated so it's separate from everything else. Expenses for accounting firms and legal firms to wind down a business should be operating expenses for the company if the firms were hired by the company and client funds are not allowed...
Very well said .
Never Gamble Forex
  • #7
  • Aug 18, 2016 1:48pm Aug 18, 2016 1:48pm
Quoting claudia1
{quote} Those with accounts 50k or under can claim the difference from FSCS so what's the problem. Those with larger accounts should know better. Ultimately UK government pays the bill again and only winner is KPMG.
Well that's the problem. KPMG shouldn't be the winner. The ONLY "winner" here should be the clients because they were the ones who suffered the most and should be the one who's most protected, getting back what was theirs to begin with. I understand KPMG did a lot of work but they are going after the wrong person for their compensation.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #8
  • Aug 18, 2016 2:09pm Aug 18, 2016 2:09pm
Quoting Forexia
{quote} Well that's the problem. KPMG shouldn't be the winner. The ONLY "winner" here should be the clients because they were the ones who suffered the most and should be the one who's most protected, getting back what was theirs to begin with. I understand KPMG did a lot of work but they are going after the wrong person for their compensation.
Totally agree. But looking at it from another angle if they had invested funds in a Cypress regulated firm what would they have got back? You know the answer.
  • #9
  • Aug 18, 2016 2:19pm Aug 18, 2016 2:19pm
Quoting claudia1
{quote} Totally agree. But looking at it from another angle if they had invested funds in a Cypress regulated firm what would they have got back? You know the answer.
Or in a US regulated firm, would have gotten nothing as well. Funny thing is, traders in the US think NFA and CFTC are protecting them.
  • #10
  • Aug 18, 2016 2:27pm Aug 18, 2016 2:27pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Or in a US regulated firm, would have gotten nothing as well. Funny thing is, traders in the US think NFA and CFTC are protecting them.
It's crazy really Cysec is just a money spinner for Cypriot government. Every Russian, Israeli etc binary company love it.
  • #11
  • Aug 18, 2016 7:50pm Aug 18, 2016 7:50pm
Quoting claudia1
{quote} Totally agree. But looking at it from another angle if they had invested funds in a Cypress regulated firm what would they have got back? You know the answer.
No but that's the reason WHY as clients they did NOT choose to invest with companies regulated by the joke of CySec. And them investing in a firm regulated by a competent and relevant regulatory body like FCA is NOT conditional upon them accepting fees for recovering their funds, the very same benefits that FCA precisely provides.

But the crux of the issue here is actually not anything else but a logistic issue. Simply that people shouldn't be forced to accept charges for products/services that they never 1) bought or engaged into and 2) consented to buying or engaging and 3) have any saying in how much they can/cannot accept. Like I said before, first, the clients NEVER hired or consented to hiring KPMG so WHY should they pay for someone that they never hired? If it's the company that hired KPMG and the law firms, then it should be whatever was remaining in the operating funds of the company that pays for KPMG and the legal fees, WHY would the client funds to be touched? It's creditors obviously in this case who wants a bigger piece of the pie that's pushing the fees onto the clients. And they are the ones who is negotiating with KPMG regarding how much the fees and etc. which brings to my 2nd point: if you expect someone to pay for fees, then you need to first inform and consult that person, in this case the potential payor, the clients of the amount and the manner of the fees. In this case it's the Creditors Committee who's always been in the forefront of negotiating with KPMG; the clients were neither informed of the amount nor invited to participate in the negotiation of the fees. You can't just make a deal with whatever you hire and then slap the fees onto someone else and expect them to pay. That's against basic Consumer Law. If it's the Creditors' Committee who's been reviewing and negotiating the fees, then it's obvious that it's the company that hired KPMG and those legal firms then it should be them who pay for the fees. In any chance that it was FCA who hired KPMG and those legal firms, then it should be FCA who pays for it after FCA has had a chance to examine and review the fees.

In whatever case, there is NO WAY that there should be any dipping into the client funds coffer to pay any cent of those professional fees. This is the whole idea of client funds segregation. If at the end, client funds can be used to pay for this and that for the company, then what's the point of segregating them in the first place? And there is no such thing as partial segregation. You either segregate it completely or there is no segregation.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #12
  • Aug 18, 2016 7:55pm Aug 18, 2016 7:55pm
Quoting claudia1
{quote} It's crazy really Cysec is just a money spinner for Cypriot government. Every Russian, Israeli etc binary company love it.
I know. Many of the trading software developing companies like MetaQuotes that produces MT4, Spotware that produces cTrader are even registered in Cypress. Go figure...
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #13
  • Aug 19, 2016 7:37am Aug 19, 2016 7:37am
Quoting claudia1
{quote} It's crazy really Cysec is just a money spinner for Cypriot government. Every Russian, Israeli etc binary company love it.
  • #14
  • Last Post: Oct 26, 2016 10:30pm Oct 26, 2016 10:30pm
Quoting Forexia
{quote} I know. Many of the trading software developing companies like MetaQuotes that produces MT4, Spotware that produces cTrader are even registered in Cypress. Go figure...
Hello. Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Both of the firms are registered in Cypress, something seems and even looks very fishy there. The problem is, all the lies and scams were already exposed by their own king at IronFx.
0 traders viewing now