I am inviting real traders, of whom presence here on Et I am sure and wirh whom I am honoroued to join this forum , to not put attention on any hysteric pos on this thread.Simply support, or if not, please share you concerns, doubts. Bankstes are strongly invited to not participates - thanks to my 4 months on Et, your total silence on losing Xela and Handle of whom you were obviously insanely invidious,. for not to day the way you have treated us. Well, I am now in position to identify you, so, please, do not show up until you will be one individual trader with the track record of your trdes verified by Baron.
So superficially. I am guessing you are the same guy who prosecuted Xela with your second avatar destiero, correct? As for our situation, it is all explained in our website, here on this thread and will be desided by the court. If it is giving to you some level of ease that everyone is losing as you are, so stick on it. We did not lose and once we insisted with UBS to be refunfed for their always late executions in first, and secondly to have finally time and sales data instead of pity "traders advises", that's what we got.
Ok read the judgement. here is the latest the court decided: "In summary, the Junkanoo Estate decision clarifies exactly what parties to litigation before the Supreme Court must do to appeal interlocutory judgments and to seek stays while appeals are pending – apply to the Supreme Court first. Only if the application for leave or the stay request is rejected by the Supreme Court should a party apply to the Court of Appeal." So the magic victory being claimed here is the court decided that they could not jump to the Court of Appeals to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court without first exhausting all their options under the Supreme Court first. The defendants here FAILED to follow procedure : "The Privy Council considered the Court of Appeal Act, section 11(f), which provides that “an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an interlocutory order lies only with the leave of the Supreme Court or that of the Court of Appeal.” Junkanoo Estate, supra, at ¶ 5. Further, the Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 27(5) states that if an application can be made to a lower court or a higher court, it should be made to the lower court first. Also, an order granting summary judgment is an interlocutory order. White v Brunton [1984] QB 570; Junkanoo Estate,supra, at ¶ 5." So CES trader FAILED to follow procedure and jumped to the Court of Appeals without proper procedure. Here is the summary of the decision: "In the Junkanoo Estate case, the defendants did not follow Rule 27(5), instead appealing the interlocutory summary judgment order to the higher court first. However, all was not lost to the defendants. The Privy Council stated that the defendants had not exhausted their rights in the Supreme Court. The defendants could apply for leave to appeal, though they would face some difficult questions about timing and prejudice to the original plaintiff UBS Bahamas." The defendants were admonished for failure to follow procedures and were told to go back to the Supreme Court for appeal or get permission for appeal. HOWEVER, the PRIVY council said the defendants would face difficult questions about timing and PREJUDICE to the original plaintiff. 99% of you don't understand this and neither does CES....this is NOT a VICTORY...this the court saying "You motion was rejected because you FUCKED up, so go back and try again!" And to put salt in the wounds the Privy Council (who advises the commonwealth courts on legal matters) said defendants are still facing an uphill battle because of the prior decision in UBS' favor and timing. So for all you wannabee bullshit lawyers, stop spouting bullshit. I am giving you the exact words of the court decision made. Stop falling for his bullshit and read the actual court documents. Here are the facts:
Here is the decision/facts of the lower court: "mortgagee’s action for possession of a residential property at Lyford Cay in the western district of New Providence in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas belonging to the First Defendant, Junkanoo Estates Ltd. The mortgage was granted by Junkanoo to secure its indebtedness under an agreement with UBS (Bahamas) Ltd contained in a Commitment Letter dated 23 August 2011. The Second and Third Defendants, Mr and Mrs Starostenko, control Junkanoo and guaranteed Junkanoo’s indebtedness. They also occupy the property, together with their family. Under the Commitment Letter, UBS provided a credit facility of $1.4m to the company on terms that at least half of the facility would be available for investment in securities through trading facilities to be made available by UBS. On 28 February 2014, UBS declared the loan in default and demanded repayment of the whole outstanding balance. The alleged defaults were the failure of Junkanoo to maintain the minimum sum under management or to pay periodical interest as it accrued. On 10 March 2014, UBS declared its intention to seek orders for the sale, possession or foreclosure of the property." Defense offered was: "The defendants say that they have a defence. This is that the alleged defaults were due to UBS’s own breaches of their obligations in relation to the management of the invested funds, in particular in failing to provide an electronic trading platform for the investment of the funds under management and failing to carry out certain trades. It is also said that there is a cross-claim for damages flowing from the same breaches. It is unnecessary to examine these points in greater detail. As a result of the procedural mishaps described below, they have never been examined by the courts below. The Board think it right to approach the present application on the assumption that they are arguable, without deciding whether or not they are." By filing appeals improperly and not in proper timing the defense procedurally messed up and did not get to assert their claims. However the claim is: UBS breached obligation by failing to provide an electronic trading platform???? So they failed to pay back any interest on the loan they took out on their house to trade because there was no platform provided? Does not make legal sense. THAT IS WHY USB APPLIED FOR A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND IT WAS GRANTED. For those of you playing along at home, to get a summary judgement, the plaintiff (USB) has to show beyond any proper defense claim that their case is won.