77 yr old chinese woman sues Union Bank of Switzerland
 

An adviser at UBS persuaded Ms Chan to purchase $37million cdn OTC Equity Accumulator in 2007...guess what, it has gone down to $232,000 cdn as of today. Now she's sueing UBS for misrepresentation.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_p...7&sid=24738406

http://l.yimg.com/fe/p/news/mingpao/...01f5jac-i0.jpg

:eek: major OWNAGE...

jeez not accumulator again, Part of me feels bad for those who invested, the other part of me thinks they deserve it for being so naive...

ouch... OUCH


but she might be able to win, similar cases have been won before by clients versus investors

"She claims she did not understand the documents she signed because they were in English, and no one from UBS informed her of the risks and nature of the investments."

that pretty much sums it up

she signed her life away. Don't really feel bad for her.

^ there are few cases in common law that the claimant knows no English and was compensated at the end...

So...what exactly is this equity accumulator? I googled it, but didn't come up with much.

^ accumulator is not for average investors. The rules are complicated, I hope wiki can explain it better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumul...tured_product)

chances are she won't win

i work a lot with the potential international tax laws associated with what UBS and other predominantely swiss banks have been doing in recent years to do with US investors "hiding" money - i really doubt they'll lose to her, the amount of paper work that backs them up is unbelieveable + the amount of firepower they have, legally, is unbelieveable

it doesnt mean anything really, like i said earlier theres a long list of ppl who've won cases like this

lets not forget these "victims" can afford great lawyers as well

Exactly, this was not an investment of a couple thouasand, this was $37 million. There is no way she can use the excuse of the contract being in english when you're talking this large amount of money. Also as asian_XL said if it's not for the average investor then she should've known even better to fully understand what she was getting.

I guess a lot of the people here didn't pay attention to the asian news.

There is a huge fight going on between banks in HK and bank customers (investors, if
you want to call them). They claimed they had been induced by bank advisors saying
it's just a mini-bond with close-to-zero risk. Some victims have revealed the voice
recording over the phone with the advisor to prove their innocense.

The banks have agreed to repay 60-70% of the money to the "investors who knew
nothing about these product", but then the next big question has come up..."What
determines they are professional investors and who are not?"

I doubt the court will even look at her literarcy. I have a feeling she will be rated as
professional investors and not going to get a dime from UBS. =/

Why would you need anymore money than 37 million dollars at 77 years old? I'd be happy with 1/10 of that money right now...

I should try her scam with a non-english speaking firm. If my portfolio goes up, win. If it goes down, sue.

Seriously, though, how many people just trust their advisor to pick out their investments? Last fall, when the market was dropping, I heard people complaining all the time that their money was taking a hit and they didn't even know where it was allocated. A professional was handling their money and they had no motivation to implement any type of stop loss or different strategy.

because you have no family

hey guys, im going to go sign something in chinese even though i cant read chinese at all. im going to sign $32 million dollars of my money for something i cant read because im stupid.

Suitability of the investments and her age is key.

Its kinda like spread betting - you bet that the price of a stock will go up/down a certain range in a certain timeframe. The difference in net gain at the time of settling is accumulated as profit, but if the net is a loss, you capital gets hit.
Her fund must have went all-in on a skyrocketing property market in Flint, Michigan or something.

accumulator = ikillyoulater

So ignorance is a perfectly legit card to pull in court now?

^claimant has the burden of proof that he/she has been induced. It's not about ignorance.

balling lady gets owned is what the thread title should be.

It's hard to explain until you get there but to better explain:

If you have $100 you want $1000
If you have $1,000,000 you get so used to it that it's like someone else having $100.

You end up wanting more. Call it $$$$$, call it ambition, it's just a fact of life for most people. The thing with rich people is that they win big and also lose big. Overall though, it's better to have more money of course but if you're used to a $10,000,000 lifestyle, living on a $1,000,000 feels like shit.

I'm sure you get it but look at it another way. If you drive a civic and then drive an S2000, you feel awesome. If you drive a Zonda, and then an S2000, you feel like the biggest loser in the world and you want to kill yourself.

It took her until now to realize the amount of losses on those investments? Any sane person would've got out last year when Fannie and Freddie went belly up, dumb idiots like her should just stick with money market and bonds.

What if that investment had doubled since she put the money in the account, do you think she will sue UBS now about not understanding the document SHE SIGNED?

if I had 37 million I'd spend it not invest it... you don't need more then 37 mill.

:word: no one don't plunks down that much cash without being sure of the terms she invests under... serves her right