To date, I have not received a reply from Judge Moreno, nor do I expect one. I believe that as he said, he reads every letter and I can understand that he cannot reply to every individual investor. I would however like to share some email exchanges I had with VSI on the subject.
click to view pdf document.
So what are the answers to my questions?
Question #1, I do not believe that the receivership has stated that it has any real financial accountability to the investor. The receiver is after all the “nominal” owner of all the policies. Also, I do not believe that the (5-04-2004) document referred in VSI’s email is where “the answer” could lie. If it is anywhere, I believe that it can be found on the receiver’s website under status of the receivership subtitle policy maintenance within the duty of customer service. To me, this page of listed duties is very revealing. Seeing the distribution of death benefits and customer service listed last clearly explains the negligent services investors have been getting. I believe that most investors paying what they consider a very high fee (at least twice that of mutual funds) expect that customer service and distribution of investor benefits should be among the first duties of the administration, not the last.
Question #2, the answer is as the VSI email states. The court has not made the decision. I, for one, cannot understand why at least the term “all investors” cannot be defined after nearly four years, unless the court and the receivership plan to disburse what is left of these funds as the receiverships last act. Of course, that means that all of insured still being maintained by the receivership needs to die. Also by that time most of investors and their beneficiaries would have done so too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
All of the investors have been mislead by MBC as to the health of the insured party. We are now being asked to keep policies going and yet do not have any idea as to the current circumstances of the insured. This is a ridiculous situation which should be corrected by the revelation of the health of the insured person. VSI will not entertain doing this as it is too expensive they say. However, I am sure that the many participants in each of the policies would be very happy to contribute to a fund for this purpose. The mistatements made at the sale of the policies is just being prolongued by the attitude of VSI.
I TOO AM A VICTIM OF THIS SITUATION AND ALMOST LOST ALL THE INVESTMENTS BECAUSE OF LOST OF EMPLOYMENT. WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND NOW THAT MBC HAS BEEN SOLD TO LATAI ASSETS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WHAT GOOD IS HAVING ALL THIS IN COURT, ETC IF THEY ARE JUST AS IRRESPONSIBLE. I ALSO HAVE NO ONE TO ASK AND WITH ALL DO RESPECT HAVE 100 YEAR OLDS WITH BAD HEALTH THAT ARE STILL AROUND. I am sure some of these claims have matured.
Post a Comment