Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Datek Brokerage $9.95 a trade -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RockyBalboa who wrote (15105)	10/28/2000 9:20:21 PM
From: Richard James	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16892

Infostream, That is not what you have done. Your question is somewhat ambiguous. If you expect me to discuss the specific facts of a client's pending claim ... forget it. DATEK management already has those facts. They are documented in e-mails and account opening/transfer instructions. Suffice it to say that DATEK upper management admits it failed to execute the client's transfer form before a cd's renewal date. Despite numerous communications from the client, the transfer papers were not timely sent to the transferring institution by Datek. Datek was advised that the cd was going to renew if the transfer papers were not sent. Datek assured the client that it would be done. The last material communique from Datek was late on a Friday evening, advising that they were being mailed the following Monday. Datek did not send it for two more months. (This point is being confirmed. DATEK's upper management last said it was never sent. The bank however says it was recently received by it. The bank advised that it has mailed a copy to the client.) Had the instructions been mailed when they were first submitted to DATEK, after the client clarified a point raised by Datek in the transfer papers or even as late as that final Monday, there would have been no problem. Datek has admitted it has no excuse for not sending the papers to the transferring institution. The client has not asked for anything but that DATEK pay the penalty charged by the bank for transferring the CD to DATEK. Were DATEK to compensate the client for the amount of the penalty, the client would still lose the value of the tax deferral on that amount. However, the client hasn't asked for those damages. The client has not sought any damages for emotional distress or anything of that sort. In short, DATEK's liability is certain and the amount of damages are certain. There is more, including the punitive damages claim, but I am not going to try my case in the street.