SBG New OTC agreement

[Galaxy]

All investors/traders who clicked and accepted the new OTC, I suggest you read the document carefully, or if you have a legal connection let it be evaluated. Have an issue with a particular ambiguous worded paragraph. E-mailed OST who promised they will forward the wording to the legal department. No answer as yet. In the meanwhile, access to Easy Trader is blocked. Waiting to see if OTC will charge a fee for an application they have blocked? Meanwhile looking at other options....

[partridge]

First of all these contracts will always be skewed towards protecting the interests of the service provider and disclaiming responsibilities for everything that they can think of - but obviously focused on their provision of services or any third party they rely on to provide such services - all that usually means overkill. Secondly,these contracts cannot exclude gross negligence on their part. What I would be primarily concerned about are issues regarding security of funds, service standards and their liability for internal frauds - that is a given - and information security. For the rest ? a hamburger is a hamburger is a hamburger - unless its a Burger King! And even if its a poor contract what are you going to do about it- never enter into unequal contests

[Galaxy]

Partridge, the situation is the non-performance from OST/SBG. No answer from the legal department, not even an acknowledgement. You correctly state the issue of fund security - until I accept the new agreement I cannot trade, who takes the responsibility for losses incurred, should there be an open trade? A trader is forced into accepting just to complete a trade entered under a previous agreement. What would happen if a deal is struck under a specific law, but the the law is later changed...effectively retrospectively. Imagine the taxation laws being amended retrospectively. Furthermore, a legal document should be precise. Is my request for a response to much? The service I received from OST in the has always been good, that seems to have come to grinding halt, probably due to the nature of the concern.

[Galaxy]

Yes, I failed to mention Partridge, my concern is directly related to information security.

[Rams]

Well, there are a host of issues to be concerned about, but the problem is that OST is OST...There is no face to it, we don't know the boss...

[partridge]

I hear your concerns - couple of points - why talk to the lawyers - that is almost always a waste of time- you want to talk to the people who employ them? Clarity in legal documents? This is like a mirage generally - the closer you get to them the faster they disappear. On a more serious note - if you are unhappy with service the only question is - does the service provided meet the service standards you have contracted with them to provide - or ( weasel wording ) "could reasonably be expected to be provided " etc etc ? Finally back to the top - talk to the management. Good luck. I am off to read my contract!

[partridge]

We must have all been typing at the same time - what laughs. Only one point - information security - that has two aspects - what does their proffered model provide for - and what actually ensures delivery of the level of security "proffered" - looks like you will have to "find a face". I am off to lunch. GOOD LUCK.