© 2014-2017 Bennett Mounteer LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Proudly created by Yudha Global

Privacy Policy

Follow Us:

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
Documents
SAMJI CLASS ACTION
FAQ

UPDATED October 4, 2017

Notaries Settlement - Statement of Net Principal Loss

Statements of Net Principal Loss have now been mailed out to those who have filed a Claim Form in the Notaries Settlement. You should receive it in the mail shortly. If you accept the calculation of your net principal loss outlined in the statement, you do not need to do anything further.

 

If you believe an error has been made in the calculation of your net principal loss, you have the right to dispute this calculation on the limited grounds set out in the Notice of Dispute of Calculation sent to you with your Statement of Net Principal Loss. To do so, you must complete and submit the Notice of Dispute of Calculation of Net Principal Loss to our office by no later than Monday, November 6, 2017. A copy of the Notice of Dispute can be found here.

 

You cannot challenge the amount of your claim, as determined by the Trustee in Bankruptcy, which has been used to calculate your Net Principal Loss.

 

Payments will be issued after all (if any) disputes are resolved and satisfied.

Notaries Settlement Claim Form

 

Investors of the Samji Ponzi Scheme must file a Claim Form in order to participate in the Notaries Settlement.  A copy of the Claim Form can be found here. Please submit your Claim Form no later than Tuesday, September 5, 2017.

 

If you have only received settlement payments from the Class Action and from the Trustee of Rashida Samji, you are not required to fill out Part III and IV of the Claim Form. In other words, you do not need to indicate the amounts you received from the Trustee (offices of Boale Wood) and simply marking “N/A” will suffice. This applies to both Bank and Coast members of the Class Action.

 

Settlement Approval

The Notaries Settlement was approved by Madam Justice Gerow on June 20, 2017.  The approval Order will become final on July 21, 2017, and Notices and claim forms will be sent out shortly after that.

Settlement Approval Hearing Re-Scheduled

The Settlement Approval Hearing scheduled on Friday, April 28, 2017 was adjourned. Madam Justice Gerow was no longer available on that date as she was sitting in a criminal jury that went longer than expected.  The Settlement Approval Hearing is now re-set for June 20, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for 1 hour, which was the first date on which Madam Justice Gerow and Counsel were all available.

Settlement Approval Hearing

 A proposed settlement has been reached in Jer et al. v. Samji et al., SCBC Action No. S-121627 between the Representative Plaintiffs and the Society of Notaries of British Columbia to settle the claims against the Society of all investors in the Mark Anthony Investment Scheme operated by Rashida Samji. A copy of the Settlement Agreement can be found here.

The hearing to approve the Settlement Agreement will take place on April 28, 2017. Notice to all investors regarding the Settlement Approval Hearing can be found here. Any written objections to the Settlement Agreement must be received by Class Counsel no later than noon on April 27, 2017.

 

Society of Notaries Public's Appeal

The appeal by the Society of Notaries Public from the determination made by Madam Justice Gerow in Reasons for Judgment pronounced August 26, 2014, holding that Rashida Samji was acting in her capacity as a notary public when she received investors' funds, was heard on May 1, 2015.   The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on June 6, 2015.   A copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court of Appeal can be found here.

On September 3, 2015, the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. applied for leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  On January 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Society's application for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to the Order of Madam Justice Gerow on April 12, 2016, Notice to Class members regarding the determination of the remaining common issues could be found here.  The purpose of this Notice is to explain what was decided by the determination of the common issues, what the determination of the common issues means for the Class members, and what steps must be taken by Class members or the Class Counsel on their behalf.

 

Class Action Settlement Administration

Settlement payments from the Class Action were sent out to Class members on May 20, 2015.  The amount of the settlement payment to each Class member varied from the amount set out in their entitlement letter dated March 18, 2015.  The reasons for these differences are explained.

All of the claims against the Bank Fund in the Samji Class Action settlement have now been finalized and final payments of the settlement funds have all been distributed.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

I have moved, how can I update my address?

If your address has changed, please complete the Change of Address Form to receive notice from our office.

What is the Jer v. Samji class action about?

The Jer v. Samji action alleges that Rashida Samji perpetrated a so-called Ponzi scheme, by purporting to take money from investors and holding it “in trust” as a notary public. TheNotaries Act requires that notaries hold funds provided to them in trust in a special trust account and not pay funds out without specific instructions from the person to whom they belong. In fact, the lawsuit alleges that Rashida Samji breached her duties as a trustee of investors’ funds because she failed to hold those funds in a trust account and paid them out without specific instructions.

The action further alleges that the entire “Mark Anthony Scheme” was a fraud, that it had nothing to do with the actual “Mark Anthony Group”, was designed to deceive investors, and that Rashida Samji and her company “Samji & Assoc. Holdings Inc.” and her notarial practice “Rashida Samji Notary Corporation” are liable to return those funds.

The action also alleges that Arvin Patel, in providing financial advice to clients and others, gave negligent advice when he recommended the “Mark Anthony Investment” scheme as a legitimate investment opportunity. goes on to say that the Coast Capital Defendants and Worldsource should be held legally responsible for Arvin Patel’s negligent advice and for failing to properly supervise him.

Finally, the lawsuit alleges that the Financial Institutions (RBC, TD and Vancity) caused or contributed to the losses suffered by investors when they allowed their facilities to be used by Samji to perpetrate the scheme.

For a more detailed understanding of the allegations of these putative class actions, please see the Notice of Civil Claim.

Still have questions?

Visit our website regularly or email info@samjiclassaction.com for more information.

If you would like to read the B.C. Class Proceedings Act for yourself, please visit http://canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-50/latest/rsbc-1996-c-50.html

 

DISCLAIMER

This list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) and the websites www.samjiclassaction.com and samji-classaction (collectively, the “Website”) are intended to provide general information only. The information that the Website contains, including information that may be provided by Bennett Mounteer LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (collectively, the “Lawyers”) in the form of comments or replies to comments, does not constitute legal or other advice and must not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction who has been fully informed of your specific circumstances. The Lawyers do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information on the Website. Information may not be updated subsequent to its initial posting and may therefore be out of date at the time it is read or viewed. Links to other websites are provided for convenience only: the Lawyers do not endorse any website, or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information, accessible through links from the Website.

Information submitted to the Lawyers by e-mail or as a question or comment through the Website will not be treated as confidential. In no case will any such submission or response thereto create, or influence or support the creation or continuation of, a lawyer-client relationship between the Lawyers and any other person.