Thursday, November 10, 2016

Run rabbits run - First Service Residential bolts

Subsequent to this, a Board Meeting was convened at which a CAI attorney also attended, ostensibly to provide education on debt collection issues. The Brown Law Firm has one of the best collection records in the state. Click HERE to see some of their greatest successes. 
I was able to present a list of questions to FirstService, none of which were answered, even down to our own account number. Click HERE for those questions including a letter from FirstService's VP Legal and Risk Management KELLY LEE who it transpires appears not to be an attorney. To hear the audio of those questions and total non answers, click HERE

First Service Residential, the country’s largest HOA Management Company, represents 80% of First Service Corporation (“FSV”) which is a public company quoted on the NASDAQ.
We presented their Directors charged under Sarbanes Oxley with certain facts and questions related to the notion that they may be operating more as a bank than a landscaping manager. Sarbanes Oxley was corporate legislation passed in the wake of Enron. Just Google it.
These issues cover:
1.  “Round-tripping” by FirstService in conjunction with US Bank whereby as much as $1billion of HOA deposits may end up being lent back to them or others. Who knows?
2.  Failure to follow the Patriot Act anti-Money laundering rules.
3.  Worst case catastrophic risks to the ACH direct debit money transfer system.
4.  Whether they and the HOA’s they supposedly manage would not all be lumped together if FSV or an HOA declared bankruptcy.
5. Homeowners being in default on their mortgages even if current on payments.

Within an hour of presenting these issues to them, First Service resigned from managing an HOA where this was uncovered. See below in a further email to FSV Board members
Email to FirstService Board Members

See the most recent communication from First Service arrived a few moments ago. Click below
I’m reliably informed their decision was taken after they were informed by the Board that they wanted:
1.          All communications to go via the portal so that all members could see them.
2.          To change banks.
As they have still refused to obey the Board’s instructions to give up documents now past the 10 day statutory limit, I believe they are guilty of willful and intentional negligence and in breach of their contact…but that’s for the Board to decide.
John Sellers