DD Support Board and Research Team

[DragonBear]

would clients have a claim against them rising from their earlier assurances that the dividend money wouldn't be touched?

It would seem a possibility if they had it in writing. Where in order for that to happen the client would've used the internal TDA Email system to pose the question. And the question would've had a higher probability of being routed past a front line answer desk. Past the weakest link.

The more likely scenario is upon reading an IHUB forum post they called into a TDA. Where the front line desk told them exactly what they wanted to hear - no problem with the divy. It's yours to spend!

It's still unclear what liability a TDA would have, even if they admitted to telling their clients the divy was safe. My bets are on TDA would say it was up to the client to get a legal opinion.

In their objection to COR's motion, they complained about the possible cost of collection fees. Or they could eat the cost.

Yes a TDA has a problem, along with the rest who procrastinated on an Etrade like response. The moment they take from an account which can cover the divy, they have to go after all accounts who got the divy. They can't eat some but not all of the cost. Then comes the expense of small claims court.

Did TDA place a freeze on the accounts early on? I seem to remember one poster trying to transfer out of Etrade to TDA. Where TDA was more than willing to accept the account if Etrade removed the margin warning. Outside of that there were no problems on the TDA side. The point being, if TDA allowed their clients to shutdown the accounts, then they are going to have a lot of fun trying to collect.