• authored by weiser
  • published Sat, Dec 18, 2004

CCWIPP Outrage!

The CCWIPP is sending out the following to notify the pension plan members of a 20% reduction in benefits:





The Pension Plan is Canada's largest multi-employer plan, covering employees of many different employers in all ten provinces. One of the inherent principles of the Pension Plan is that all Members are treated the same, regardless of their rate of pay, and all receive the same amount of pension benefit for the same amount of cents per hour contribution.

The Pension Plan is a viable pension plan which pools all the resources and money from the contributing employers making payment on behalf of bargaining unit employees in accordance with UFCW collective bargaining agreements. As a result, employees do not have to contribute to the Plan in order to receive a pension upon retirement.

It will not be news to most of your that a combination of low interest rates and difficult investment markets has resulted in funding difficulties. Your Pension Plan, like others, has not come through the past few years unscathed. These market conditions have contributed to a lower growth rate on the pension assets managed by the Pension Plan. The lower growth rate has had a negative impact on the level of the future benefits that can be credited to Members.

As a result, a new scale of benefits (copy attached) is being introduced and will apply only to pensions credited from January 1, 2005. This new scale provides fro a 20% reduction in pension accruals, going forward. As a simple illustration, this means that if you were credited with a monthly pension of $45.00 in 2004, you will be credited with a monthly pension of $36.00 in 2005. After the implementation of the new benefit scale, as the contribution rate increases, your credited pension, going forward, will also increase. These reductions will only apply to future years. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE TO THE AMOUNT OF PENSION CREDITED ON YOUR BEHALF, TO DECEMBER 31, 2004.

NOTE: The change noted above has been accepted by the pension regulators.

For further information, contact your Local Union or the Administrator at tone of the Regional Offices indemnified below, or call the toll-free number at 1-888-873-4711. Where necessary, meetings will be held in 2005 to explain this change.

What a load of crap!

First they say the plan is fine. Then they lop benefits off those with contributions less than 65 cents per hour--some lost 15%. We had reductions in the STOs. We saw reductions in Quebec in the early retirement portion. Now we have a 20% reduction.

I'll say more later when I cool down.

  • posted by sheila
  • Sat, Dec 18, 2004 6:41pm

What a bunch of f-ers!

  • posted by hellraiser
  • Sat, Dec 18, 2004 11:25pm

Well they went cap in hand to the employers during the most recent contract negotiations, looking for increased contributions.

At least they begged on that end. Here they just blatantly tell the working stiffs... "um ya, we pocketed your cash awhile back. Not too much of it left. Kinda unfortunate, but still enough there for you to go fuck yourself."

I think its all bullshit anyway. They're slowly breaking the bad news. I'm betting that it's a lot worse.

Merry Christmas

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Dec 19, 2004 9:54am

Remember this 2002 story? It mentions a bit about the CCWIPP.


How easy is it to get Canadian union guys to part with large sums of cash? I'll give you an idea.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) controls the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan (CCWIPP). That plan has been furiously trying to dig out from what UFCW Canadian Director Michael Fraser calls, "a correction phase due to solvency requirements." This pension plan should be plagued by a cash surplus rather than pondering how to meet solvency requirements. Huge sums of money are paid into that plan for tens of thousands of part-time retail workers who leave the plan never to be vested (eligible for pension). In actuarial parlance, that money is called "breakage." Breakage must be left in the plan for the benefit of vested plan members.

It's obvious that the hens are coming home to roost.

The Ottawa Senators former owner, Ron Bryden is broke and he's trying to settle his accounts with his creditors. Unsecured creditor the CCWIPP through its IF Propco 35 is on the hook for $23.8 million and CCWIPP's IF Propco 19, unsecured as well, is left holding the bag for $3.9 million. However, IF Propco 35 and IF Propco 19 hold security for a paltry $500 thousand.

In all, Ron Bryden says he has $1 million to his name and he's offered it as payment on his total debt of $59 million. That means that the CCWIPP can say goodbye to nearly $30 million.

If this was a one-off investment debacle, one might say, 'oh so sad.' However, this type of investment loss is quite usual for the CCWIPP. Remember MGI Meat Packers? The CCWIPP loaned them $5 million on assets of about $600 thousand. When MGI disappeared so did the money.

Hey! What about WebGalaxy? That was the Internet company run by a bunch of UFCW chumps and other labour elites. Tons of dough got poured into that one. The CCWIPP keeps pouring money to the same characters. Now the call themselves Case Financial Inc. The CCWIPP has millions in that penny-stock turkey.

Let's not even think about the hundreds of millions invested in the Bahamas.

What about Pinestone Resort? Yah, that was a fine loser. How many millions went into that golf course? We'll tell you later.

When you add up the losses in the cheesy penny stocks and real estate deals, you'll see a pattern that you won't like very much.

It was not so much market conditions as the notice says. Stay tuned to this site. Watch your newspapers. Raise bloody hell with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

Say hi to the CCWIPP Trustees.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Dec 19, 2004 5:29pm

Ya sometimes have to wonder what this was about? It's a quotation from a case called 876502 Ontario Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 10 Ltd. - Judgement: February 27, 1997 - Docket - 91 - CQ - 1854


I, VITO S.SCALISI, of the Town of Richmond Hill, in the Regional Municipality of York, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am a solicitor in the offices of Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish. I have worked extensively on the within matter and as such have knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposedů.

The HUDAC Fraud:

20. It is the position of the Defendants that Mr. Scarponi was engaged in a scheme to defraud HUDA and that since Propco, as part of the mortgage commitment, was to obtain a participation in the profits of the proposed subdivision, is and its principals could have been tarred with the brush of fraud in the event the transaction had proceeded.

21. It is the position of the Defendants that this scheme consisted of Mr. Scarponi taking deposits and investment monies in amounts larger than
$20,000.00 from potential purchasers and/or investors. Mr. Scarponi would then issue successive Agreements o f Purchase and Sale to the potential purchasers or investors showing multiple purchases with deposits of $20,000.00 each. The purpose of this scheme was to provide a guarantee of the investments or the deposits, which guarantee would be over the $20,000.00 limit of deposits normally guaranteed effective HUDAC guarantee to above the $20,000.00 limit.

22. I am advised by John C. Hubble and do verily believe that upon being cross-examined in this matter by solicitors for the Plaintiff, Clifford Evans testified he entered into an agreement with Mr. Scarponi pursuant to which he was to purchase one home in Mr. Scarponi's subdivision at a cost of $60,000.00. He further testified that he paid the sum of $60,000.00 to Mr. Scarponi and, in return, received three Agreements of Purchase and Sale showing deposits of $20,000.00 on each of three homes. Mr. Scarponi has sworn in an Affidavit filed in these proceedings that, in actuality, Mr. Evans was purchasing three homes and that the Agreements of Purchase and Sale were legitimate.

Personally, I don't think that it's right for CCWIPP's Investment Committee Chair and Propco official to be buying houses in any investment scheme that the CCWIPP is investing in. However, who could pass up buying an entire house near Toronto for only $60,000.

Read More about Cliff and his alleged purchase.

  • posted by hellraiser
  • Sun, Dec 19, 2004 6:53pm


posted by weiser:
Personally, I don't think that it's right for CCWIPP's Investment Committee Chair and Propco official to be buying houses in any investment scheme that the CCWIPP is investing in. However, who could pass up buying an entire house near Toronto for only $60,000.

I hear they're selling lotsa homes and condos 'near' a CCWIPP hotel in Toronto. How many of those homes/units have the guys bought 'on paper'? Just wondering because no sane person would. Maybe the big guys have 5 each in that scheme. The ISDU will send them a comfy house-warming gift they can really appreciate...

house-warming gift

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2004 5:59am

Well the CCWIPP boys have really outdone themselves on the sleazebagging front this time. Their notice is a arrogant as it is misleading. "Hey you dummies, the plan's in trouble. It's because of the difficult investment climate in case you're too dumb to figure out why!" they might as well have said.

I wonder if this notice was approved by the FSCO? I'll bet it was since the great regulatory agency is still conducting its examination. If that's the case, then it's complicit in this blatant effort to mislead the members and discourage them from asking many/any questions.

I think that the timing of this notice - a week before the holidays and two weeks before the effective date of the reduction - was calculated to hit members when they will be distracted with other things and provide them with little/no time at all to challenge the decision.

I wonder where the CCWIPP trustees will be having their holiday piss up this year? And what kind of tab they'll run up on the members' dime? I wonder if any of their FSCO pals will be joining them? We should find out. They need to be outted. Oh, wait a minute, I think that by enabling this reduction and the misleading notice to members, they've pretty much outted themselves.

  • posted by Richard
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2004 10:56am

If anybody got a house for $60,000, they got the deal of the century.

Now, if my memory serves me correctly, the CCWIPP told the Steinberg, Fearmans, and A&P employees that their money was safer if they merged their excellent company pension plans into the CCWIPP.

Today, that does not seem to be the case.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2004 1:30pm

I think that it may be time for CCWIPP members to consider ye old class action.

  • posted by hellraiser
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2004 5:05pm


posted by remote viewer:
I think that it may be time for CCWIPP members to consider ye old class action.

Now how exactly would that work? Are the trustees on the hook? The union? Can we impale the FSCO fuckers as well?

Would the employees getting screwed here have to use personal cash to get it going, and on the other end would all of the listed bastards above be using union cash in defence?

I want them all hung by their nut-sac. Same for that Paglione chick. I'm sure she has a set too. String 'em all up. Then brand their asses with an "ISDU luvs ya"

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2004 6:39pm

I'm hoping to see a "how to file your own class action" guide posted on the site very soon.

It's really cool, the members could conceivably sue all the trustees, the administrators, the actuaries, damn well anything that moves and has had a part to play in investing their money stupidly. They could name the FSCO as a co-defendant or file a separate lawsuit against the Ontario gov for its breathtaking negligence in allowing the pension pillage to go on and then (I'm just anticipating) validating the CCWIPP boys troughing.

The sky's really the limit with class actions and the cool thing is, it doesn't cost the members a dime (the legal team gets a piece of the action if/when they win) and, because class actions tend to be kinda sorts high profile, you tend to get more bad ass lawyers interested in taking them.

More on the subject coming up in the next few days.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 11:39am

Just to give you an idea of what a Class Action entails, you can scroll through the Ontario Class Proceedings Act.

There are lawyers who will take such a suit on a contingency basis--that is, they will prosecute for a portion of the award rather than you having to pay up front.

  • posted by Western Slaver
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 3:09pm

Just wondering can't we pull our money out of the pension plan or get a different plan holder

  • posted by hellraiser
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 3:46pm


posted by Western Slaver:
Just wondering can't we pull our money out of the pension plan or get a different plan holder

I've always wanted that. It would be so nice of the employers to give us that cash directly. The pension is 'saving' it for our old age. But knowing these crooks, waiting til we retire to get it, is not the brightest thing to do. There's no money in there now, and there ain't gonna be any years down the road. Many of us understand getting a paycheck from an employer and running to the bank ASAP to make sure it doesn't bounce. That's what this feels like.

A forensic audit is needed. And a few pairs of handcuffs.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 4:18pm

Western Slaver, there ain't much you can do 'cept scream bloody murder at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), phone: 1-800-668-0128. Ask for Lynda Ellis or Larry Martello.

You can also call your union president up on the carpet. Distribute CCWIPP facts and direct your co-workers to CCWIPP - Full Disclosure

Stay tuned.

Some media types have been asking for CCWIPP members to appoint them as "Agents" so that they can access the CCWIPP documents at the FSCO.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 5:23pm

The pension plan members have to start thinking of themselves as investors which is exactly what they are. This is their money that's supposed to be invested by their financial trustees and it's supposed to be invested for their - the members' - sole and exclusive benefit.

In the US right now, a bunch of investors are suing Conrad Black's ass because they allege that he pissed away about $400 million of their dollars. These investors are right to go after Conrad. They were shareholders and he was supposed to be acting in their interests. He was acting in his own interests instead and that's grounds for legal action.

I know it's just a coincidence but it seems that CCWIPP is about (or maybe at least) $400 mil in the hole. The "trustee directed investments" (the investments made directly by the trustees instead of investment experts) total about $447 million the last time I looked.

Come on people - sue their asses. You're not less worthy than the rich bastards that put their faith in Conny Black's enterprises - even more worthy as far as I'm concerned.

Go get the CCWIPP boys. Force them to cough up what they've drained from your pension fund.

  • posted by Richard
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 6:37pm

Let's get this straight.

When the CSN was raiding the crap out of the UFCW in Quebec, Mike Fraser told us not to believe the CSN tales about the CCWIPP being in dire straights. He said that the solvency deficiency was really no big deal.

Early retirement and STOs are backed off. Then the $55 pension contribution that used to buy $40 worth of pension are rolled back by about 15%.

Then this site starts telling us about the loser investments that have left the CCWIPP severely damaged. We were told that you were just a bunch of anti-union crackpots and that we weren't to believe you.

The Bernie Christophe tells us:


A combination of low interest rates, difficult investment markets and regulatory requirements has resulted in the board of Trustees of the Canadian Commercial Workers Industrial Pension Plan having to allocate contributions in the amount of three cents per hour (three cent requirement) to support the benefits already accured under the Pension Plan.

In order to protect benefit entitlements already earned to May 1,2004, the board of trustees has decided that any increase in contributions on or after that date(existing collective agreements or renegotiated collective agreements) will first be used to offset the three-cent requirement before the benefit level is adjusted upwards. If however, no increase in contributions is negotiated upon the renewal of your collective agreement, and the three-cent requirement has not been accommodated previously, your current service benefit level will be adjusted, at that time.

The three cent requirement will be reviewed annually and eliminated when it is appropirate, financially, to do so.

Respectfully Submitted,
Bernard Christophe
Chairman, Board of Trustees

Then Bernie or Cliff or who knows who tells us six months later:


As a result, a new scale of benefits (copy attached) is being introduced and will apply only to pensions credited from January 1, 2005. This new scale provides fro a 20% reduction in pension accruals, going forward. As a simple illustration, this means that if you were credited with a monthly pension of $45.00 in 2004, you will be credited with a monthly pension of $36.00 in 2005. After the implementation of the new benefit scale, as the contribution rate increases, your credited pension, going forward, will also increase.

If things are not going from bad to worse, why the hell would Bernie tell us bad news in May and then tell us even worse news in December?

Are they going to tell us that the pension plan is broke and there aren't going to be anymore pensions in six months from now?

How the heck could these guys lose that amount of our money?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2004 7:09pm

Oh they didn't just lose it. They pissed it away. How can you invest in Ron Kelly's enterprises, see him default on his multi million dollar loans and then say, "Oh we lost some money due to a difficult investment climate"?

The whole thing rots.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Dec 23, 2004 4:36pm

Happy Holidays, Cliff Evans. We look forward to some mighty fine explanations about the crash of Canada's largest multi-employer pension plan.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Dec 23, 2004 5:31pm

It's sort of surprising - Conrad Black and his kleptocracy are in deep shit state-side for misappropriating some $400 million of company money.

Over $200 million of CCWIPP members' money was poured into Ron Kelly's evaporated real estate empire. When are Canadian regulators going to get excited about that?

More millions were poured into other flopping ventures, some of them connected to CCWIPP advisors, lawyers and trustees. A whole daisy chain of CCWIPP helpers has made piles of money advising the trustees about their investments.

It's time Canadian regulators got their thumbs out of their asses and realized that they do not exist to serve the pension trustees and their business associates. They exist to serve the public. If they can't do that, get rid of them.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Dec 29, 2004 9:35am

Apparently, Local Union Presidents attended a meeting on October 28, 2004, so that they could be apprised of the reductions to the CCWIPP.

Why would it take close to two months longer to let any of the hundreds of thousands of CCWIPP members know that their pension benefits were being reduced?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Dec 29, 2004 9:44am

Simple question, in order to allow the Union guys to retire before the reductions begin in Jan 2005.

Be interesting to see how may retired in late 2004.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Dec 29, 2004 11:29am

Don't worry about the union guys. They have multiple pension plans. Some have at least three--The International, Canadian and the CCWIPP. About 10 or 11 years ago, they had to reduce their pensions because they were accruing more than the legal limit. Some of them got full past service in some plans. That is, when they joined the plan, they were given all their years with the UFCW as paid up contributions. Some could have retired the day after they joined the plan and pulled $1 thousand or better per month. Their members would have to work for another 25 years or better to get that.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 3, 2005 7:44am

Well the 20% reduction is now in effect. The business reps are now getting their heads topped up with even more shit (if you can get one to look you in the eye, you'll see that they eyes are a darker brown this year).

It wasn't the stock markets that failed the CCWIPP. The market investments were the only ones that were doing okay. They were handled by money managers. Now it seems that the CCWIPP has cashed in all the money-making stockmarket investments and poured the cash into the losers.

The 20% ain't the end of it.

Watch for some news articles to appear in the next week or so.

  • posted by Richard
  • Wed, Jan 5, 2005 7:22am

Topped up with shit is an understatement.

The big fella's are all wearing dark pants so the pee stains don't show. It's no secret now that business agents are flocking to this site for their information on what the hell is going on. And that has the big fella's poopin in their dark wet pants.

It's always smelled pretty bad around here, but lately it's unbearable--even for the hand-picked yes guys and the incompetent relatives.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Jan 6, 2005 9:12am

The Canada Revenue Agency (old Revnue Canada) is now taking a peek. That's interesting.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 7, 2005 10:15am

Helloooooooo, Info!

Where are you?

You are noticeably absent in this thread?

Surely you must have some excuse for the CCWIPP fiasco.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 8, 2005 11:14am


posted by weiser:
Helloooooooo, Info!

Where are you?

You are noticeably absent in this thread?

Surely you must have some excuse for the CCWIPP fiasco.


  • posted by eddy munster
  • Sat, Jan 8, 2005 6:43pm

What would they be looking for other than noticing that these morons could'nt manage their way out of a paper bag. Tax evasion?

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 9, 2005 11:50am

Apparently, the term that they use is "tax avoidance."

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 10, 2005 8:28am

Info, we're still waiting for your wise words.

It's really odd that you have so much to say, but you avoid the CCWIPP debacle like the plague.

  • posted by Info
  • Mon, Jan 10, 2005 8:52am

Actually I started a thread on pensions in trouble to dicuss what is facing all North American unions.

But seeing as it would have made some face the reality of this world and takes away from the poor me, I'm the only one getting screwed or the ufcw is the only union whose members have had to suffer from pension problems it has been quiet there.

But it is good to know you miss me and value what I have to say so much.

  • posted by BillPearson
  • Mon, Jan 10, 2005 10:43am


Actually I started a thread on pensions in trouble to dicuss what is facing all North American unions.

But seeing as it would have made some face the reality of this world and takes away from the poor me, I'm the only one getting screwed or the ufcw is the only union whose members have had to suffer from pension problems it has been quiet there.

But it is good to know you miss me and value what I have to say so much.

Bad answer info and one that is quite telling on your part. The pension plan problems in the US are real. For the most part they were due the three down market years while funds were using 7% to 8% earnings assumption rates.

If that was the only problem the CCWIPP had, even i would come to their defense. Unfortunately it isn't even close to the crux of their failings. These guys tied their cans to investment startegies that would have been illegal in the US.

As you have read (assuming you care enough to do that) about the relationships with Father Ron and the boys, don't you get just a little dirty and stinky and feel the need to shower for long periods of time?

Clif and the boys were way out of bounds on this crap. There are gifts and paybacks that are blatant abuses of their positions. Seems to me if it wasn't true, the boys should sue, if it is true they are doing the only thing they can do and hide behind their silence.

It is interesting to see the UFCW supporters here unwilling to address the crap their union is doing. Sorry boys, i came here defending the good stuff, but the bad is so overwhelming you just can't ignore it.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 16, 2005 11:32am

Ya, Local 1977 says it's the FSCO's fault:


UFCW National pension plan benefits hit by new rules

Union members still pay nothing; earned benefit credits not affected

The Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan (CCWIPP) has been affected by new rules from Ontario's pension regulator. Future benefit credits have to be reduced, at least temporarily, to meet the regulator's more conservative rules for paying down the plan's unfunded liability, or deficit, for past pension credits already earned by plan members. An unfunded liability is like a mortgage. (See next page for a full explanation.)

The former rule was that a pension fund could pay down any deficit over 15 years. This has now been reduced to ten years. This means that more of the money contributed by your employer into CCWIPP has to go towards paying down the deficit for past pension credits. It's like the bank suddenly telling you that you have to pay down your mortgage faster.

This change applies to all multi-employer pension plans registered in Ontario, not just CCWIPP. CCWIPP is Canada's largest multi-employer plan, with over 180,000 active members.

If you are a member of CCWIPP

As of January 1, 2005, your 'going forward' pension benefits are reduced, for the time being, up to 20%.

How much is 20% in dollars? It depends on the contribution rate negotiated between Local 1977 and your employer. Under the Zehrs contract, for example, the current contribution rate gave you a monthly pension credit of $46.50 in 2004. In 2005, you will be credited with a monthly pension of $40.00. (These figures are for full-time. Part-time pension credits are proportional to this, based on hours worked.)

There is no change to your earned pension credits up to December 31, 2004. The credits you have already earned are not being reduced. You will receive them when you retire.

Those retired members already receiving a monthly cheque from CCWIPP are not affected in any way by this change.

What 1977 fails to tell you is that the CCWIPP has been promising to pay down its deficit for close to a decade. If the FSCO held it to its original plan, the CCWIPP would have had about five years to cough up the dough.

I think the FSCO was pretty fair in giving the dorks an additional 10 years.

Saying your your "'going forward' pension benefits are reduced, for the time being, up to 20%," is a wise statement. For the time being it is 20%, but who knows how much it will be reduced once the FSCO's review and, perhaps, audit are completed.

1977 might be better off by telling its CCWIPP members that the plan has taken a monumental bath and that as far as pensions are concerned, no one has a guaranteed level of income from the CCWIPP.

  • posted by eddy munster
  • Sun, Jan 16, 2005 3:44pm

Does anyone know if I can move what's left in my CCWIPP when I leave my employer? What is the timeline I have to wait before I can move it into a locked-in RRSP? Can this pension plan refuse to let me move my pension or are there any laws in Ontario that permit me? How are the pension credits calculated in order to give me $525.00/month up to 2004.How many months will these payments last? Would it be 60 months? I have 20 years accumulated in this pension up till now. I have alot of questions and this pension plan has imbeciles answering the phone and I can't get anyone to tell me anything I need to know. It's such a secret. I don't think my pension is worth anything. I'm sorry for all the questions but, I can't get my questions answered by this plan. Any info is appreciated. Thanks

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 16, 2005 4:51pm

Well that's an interesting little media release isn't it? It seems to me that the UFCW has moved its PR campaign from "spinning" to the outright bullshitting category.

An unfunded liability is not like a mortgage. Not by any stretch of the imagination or generally accepted accounting rules.

And where's the explanation for all the hundreds of millions of dollars that the pension trustees pissed away on investments in a guy who used to diddle altar boys?

I think the fellas are getting nervous. Stupid idiots, they've been giving out so many mortgages they think everything is "like a mortgage".

emunster, the only way you can get answers to your questions is to send them to the CCWIPP administrator. You might want to send them to the FSCO at the same time and see if you get two different answers. Post your letter or email here and also post the answer that you get - if you get one.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 16, 2005 6:56pm

Well, one can relate it to a mortgage as follows:

In this case, for most of the CCWIPP's existence, it hasn't paid enough to pay the full mortgage payment.

The CCWIPP promised the Alberta pensions Branch over a decade ago that it would be caught up in 15 years. Ten years later it not only isn't anywhere near caught up, but its actually further behind in its payments.

The Alberta pensions branch was biting CCWIPP's ass over the short fall when all of a sudden, the CCWIPP realized that the "plurality" of its members were in Ontario, so the CCWIPP skipped Alberta and moved jurisdictions to Ontario.

The Ontario pensions branch said, "What the hell is this all about?" They started asking questions about all sort of humugous losses--most of them associated with one Ronald H. Kelly.

If guesses are right, the CCWIPP is in arrears deeper than preliminary estimates. Therefore, the 20% reduction may only be a stop-gap provision.

Anyway, the 20% reduction keeps the CCWIPP from foreclosure (using the mortgage parallel) for the time being.

The CCWIPP has money on the books related to entities that are, for all intents and purposes, toast.

The Bahamas figures are way over the value of the property that they are supposed to represent.

What's really sad it that the CCWIPP has been madly rolling solid pension plans run by employers into the CCWIPP to meet the mortgage payments. Now, if the CCWIPP goes bust, so do the previously fine plans that the employers' used to manage.

Don't buy for a minute that the mortgage rates just went up. The truth is that the shortfall has now been called by the bank. CCWIPP members are losing pension to pay for the shortfall. Now the big question is how the hell did the shortfall get so huge?

Something else to keep in mind is that there are now more CCWIPP members than ever, but their average hours are way down.

What could that mean? It could mean that the CCWIPP will be funded with the hours worked by people who will be kept at such low hours that they will quit before they become eligible to lock in a pension.

Now wouldn't that be sleazy? Thousands and thousands of young people contributing to a pension that they will never receive.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Feb 2, 2005 4:24pm

Oh this is sweet. Case Financial teeters on the brink: :



The Company was served with a complaint in May 2004 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Case Number BC 316068, from an unrelated third party asserting securities fraud, fraud, breach of contract and unfair business practices against the Company and seeking damages of $65,000. The plaintiff claims that she had loaned the Company the sum of $40,000 pursuant to a verbal agreement and was promised repayment within 45 days plus a 25% profit. The funds were utilized by the Company for a non-recourse advance which the Company was unable to recover and the principal amount of this obligation is included in non recourse loans payable-unrelated parties on the Company's balance sheet. The Company has made offers to settle this matter and believes the ultimate outcome will not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition. The Company has accrued $25,000 as of September 30, 2004 as general and administrative expenses for this potential claim.

The Company was served with a complaint in February 2004 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Northwest District, Case Number LC 067786, naming the Company and Harvey Bibicoff, a former director of the Company, as co-defendants in a case against Old CFI claiming a breach of a promissory note by Old Case and asserting fraud seeking damages of $140,000 plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. The Company is defending this suit and believes the ultimate outcome will not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition. The Company has accrued $140,000 as of September 30, 2004 as general and administrative expenses for this potential claim.

The Company was served with a complaint in October 2004 filed in the San Diego Superior Court, North County District, Case Number GIN040080 from an attorney who had represented the Company on a previous legal matter for contract, breach of contract, common counts, imposition and foreclosure of attorneys' lien, injunctive relief and declaratory relief seeking damages in the amount of $31,741.32 for legal services rendered. The Company believes the amount sought to be in excess of the fair value of the services rendered and is defending this suit. The full amount of the claim asserted by the plaintiff in this matter has been recorded in the Company's books as legal expense as of September 30, 2004.

The Company is in default on all of its recourse debt obligations as described in Notes 4 and 5 and, although no formal demands for payment have been made by any of the lenders, there is no assurance that such demand will not be made in the future and that the Company will be able to resolve such demands.

The CCWIPP has close to $4 million flushed down this penny-stock toilet:


Since its inception in 1998, Case (and Old Case) has incurred operating losses in every quarter. Since the reverse acquisition, net losses have exceeded $7,000,000. In February 2004, we appointed Harvey Bibicoff interim Chief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer and accepted the resignation of Eric Alden as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Also in February 2004, Clifford R. Evans was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Directors, replacing Mr. Alden who remained as a director, and three other new directors were appointed replacing two director positions previously held by members of management and filling a vacant position. In March 2004, in conjunction with foregoing changes we implemented with respect to our senior management and our Board of Directors, we obtained a secured short term bridge loan from the Canadian Commercial Workers Industrial Pension Plan ("CCWIPP") and obtained deferrals on other debt obligations while we sought additional capital which we were unable to obtain. In June 2004, the Board of Directors appointed Ed Baldwin a director as well as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer to develop a new strategy for our litigation financing business as well as assist us in our efforts to raise additional capital.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Feb 2, 2005 8:52pm


On February 23, 2004, the Company appointed Clifford Evans as new Chairman of the Board of Directors who is also an officer, director and/or has a controlling interest in several of the entities that had loans outstanding with the Company.

As a result, as of March 31, 2004, the Company reclassified $3,896,603 from Loans Payable to Loans Payable-Related Parties. On October 7, 2004, Mr. Evans resigned from the Board of Directors.In March 2004, the Company entered into a $500,000 secured loan agreement with CCWIPP, the same lender who had loaned $2.0 million to the Company in December 2002 and, an organization for whom Clifford Evans served as a director. As additional consideration for this loan, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of its common stock to CCWIPP and as a result, they are deemed a related party in that the lender's common stock ownership exceeds 5%.

Sweet for who?

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Feb 3, 2005 6:55am

That investment is not atypical of many of the other investments.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 4, 2005 2:51pm

Oh, more brilliance in investing.

Issuing shares and using them to pay off debt is real smooth. NOT!


As at December 31st, 2003, the Company had outstanding trade account payables to third parties totalling $3,800,000 in the aggregate, together with other financial obligations to third parties. As part of its ongoing efforts to settle all of the Company's outstanding obligations while cautiously preserving available working capital, management has conducted preliminary investigations with creditors into the possibility of issuing Common Shares of the Company in satisfaction of certain obligations to third parties. Certain creditors of the Company have demonstrated interest in participating in such an arrangement.

At the meeting of the Board of Directors on February 6th, 2004, management requested the authority to actively pursue this plan to settle obligations by way of issuing shares and to canvas most of the Company's creditors to compile a list of suitable participants. To establish a flexible arrangement, the Board of Directors resolved to establish a pool of two (2) million Common Shares to be available to management for the settlement of obligations of the Company to third parties, subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals (the 'Shares for Debt Plan'). The issuance price of such Common Shares pursuant to the Shares for Debt Plan is not to be less than the market price of the Common Shares at the close of the trading day immediately preceding issuance. The
Shares for Debt Plan is to be available for a period of twelve (12) months commencing March 1st, 2005 but may be extended upon further shareholder approval at subsequent meetings of the shareholders of the Company.

This is soooooo risky. Put it this way:

You lend me $7 million cash. I pocket it and then say that I can't pay you back in cash. Instead, I issue a couple of million shares and pay you with them. How do I value the shares? I get a pal to buy a couple of hundred at $2 each and VOILA!, they show as being valued on the TSX or OTC or any one of the many European ecchanges as being worth $2 each. I print off 3.5 million share certificates, give them to you and say that we're even. Some bugger buys 100 shares the next day at 10 cents each and VOILA! (again) your $7 million is now valued at $35 thousand.

You say, "well, at least I still have $35 thousand." I say, "Bullshit! No one in their right mind would pay you a penny for your $3.5 million pieces of worthless paper 'cause it's only paper."

Playing the penny-stocks is a dangerous business at the best of times. Playing them with other people's pensions is scandelous.

  • posted by eddy munster
  • Fri, Feb 4, 2005 4:26pm

This is no more than a pyramid scam. This is illegal, where is the RCMP when you need them.
That's #$$^% Evans for you.

ed=descriptive correction

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Feb 5, 2005 6:41am

emunster: The CCWIPP, through various investment vehicles controlled by Cliff, has invested millions and millions of dollars into this turkey that was once run by the infamous Ron Kelly. While investing in this turkey has always been questioned by right-thinking people, you must realize that Cliff hasn't been on the Board of AFM for a number of years. Wayne Hanley of Local 175 and Gene Fraser (a relative of Cliff and Mike's) now sit on the AFM Board. In fact, for a short while, Wayne was actually Chairman of the Board.

That aside, yes Cliff is a rich man and runs the committee that pumps the dough into this monumental and perennial loser and many others, but there is no evidence that Cliff is a schnook. He and his cronies may or may not be na´ve or inept in not being able to ascertain when the CCWIPP is about to get sheared and skinned by dumping copious amounts of dough into shaky investment vehicles like penny stocks, micro caps and questionable real estate deals.

Remember, being stupid or inept isn't necessarily a crime. Getting regularly swindled isn't necessarily a crime. Let's wait and see whether Cliff fits the criteria before we call him names. We don't call people schnooks until we have the evidence or until the Courts proclaim them to be so.

For the time being, let's just question whether Cliff has fulfilled his fiduciary duty and whether he has exercised due diligence.

Maybe Cliff, Mike or Gene could step up to the thread and tell us what the hell is going on with the investments like AFM and Case Financial and all the Ron Kelly deals. Why is AFM now heading to the European markets to flog their crappy shares? Maybe, Gene or Wayne could comment on that. Nobody will buy them in North America anymore, so what could prompt Europeans to buy them? C'mon, Wayne, tell us about it. While you're at it, tell us whether you've exercised your stock options in AFM yet.

  • posted by eddy munster
  • Sat, Feb 5, 2005 11:54am

This pension is sinking quicker than Titanic. I can't even get someone from my pension office to call me back. The last time I talked to someone there they told me that they were going to call me back. That was 2 weeks ago. Does anyone know how long after I terminate my emploment with my employer do I have to wait to get my pension money out of this union? FSCO was no help to me either, another useless government body who has no authority, they can only recommend.
Another waste of taxpayers money.

© 2024 Members for Democracy