Letters to Deputy Deemster Cortlett and John Spellman

Posted 08/04/2009 - 19:32 by IceCrusher

Dear Kate Alexander,

Would you please see that Deputy Deemster Cortlett receives the attached SoA.DCS Calculator as a matter of some urgency? This application uses identical numbers with results as per Mr Lovett's 3rd affidavit re KSFIOM.

Could I also ask that you print the following letter sent to John Spellman today which explains my concern regarding the lack of information given regarding percentage returns in Mr Gough's latest affidavit. Mr David Lovett's 3rd affidavit was clear in this regard, with specific worked examples, but now Mr Spellman / Alix Co have changed these numbers without public announcement.

Mr Spellman also assured depositors that an interactive SoA calculator would be placed on the KSF website, but has now stated to one depositor in the IoM that this was no longer a possibility.

Sorry to ask you now, but I live in Bahrain and the late presentation of the affidavit and the complexity of the document makes it difficult to study, absorb and produce this reply.

Thanking you in advance,

Lou xxxxxxxx

Dear John Spellman,

I write to you as a depositor in Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander IoM, and as a member of the HNW group led by liebenk.

Having read through Mr Gough's recent affidavit with special regard to the SOA, I can find no reference to the percentages expected at the specified repayment periods, though these figures were present in Mr David Lovett's 3rd Affidavit together with worked examples. As there has been no publicised change in these examples, I presumed that the 3rd affidavit would stand as presented to the Court. However, 'xxxx' with whom you communicate quite often I understand, informs me that both the SoA and DCS percentage return figures have 'changed'.

I noticed that the SoA 24 month cumulative repayment had been reduced from 35% to 30% and imagined this was likely due to doubtful participation from the island's banks. Now I see that the range of repayment percentages under DCS has also changed. We were informed by your own office that depositors would be able to access an on-line SoA/DCS calculator for the purpose of determining their own possible expectations, but 'xxxx' has told me that you will no longer uphold that assurance because lawyers acting on behalf of the Treasury have advised against it. Perhaps you might wish to confirm or deny this revelation? If true, I am most dissapointed that no one in the IoMG saw fit to bring that to the public attention of KSFIoM depositors.

How any normal depositor is expected to fully understand the vagaries of the SoA is beyond me; there are supposedly >11,000 of us and considerably fewer post on the action group forum (DAG). Those that do clearly have divided opinions on the 'whys and wherefors' of this scheme. The alleged rationale for creating the scheme was to provide the 'best' solution for depositors. The complete lack of assistance from the schemes's proposers lends doubt to the credibility of this assertion; this scheme has twice been presented to the Court and on each occasion its workings have been wrapped in legalese and couched in jargon. Your office has made no attempt to produce a user-friendly guide for the benefit of depositors; on the contrary, depositors have waited in vain for an interactive application to be placed on the KSF website without a word to say this facility was withdrawn before it started.

If the IoMG/Treasury really wanted the depositors to believe that they were acting in their best interests, they would have done an awful lot more than present a relatively complicated proposal before the Court (twice late now, by the way) with no readily available working reference that 'unsophisticated depositors' might understand. On top of that, it seems that you, together with Alix and Co, can change the expected percentages - and thus the amount payable within given time frames. How can this be? If you start messing with the percentage returns now, what will you be doing if the SoA is accepted? This appears far too open-ended for my liking. The document comprises scores of pages which have people going off on several tangents delving into apparent intricacies that have no substance, and yet fail to see the wood for the trees. I can only conclude that the IoMG have no real desire for the depositors' to accept the SoA - or it otherwise feels safe that the Life Co's will carry the vote. This may not be the case, as the DAG HNWs' must also contribute in this area for the SoA to succeed.

The behavior and attitude of this Governance is not open and wholesome; it struggles with contrived sympathy towards the victims of this scandal whilst raising the latter's suspicions and ire. Why it has taken 6 months to produce a variation on a theme of DCS/liquidation is anybody's guess. The bank has been kept running; directors and other staff have been paid; liquidators are collecting their fees; and Alix and Co are making money - all at the expense of depositors who placed their trust and their money in the integrity of the Isle of Man. And please don't tell me that the IoMG is standing the cost of some of this expense; I am talking of more than just money (which was negligently mismanaged and lost), the victims here have lost in more ways than any unaffected person will ever know...

For your information I developed my own SoA/DCS calculator more than a month ago now, and the small practical (mechanical) difference between the two comes down to time differences - which brings me back to percentage returns. Will you kindly explain why these differences have not been made public, and why updated numbers and examples have not been presented to the Court?

Yours sincerely,
Lou xxxxxxx

Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (27 votes)