15/1/09 Affidavits given to IoM Court

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 15/01/2009 - 20:41

We have received the affidavits submitted to the court on the IoM today. These have been posted on the main site under 'facts' and 'court documents'.

This link should also hopefully take you to where they have been posted as PDFs.

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/category/10/666/748

0
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jan 22nd Deadline for parties to respond

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 06:34

The Public Site calendar of events shows that January 22nd is the deadline for parties to respond to Treasury's affidavit. Who is expected to respond to this - members of the DAG, Mike Simpson or who?


22nd

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 06:50

I asked the same question the other day, this is the reply i got from Elgee....

Here is a copy of the order:

http://www.law-man.com/library/news-36.pdf

It lists the parties under the heading "UPON"


link broken...where can we get the affidavit?

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 06:19

sorry where is the link to which Diver refers..this link posted above shows 'page not found'.... :-(


http://www.ksfiomdepositors.o

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 02:27

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/category/10/666/748 works for me. May I suggest you try again?


reply to comment

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 07:19

Working fine for me too. Thanks ng


Be VERY careful chosing your preferred option

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:00

Amidst all the uncertainties there are 2 certainties for our consideration, namely:

  1. we have vowed to stand together to achieve 100% return of members' deposits. IF we elect to accept administration & compensation we have not only abandoned our primary mission but by signing up to compensation we will have signed away any right to take further action through the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. Depositors could say 'goodbye' to their £535million in KaupthingUK frozen by HMG.

  2. a SoA would not only be in line with accomplishing our Mission (albeit not immediately getting 100% of desposits restored), it would keep open all our options to fully accomplish the task, including getting that £535million restored to KSFIOM.

Do not let us forget that on 10:12:08 Lord Bach gave asurances that KSFIOM depositors money was vouchsafe & that to this end HMG was involved in ongoing negotiations with the Icelandic Government. If he was not telling the truth then he is in big trouble -- yes?

Also don't let us forget that Diver is giving evidence before the Treasury Select Committeee on 3 February; HMG's position on all this could be blown clean out of the water and if I were the Chancellor I would then be very rapidly saying to the Treasury: "get that £535million back to KSFIOM as fast as you can !"


soa recovery from ksfuk..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 06:29

The soA can give us the chance to recover our funds from the uk, this is our only lifeline, liquidation will be the end of it all......


soa recovery from ksfuk..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 02:16

This is incorrect. Recovery of funds from the UK will happen under a liquidation (if it is going to happen at all).

An SoA does not make it any more likely and arguably less likely because in the former the liquidator will have a duty to recover.


SOA - OK

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 01:52

Agree. We must remain steadfast in this, our solumn oblibation, to return 100% of all KSFIOM depositors' funds to their rightful owners..


SoA versus DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 23:38

I was going to stay quiet while reading through all these posts but find I must make a comment and observation.

First, no one, and I repeat no one, knows which of the two options will be best at this point in time because we don't have any detail regarding the SoA. As such, why is everyone batting their gums and gettings into childish arguments. It simply compounds the anguish many are already going through. Talk about what we would like to see in a SoA but until we know what is being put forward don't start drawing conclusions as to which one would be better.

Second, while some 2,000 subscribers to this site may have the benefit of quietly discussing the pros and cons of the SoA, if one is put forward eventually, how are the remaining 8,000 depositors going to weigh up the two options (DCS and SoA)? I suspect many don't even know what the DCS as is currently published will mean to them and these depositors will probably have more impact on the outcome of any vote than all of us who 'think' we know it all.

Cheers


DCS/SoA does need discussing

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 07:43

I take your point that we should talk only when we know what's being put forward, but the DCS form, that's already been sent out, does preempt liquidation. In this respect, it already has been put forward. Many of these forms will probably have been signed and returned by now, and this fact alone will weaken our chances of negotiating for a SoA to enable the bank to remain liquid, and the alternatives still debated. However much anguish it may cause, there is good reason to discuss these issues now.


SoA v DCS

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 23:54

Well the voting will be by amount of deposit, so there will be alot of depositor interest needed to displace the votes of the large depositors, should they decide to vote in favour of any 'future scheme'.

The court of course will be there to ensure that the solution wont be unfairly prejudicial on a minority.

But given that only a handful of people have actually appeared in the IoM court case so far I actually wonder how involved the vast majority [in number] of the depositors will be.

You are correct that we are debating whether its better living on earth or [one of] the other inhabited planets in the universe, of which we know no details.


SoA v DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 02:44

Indeed, manx-person, but a vote by value on an alternative that avoided the DCS would quite obviously squeeze out the majority, who would stand to gain from the DCS (namely the under 50k group, representing more than 70% by number) but who are in the minority by value.

Since the vote itself would be on an issue that by its very nature divides voters by value, the court would have to be made aware of that and one would hope would consider very carefully before deciding on whether a vote purely by value would be sufficient in a case like this, unless of course Alix's undertaking to ensure that no depositor would do any worse than they would otherwise have done under the DCS is very strictly adhered to.

You may consider that to be a warning to the IOM government.


Divide and conquer?

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 02:01

I would like to be more sanguine that the Court will take much trouble to insure fairness. After all, the members of the Court live on IOM too, and would like nothing better than for us to go away and for all this to "blow over." We should resist efforts by IOM and UK Governments and courts to divide and conquer.


Divide and conquer?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 02:13

I really doubt that the court has an interest in doing what you suspect. As a matter of interest, in this case the court is a single Deputy Deemster.

The IoM government certainly has, however.


Kafakesque . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 02:27

By now, I feel like I am trapped in a Kafka novel and am watching self and several thousands of people like me being liquidated by forces only dimly perceived, mainly through inaction and the direction that our "case" seems to be taking. I feel increasingly powerless (and financially strapped) as this miserable business plays out. Is there any real, positive way forward for us?


Depositor's by Amount

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 09:00

Am I correct in my interpretation that any vote would be based on deposit value?
If so it sounds like the old union days with Arthur Scargill and co.
70% by number have 110 million but 30% by number have 770million so they can out-vote any proposal.
Everyone was irritated when the bank did not get on the creditors committee vs KSFUK--the voting was rigged--albeit legally--was Mugabe involved in that one too?
DAG is supposed to represent equality for all and 100% for all!
As usual, this will only be the case if they are not materially affected by this stance--sometime ago someone said something similar about a gentleman's agreement.
I don't blame them and if I had more than £50,000 in the bank, I would be one of them.
I cannot believe that the 100% for all will unite--there has to be a differential--otherwise apart from the few who I am sure have better standards than the majority the rest are not really all for one and one for all--come on guys and gals--be really honest--you want your money back whether it is 10000 or 1 million--so do I but let us be honest--do you really care if the big guys lose 150,000(on average) or you lose 50,000??
Hope I don't get labelled "offensive"


Depositor's by Amount

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 10:18

Bobwin, you are correct in your interpretation that vote would be based on deposit' value, unless the court directs otherwise.


Not offensive, but badly

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 09:09

Not offensive, but badly advised.

It is UK liquidation law, and I dare say the same thing happens in many other jurisdictions.

If you were to go broke as Limited company, then voting would occur in just the same way, it is the way it is done.

The voting in the UK Creditors committee was NOT rigged, if you had £1 in the pot, and could have joined up with some charity for mangy moggies, then you would have been there too - thank Simpson for not trying to find an alliance (though there really wasn't much choice).

You have already stated that you have less than the limit for compensation from the DCS (and any subsequent agreement) - why are you hard-done-by? If anything you are given preferential treatment.

If you like, if you make up my compensation to 200K, then you can have my voting rights? Let me know by PM.


Not offensive, but badly

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 09:08

Not offensive, but badly advised.

It is UK liquidation law, and I dare say the same thing happens in many other jurisdictions.

If you were to go broke as Limited company, then voting would occur in just the same way, it is the way it is done.

The voting in the UK Creditors committee was NOT rigged, if you had £1 in the pot, and could have joined up with some charity for mangy moggies, then you would have been there too - thank Simpson for not trying to find an alliance (though there really wasn't much choice).

You have already stated that you have less than the limit for compensation from the DCS (and any subsequent agreement) - why are you hard-done-by? If anything you are given preferential treatment.

If you like, if you make up my compensation to 200K, then you can have my voting rights? Let me know by PM.


Why not reword that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 04:19

Why not reword that elgee?

Indeed, manx-person, but a vote by value on an alternative that avoided the DCS would quite obviously benefit the majority, who would stand to LOSE from the DCS (namely the over 50k group, representing around than 30% by number) but who are in the majority by value.

You are at it again, you cannot prove that the DCS will show an advantage over any other scheme, you haven't come back with worked examples as requested and your claims have no substance.

I'm sure that the court is quite aware of voting protocol in liquidation cases, disadvantageous or not.

It's odd that we have to continue to listen to you harp on about unfair treatment of the <50K'ers if the DCS is not triggered (and you haven't proven that either yet), when you continually request that the group unfairly treats those with more substantial sums at risk by adopting the DCS.

Please stop trying to be so selfish.

As for you closing "warning" I would suggest that you send a letter on your LLB headed paper and submit a "warning" to the IoM government yourself - Oh, I forgot, you aren't legally qualified are you? There are others of us who may have had some minor training and exposure to legal affairs who do not continual imply that they are a QC.

Why not find a solution that benefits every depositor rather than just looking out for yourself? Some of us wish we had only 9K to lose, and would happily swap places with anyone that does.


if only we had 9k

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 04:34

mainwaring if I had 9k i wouldnt even be on this site beleive me...


You should add to that "and

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 05:04

You should add to that "and know that whatever happens we will get pretty much all of it back".

Oh yes, it's easy to put one's finger in the woodpeckers hole when you do stand to see your life collapse?

Still, I have it on good authority that elgee has a spare bedroom and will put you up for a while.


manx-person: SoA v. DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 00:08

It seems that some contributors do live on planets other than Earth.


Be VERY careful - very misleading

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:15

Lucky Jim wrote: "2 certainties for our consideration, namely:"

"we have vowed to stand together to achieve 100% return of members' deposits. IF we elect to accept administration & compensation we have not only abandoned our primary mission but by signing up to compensation we will have signed away any right to take further action through the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. Depositors could say 'goodbye' to their £535million in KaupthingUK frozen by HMG."

"a SoA would not only be in line with accomplishing our Mission (albeit not immediately getting 100% of desposits restored), it would keep open all our options to fully accomplish the task, including getting that £535million restored to KSFIOM."

I most certainly do not agree with any of your purported "certainties":

  1. Why do you think that Liquidation + DCS (what you incorrectly describe as administration & compensation) would mean signing away rights to take any further action?

  2. Liquidation + DCS does not mean that the £535m will not be recovered. In fact, quite the opposite, since the liquidator is more likely to recover it and actually has a duty to do so.

  3. SoA creates contracual obligations and since neither you nor I have seen terms of the contract, you have no idea whether or not it would keep "all our options open", which is what you claim. Nor, having not seen its terms, could you possibly claim with any degree of confidence that it is in line with "our mission".

  4. You seem to forget that the money available to be repaid under an SoA (as far as we presently know) will not be ay more than under the DSC + liquidation.


elgee - you don't agree with anything.....

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 21:48

elgee- you don't agree with anything that doesn't fit in with your own selfish agenda.

Another certainty is: he who is not 100% for DAG;s objective is against that objective

So I have no intention of entering into any dialogue with you.


elgee - you don't agree with anything.....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 00:59

Lucky Jim, you have stated that you do not have a deposit in KSF. So has manx-person. What are you both doing on this forum?


Lucky Jim is a moderator

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 06:52

Lucky Jim (as his name suggests) managed to get his money out before the big collapse. However, he has offered his services for free from the very beginning. He's a moderator, therefore spends an awful amount of time moderating some of the childish behaviour and bickering on the site. He has nothing to gain in all of this, but spends a lot of his free time sending us extremely positive words and thoughts. He's a great pick-me-up. Don't knock him, we need people like him. His actions are totally selfless.


elgee - you don't agree with anything.....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 22:25

Lucky Jim: "Another certainty is: he who is not 100% for DAG;s objective is against that objective"

I thought this sounded familiar. You are echoing the comment of the world's most stupid president in relation to the last "war against terror":

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

He was also wrong.

Also, when did it become the objective of DAG to promote the SoA and avoid the DCS? I thought that was the objective of the Isle of Man government, not the DAG.

PS. Remind me, do you have a deposit in KSF(IOM)?


@elgee

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 04:26

Also, when did it become the objective of DAG to promote the DCS and avoid the any other more productive solution?

PS. Remind me, what is the level of deposit you have in KSF(IOM)?

Lucky Jim is correct, you are selfish, but he hasn't yet worked out what you other angle is. This is nothing to do with getting your 9K back is it? and if you received it as a first dividend tomorrow, you would still hang around attempting to disrupt any scheme proposed wouldn't you?

Why not explain why?


elgee - you don't agree with anything.....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 22:01

Lucky Jim: groundless allegations of my having a selfish agenda ...

No, I don't agree with anything that I think is incorrect.

I did not agree with your statements because I think they are incorrect. If you do not want to expand on them then it is most likely that I will continue to think they are incorrect.

As for your statement about objectives, it is self-evidently nonsense.


WHY WASTE TIME?

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:29

Can not understand why you are all talking contracts and weighing up the pros and cons of the DCS and SoA now.

You wont have any say in the matter. You will get what you are given, end of story. You certainly will not get the chance to sign up to anything.

What a waste of energy, obviously academics with not too much to loose.

It is in the hands of the Deemster now, all we can do is sway him through press reports and pressure on IomG to stand up in court and be counted.

Spend more time supporting DAG strategy.

By the way, where is Diver with our strategy, he must have taken Suday off?


time passing...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:44

Do the parties not have to respond to the affidavits presented by the 22nd Jan?


time passing...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 21:57

Yes they do, unless they obtain leave of the court to do so later than that date, and that would be unwise because a delay would provide an excuse to the deposing parties of the affidavits under reply (if they need it).

I have suggested (in some other posting) that the contents of the last press release (yesterday) could form the basis of an affidavit by the DAG parties represented at the hearing, if so advised by their lawyers, but any such affidavit would obviously need to contain facts and perhaps obvious conclusions from those facts, not opinions.


WHY WASTE TIME?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:45

On the 29th a decision will be made either to proceed to liquidation or not.

If the matter doesn't proceed to liquidation then any Scheme of arrangement will need be subject to the provisions of s152 Companies Act 1931 - the section relating to compromise agreements.

This document detailing the detail of the SoA, probably in the form of a prospectus, will be required to be communicated to all creditors for them to vote on.

If i due course any such scheme is proposed its implementation would be subject to the approval of the Court.A compromise agreement between the Bank and its creditors would require 75% or more (by value) of the creditors present and voting in person or proxy to agree to succeed.


Ramsey Peel, You say that all

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:38

Ramsey Peel,

You say that all we can do now is sway the Deemster, but sway him to do what precisely?


expatfrance

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 20:21

liquidate or propose an SoA which as my learned manx person has indicated would then require 75% approval.

i would suggest that if there is not 75% approval then he will have no option but to liquidate.

Rock and the hard place!

Maybe the great Diver would confirm this, or is it Sunday!


You really are just trying to

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 20:58

You really are just trying to wind people up for the sake of it. The deemser will decide whether to liquidate or propose an SoA on the 29th January, so what in your view should we now be swaying him to do.

Are you suggesting we should be swaying him to liquidate even though we do not what an SoA may provide.

Or are you suggesting we should be swaying him not to liquidate in which case we will be able to vote on the SoA once the detail is known.

Or are you just trying to have another dig at Diver and the rest of the commitee because you are the only one that knows what is really going on!


SoA

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 20:32

Any compromise agreement will need to be sent/communicated to creditors who will be given chance to consider it. It is very unlikely that this will be ready for the 29th and certainly there will be no time for people [depositors] to vote before this date.

On the 29th I think the decisions will be either to proceed to liquidation, or to set a return court date.

Therefore the decision on the 29th will likely be to consider whether

a) To appoint a liquidator;
b) Not to appoint a liquidator and remain in provisional liquidation.

The consideration of an SoA will be subsequent and separate to the 29th; and may not occur at all if a liquidator is appointed.


Just out of interest, does

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 04:38

Just out of interest, does the LP not have a statutory duty to inform depositors of their voting rights etc?


KSFUK 550 in Liquidation

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:23

Lucky Jim, I was also puzzled by your comment that under liquidation we would lose out on claiming the 550mln in KSFUK - on what basis do you say this?

In my mind KSFIOM's claim on this money is unchanged under either arrangement. Although I think its fair to say that the Liquidator will get a % of the money recovered in the event of liquidation.

Elgee I agree with you that the SoA doesn't offer any additonal money over the DSC. This to me is the key point that we need to be making to the IOM Gov't. For our support for a SoA they need to differentiate it from the DCS whilst also keeping the >50k people whole versus the DCS. They could do this be guaranteeing more than 150mln or agreeing that they took their 150mln back only after a % (large) had been recovered by depositors. Otherwise let the hounds loose.


BC, We dont know for a fact

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:32

BC, We dont know for a fact that the SoA does not offer any additional money over the DCS. We dont know much detail about the SoA at all at the moment.

There seems to be a lot of claims and counter claims about the DCS compared with the SoA. I just feel we are going to need to lot more information before any informed decision can be made. Hopefully that will be forthcoming and perhaps if we continue to put pressure on the right people we can ensure that the information is provided as quickly as possible.


Agreed

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 19:43

Expatfrance1 I agreee we don't know either way but it is clear to me that the IOM Gov't needs to demonstrate what exactly extra they are offer via the SoA. If we go down either route and don't see a 100% return then many of us I believe will focus on ensuring the IOM Gov't/FSC et al suffer with us.

Ramsey Peel - agree with you also that action is more important than chat. I've forwarded the PR to my relevant contacts and also written to Alan Bell and the FSC expressing my frustration and disappointment with their lack of progress. Pointing out to them the failure to ensure a 100% return to us will leave us in a postion of drawing the worlds attention to the failure of the IOM Gov't to regulate its finance industry and their failure to then ensure that retail savers were kept whole.

I like many others await guidance on what to do next.


applying some logic

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 14:16

I hope for some indulgence to allow me to be simplistic and brutally logical about the choice between the DCS (which exists and is incorporated in statute) and the proposed (but as yet undefined) SoA.

I submit that terms such as "more flexibility", "more scope for tailoring", "designer" etc. have little or no meaning in respect of a quantitative arrangement - the only measure must be the expected recovery for the depositors.

Given the same amount of input money (which appears, broadly, to be the case), the only way that any group of depositors could benefit from one scheme compared with the other is if another group of depositors suffers a disbenefit. It follows that if the proposed SoA were able to produce a different result from the DCS then it must be because some of those who would benefit from the DCS would suffer a disbenefit under the SoA. If, as stated in the Alix affidavit, this would not be the case, then the two schemes must produce the same result. That begs the question: what then is the benefit of the SoA, other than to the IOM government?

I know the above is simplistic (I prefer to say empirical) and that details such as acceptability to the Island's banks and admin costs can be argued about, but I offer it only as a starting point or a rebuttable presumption.


DCS vs SOA

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 08:29

Exactly Elgee--we have details of DCS, however sketchy, but nothing on the proposed SOA.
At least as good--so what's the point?
I think like you that IOMG want yet another deferment--another 2 months of trying to extricate themselves from the predicament they cannot handle and in the vain hope that it will all go away or that Darling will bung them a few million to sort things out.
The liquidation may indeed be a benefit because then the scandal is in the public domain and all the difficult questions that have been fobbed off will have to be answered and the directors will be contracting their sphincters as well as the IOMG if there really are some skeletons in the cupboard.
I for one will be surprised if there are no dodgy deals to uncover as I gather from other's posts--cant wait for 29th!


Sphincters and the contraction of same

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 09:02

Yes, and while others are suffering ring-flutter, quite a lot of us will suffer deposit return flutter - liquidation will have the cream off the gold top and leave the rest of us with very little.

Easy to say that if you have little to lose or are pretty much protected...


You've been "indulged" you

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 05:02

You've been "indulged", you are a group member. Think on that for a moment.

How can what you write be empirical (some of us went to school too you know? as it happens, the same school)?

It's not empirical, it's "in medias res" - we have started from the middle, there is no experience or observation to back up your hypothesis. We have started in the middle.

You state "Given the same amount of input money (which appears, broadly, to be the case), the only way that any group of depositors could benefit from one scheme compared with the other is if another group of depositors suffers a disbenefit." - good, very good, but please tell the honourable court (whoops, sorry!!) if it will be as simple as that? No, My Lud, it won't be because there won't be the same amount of input money will there? DCS means liquidation, liquidation means Simpson, and Simpson means fees and lot's of them.

So, to conclude the summing up in this matter, as Ramsey Peel has stated, you are wasting your time continuing to waffle about nothing until you can put one firm figure down on paper -

And for sure "but I offer it only as a starting point or a rebuttable presumption." is incorrect, you offer it to start yet another round of arguments.

Put figures on paper elgee, then come back.


mainwaring..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/01/2009 - 05:34

mainwaring,I am no whizz at things but even I know that liquidation doesnt benefit anybody, liquidation equals gas chamber for our funds full stop, never mind simpsons fees that will be something else. I just trust the core team now to step up the pressure thats where our hope lies and us helping them...


DCS > SOA

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 18:28

well the biggest group that would be disadvantage with DCS are those with bonds / wrappers or other non retail deposits who would only stand to gain a maximum share of £20K per account, those with the big 7 = £20K / how ever many individual depositors, company deposits would also suffer, all depending of course on p > £ recovered by PWC.

ie 20p in the £ recovered /// £20m holding from insurance = £4m shared - DCS pays out 0

I'm not part of that group and in this present mode of declaration I have a retail deposit cira £200k.

For myself if the DCS is triggered at the same rate from PWC - I'd get a return of £40K - DCS if applied for would cough up £10K, slight increase from PWC of 5p in the pound no point in claiming DCS.

No one on this forum at the moment can offer a factual opinion as to whether DCS or SOA would be the best way forward until PWC at least set out an initial figure for recovery. At the present moment assuming the latest figures are ball park:

£170m recovered / £800m deposits = 21.25p does not include loan book and any recoveries from KSF UK or the deductions of PWC fees / court costs / ancillary expenditure by PWC.

IoMG needs to pushed to put actual figures on an SOA - PWC preferably via the court needs to pushed to release an initial p in the £ recovery if liquidadtion is triggered now.
BTW remember PWC will not release that £170m they will hold on to much as they deem necessary to cover future costs / their own / legal / administration and no one can challange them.

At least SOA attempts to minimise monies held in reserve and reduces the extortionate fees charge by liquidators, thats not an indication I'm pro this or that at this present time - far too peeved off for that and not enough information to allow clear thinking - FSC has a hell of lot of questions to answer for.

However much folks want to argue around DCS / SOA until meat is on the bones of BOTH schemes monetary and time we're pi**ing in the dark.


applying some logic

  • Bill
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/01/2009 - 15:30

You are right that the whole debate is expressed in qualitative terms.

Since the DCS, as it stands, has never been tried - no one can say how it would really work in practice, and how it may be tweaked in the case of contingencies arising. The SoA, by nature, is entirely unique and unpredictable. As things stand right now, liquidation would hurt the over 50k's and non retail depositors and possibly in two ways: (1) by having to handle costs and interest to pay back the DCS (although I have no idea how that would work) and (2) losing all hope of decent recoveries from liquidated assets by fire sale.

Of course, if the guarantee is real then everyone is okay - and that is why so much depends on the guarantee details being clarified.