2nd Update re: IOM LEGAL REPRESENTATION

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 25/11/2008 - 16:56

There have been a few developments in the IoM which I believe you all should be aware of.

We have been informed by our legal representative on the IoM that on 12 November 2008 Mike Simpson made an application to the Isle of Man Court requesting that another PWC partner from London be appointed alongside him as provisional joint liquidator.

The reasoning behind this appears to be that a London based partner (and this one is very senior) will be required to attempt to recover IoM assets held with KSF UK. The transfer order that was enacted on KSF UK on 8 October prevents any funds being moved from KSF UK back to the IoM without the consent of the UK treasury so it would be logical to have a ‘big hitter’ on our side in any negotiations with the UK authorities.

It should be noted that Simpson informed the court that he had informed depositors of his intention to apply for the appointment of a joint liquidator via the KSFIOM website. Clearly this has not happened.

A further request made to the court by Mike Simpson was for ‘direction’ that ‘he need not answer each and every individual’s enquiries sent by and on behalf of depositors’ providing he reports every 7 days. Based on the lack of information in his ‘reports’ to date this is laughable.

From my own personal point of view the two points above are nothing short of a disgrace and only highlight the contempt in which Simpson has held depositors to date. Simpson has not responded to any of the requests by the solicitor on the IoM and is now obviously looking for ‘authority’ to continue ignoring his duties to us.

Let us not forget where PWC’s funding is coming from. They will be paid in preference to any of us out of whatever assets the bank has….assets that are rightfully ours. We are paying Simpson’s fees and as such he should be forced to report to those that pay him.

The Isle of Man authorities have informed us, as a party being represented in the upcoming hearing, that they will be petitioning for yet another postponement of liquidation at the hearing on Thursday, this time for 60 days. The IoM authorities have also confirmed they have appointed a restructuring expert to try to sell the bank or run it down as previously mentioned.

I have requested that the solicitor in the IoM informs the court that he will not oppose the petition to postpone providing these conditions are agreed to:

  1. The court agrees to the formation of a provisional creditors’ committee to whom the joint liquidators are accountable.
  2. The joint liquidators will agree to answer any and all correspondence from solicitors representing depositors in a full and timely manner
  3. The balance sheet of KSFIOM as at 7 October 2008 is made public just like EY did for KSFUK
  4. The parental guarantee, that no one seems to want to disclose, is provided for all to see.

These requests have also already been forwarded to solicitors acting for the IoM authorities.

I have no idea how successful the request to the court will be, but PWC need to be held accountable for their actions and nothing they have done to date gives me any confidence in what has been done so far. I would go as far as saying that I believe Mike Simpson is out of his depth here so its good news that a senior restructuring partner has been brought in to help out.

All official court documents that we have gathered surrounding this will be published on the official KSFIOM DAG website.

0
Your rating: None

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

Fees

  • Peasant
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 22:42

At least E&Y are open about the fees see A creditors guide to Administrators' fees

I still can't understand why http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/ continue to show KS&F(IoM) as one of their UK Office Locations Isle of Man
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
Samuel Harris House,
5-11 St George's Street,
Douglas
Isle of Man, IM99 1SN

It's not as if the administrators don't have access to the website or they wouldn't have put the info about the Admin Order there.
Maybe they intend to buy KS&F(IoM) with our money!


Just give us some basic information, Mr Simpson!

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 12:28

Mr Simpson has now been in the role of LP for 7 weeks. In that time I have had one letter from him for each of the two accounts held by my wife and I. The contents of each letter were similar, the variations being due probably because one is a Sterling Edge a/c and the other is a Euro Edge a/c. We made transfers from each account which are in-flight.

My wife and I find it very disappointing and frustrating that 7 weeks on we have not received any statements, nor any information as to the whereabouts of our in-flight funds. How difficult could it be for one of the PWC team to have produced a statement of fact about Euro transfers for example? Did they leave the bank (and if not, why not) or are they with Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt? The same for Sterling transfers. I find it hard to believe that after 7 weeks the LP's team do not have this information, so why are they not sharing it with those to whom the money rightfully belongs?

The letters we did receive made no reference to our account numbers, meaning we could not match which letter applied to which account. This gives me concerns as to the thoroughness and professionalism of the work being done.

We realise (or at least we hope) that the priority has been to set about identifying and releasing funds to restructure the bank and thereby to return money to depositors. But given the size of the team reported to be working at the KSFIOM offices I would expect by now that the LP could also have shared much more information with those of us who are truly suffering from the bank's demise. Keeping us in the dark to this extent prolongs the suffering and it is very cruel. One wonders if the LP's team also have families and children, whether they can comprehend in any way the damage and suffering being experienced? Their lack of communication would suggest otherwise.

When considering the future role of Mr Simpson as LP I would be very pleased and grateful if our legal representative, John Wright, could make these points at the hearing tomorrow. I am looking for either a cost effective replacement for the LP or a commitment to improved communication which will actually be monitored by the IOM authorities. Thank you.


information from Mike Simpson

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 12:54

David9 I'm in similar position regarding euro "inflights", except;

I've received 2 letters (I only have one account) from MS and in the second letter he set out very clearly what happened to my in flight and what he is planning to do about it. I didn't like what he said as it concluded my in flights were going back to IOM but he has given a clear indication of what he plans to do.

If you call the bank from tomorrow on they will be able to give you a telephone balance and you may well find that your inflights have been re-credited.


Euro statements

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 13:21

Thanks for the info. Whilst I am glad that you have received a 2nd letter, it concerns me that all depositors are not being treated in the same way. It does not improve my confidence in the LP or his team. I will surely call them.


Fees for thought! Take note of PWC & Lehmans Liquidation.

  • Jas III
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 02:23

Diver where would be without you and this site?

Is there anything we can learn from PWC & Lehmans Europe Liquidation?

I warned in post a while back that MIke Simpson would be asking IoM the additional support of another Liquidator, and that we need to be mindful these costs. I'm weary because sadly I am also an investor caught in the Lehmans fall out a few weeks before KSF fell. PWC fees for Lehmans are reporterd to be 4 million pounds a week.

Yes the numbers are bit different .....Lehman's filed bankruptcy with assets of $639 billion and debt of $613 billion. But there are a few similarities, including in-flight transfers and ongoing trading accounts and margins after insolvency and proir to adminstration.

The insolvency of Lehmans Europe in the UK also occured under familar circumstances with Lehmans Holding Inc, NY.

There are two basic forms of insolvency. The first and more common is cashflow insolvency. This is when a company finds itself unable to pay its debts as they fall due. The second is balance-sheet insolvency, in which liabilities outweigh assets. Lehman’s European operations fell into the first category. Like many global corporations, the bank swept all the cash from its regional operations back to New York each night and released the funds the next day. The Friday sweep had taken about $8bn out of London. Without cash, the business could not meet its financial obligations on Monday morning. A thriving business of more than 5,000 staff and investments worth billions of dollars was suddenly flat broke.
(http://marketpipeline.blogspot.com/2008/11/winding-up-lehman-brothers.html)

Send back $8B, Lehman Brothers Europe tells parent
NEW YORK - Lehman Brothers in Europe has asked its U.S. counterpart to give back more than $8 billion that it says was trapped when Lehman's holding company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080921/send-back-8b-lehman-brothers-eu... PwC is fighting for the return of $8bn which was in swept from Lehmans in Europe to its New York central operation in the days running up to the collapse. They are getting the same results from USA as IoM is from UK!

Mr Lomas added: "We continue to be focused on maximising the value of recoveries for creditors, whilst minimising the impact on other stakeholders as much as possible."
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3110955/...)

Sound familar?

Now keep this in mind, ...while Lehmans Europe UK Office was in provisional liquidation, PWC administrator Tony Lomas initally said it would take several months before they knew what the figures were and how long liquidation and winding up could take to recover assets. On 14 Nov 1000 Lehman creditors met in London to hear from that PWC that they had only recovered just $5 billion of a potential $550 billion of obligations.
After this he told journalists it could take 10 years or more. ...

Meanwhile fees to engage PWC are racking up some 4 million pounds ($6 million) a week.

Here is how PWC is responding to account holders abnd creditors, a bit more than Mike is giving us, but quite results are not too different.
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehman_faq_1008.html

There has never been bankrupcy or failure of any financial institutuional failure on this scale.

The main difference we need to keep in mind that Lehman account holders and creditors do not have any action group thing like we do.

I'm mindful 'Thanksgiving' this year is also on Thursday 27th. We sure don't need need anymore humble pie! I hope your Advocate is able to serve up some turkey to PWC through the conditions offered from the depositors. Whatever the results I'm thankful for all this site, the work done for us, the hope it provides, and not to mention the unprecidented example it sets.

Please take heart everyone! Its truly amazing the power KSFIOM DAG presents in the face of what powers we are up against and what this group is accomplishing. .... not least of all through your efforts Diver, NG, & Teams!

Yours

Jas


Few points - 1)Simpson did

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 01:19

Few points -
1)Simpson did confirm that he would be requesting the appointment of a joint liquidator:-

"Finally, I want to mention that, once the winding up order is issued, I will be applying to Court for the appointment of a Joint Liquidator. The speed with which the winding up petition was required meant that there was not enough time to identify a candidate at that stage. However it will be beneficial to have a joint liquidator who will be well placed to recover assets in the UK. "

I also have pretty much the same thing in an email -
Actually, we don't need the costs of a joint liquidator, one competant one is sufficient. They should have had someone competant in the seat from the beginning - this was never a job for a trainee or someone used to winding up local IoM hardware stores. If Simpson isn't fit for purpose then I suggest that we apply to have his fees taxed by the court.

2) Interim dividend - funds are available, there is no reason why a dividend cannot be paid out now.

3) PWC shoud answer anyone, not just the appointed lawyers - we are ALL paying them. And as for a "timely" fashion - well from experience with these dinosaurs, that can mean what they want it to mean - I reckon that 7 days is "timely".

4) IoM pay their own cost for their "expert" - they aren't doing this for us, they are doing it for themselves - to stop the IoM economy sliding into the sea. Let them pay for it themselves.

5) UK Lawyers can work in the IoM , they can apply for a temporary license to practice:-
"were represented throughout by leading Counsel from England, who had been granted a special temporary licence as a Manx advocate"
Just worthy of note - a UK lawyer employed by the group could address the courts in the IoM without need to further instruct an IoM advocate should the need arise.

6) I agree, no problem, get Simpson out, and get his costs taxed by the court (that should make him stand up), but why accepts anyone else from PWC? Get another company in. Truth is that they will all behave in pretty much the same way.


2nd Update

  • TykeinSingapore
  • 12/10/08 22/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 00:35

Diver, many thanks for the update, like many other who have responded I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions in regard to the disclosure of information by PWC. Like many of us who have had to work with PWC I can only add more fuel to the fire, in that I think they charge like wounded bulls and often achieve little more than you could working without their assistance!


Re: 2nd legal update

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 23:45

Diver

I think your comment about Mike Simpson is probably right, in him being out of his depth.

He isn't a bad man and I don't think he will purposefully do anything to harm depositors, he has to follow the law as laid down, but I think this is too big for PWC IoM I have done since day one.

As for the IoM government they too have employed quite a big hitter when it comes to restructuring. He was involved in a a high profile case in the UK a couple of years ago.


PwC notorious for Bums on Seats - Some ideas.

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 21:11

Diver,

Good stuff. It's only my two-cents but I just can't let this one pass since I've been involved in consulting for a while ...

I can't comment on the provisional liquidators exact accomplishments to date because these haven't all been exposed to us, but I can say from many years of working with and observing consulting companies like PwC within corporates, that their objective when they come through the door is always to bring as many of their over-priced colleagues with them as possible - that's how the company earns money. Whatever the professional remit is, their interest is to earn for themselves. PwC are notorious for gigantic bills and I'm sure they smell a wonderful opportunity here since there would seem to be at least £100m in the pot to feed from. It's utter speculation in our case but these guys can easily charge £2000 /day each plus expenses, and if there are several of them in there it mounts-up very quickly.

If the IOM authorities want another adjournment it may be a good thing for we depositors, but remember that Simpson could have an army on the case sucking-up cash like a vacuum cleaner - even more so if they bring on a 'big-hitter' (= big money eater), and further if they are busily answering lots of letters from individuals. None of us should imagine that it's just Simpson working alone.

Given that PwC appear to have done absolutely nothing for us since acquiring the £100m assets, I believe our legal representation (I contributed) should press them to document their accomplishments - it's just too easy for them to hide behind the 'we can't discuss the secret negotiations' curtain whilst clocking-up the charges. They should also be instructed to expose their charges-to-date immediately. I wouldn't mind betting that the scale of the charges will be a shocker. It should then be possible to judge how much cash-burn is worthwhile going forward if this is to be a protracted affair, as it seems to be. Using the fact that they have been appointed essentially to serve the creditors/depositors may work in court.

As for the IOM government they must be pressed for concrete plans and we must be convinced that their request for adjournment is not just to avoid stumping-up the £150m for the DCS. Important is for them to commit to WHEN will X,Y and Z happen. We depositors are suffering from lost accrued interest and lost financial-opportunity with every passing day , whilst each passing day favours the vultures i.e. PwC, lawyers and others who are getting rich from our misfortune.

I know that all sounds very cynical but I've been in consulting for some years and I know how it goes. I hope I have pushed a couple of relevant points which primarily support your point number 1. I'm still optimistic for a good outcome for us.


re 2nd update

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 22:28

Busted flat,..I fully agree with your comments regarding PWC reporting their actions so far, and achievements (if any), and their charges to date, as well as us being given a better idea of the IOM govt plans, if any, for restructuring of the bank or whatever else they may have in mind (other than the tediously familiar "discussions are ongoing" etc etc ...). A 60 day adjournement, as I have said before, suggests to me that there is no plan other than to delay things as long as possible which I agree does not benefit any of us,but benefits only the IOM govt,the UK govt and the PWC employees.
I'm wondering if the IOM govt was pressed into making a payout to all depositors using the £150M they have promised, without affecting the current situation with the bank, ie not winding up the bank,then they would have more of an incentive to find a good outcome so that they could then recover their money from a restructured bank or whatever,at some future date.This may not be possible under current legislation but legislation can be changed if there's a will....It's just a thought which has been on my mind for a long time.


Changing Legislation

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 07:58

mike - Well, they changed their DCS scheme from (I think) £15k to £50k overnight at the start of this so on that basis it would be possible to change it again in a similar time frame.


BustedFlat.perhaps

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 20:47

perhaps there may be a solution along the lines I mentioned !...See this affidavit, para. 12 in particular (it may take a little while to download):

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Sig...


PWC Billing hours

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 22:13

Bustedflat - could not agree more this is my experience of PWC's culture in the consultancy world before they sold out this business to IBM.

Would support our legal rep asking for the court on 27th to demand disclosure of fee's to date and a forward view, both of which should be updated monthly on an ongoing basis, they have all these figures to hand as the one system they always keep up to date is their billing engine. If they are to be kept as LP then we need the court to demand communication of plans and actions where reasonable are improved with specific performance indicators.

The LP should be our ally not adversary.


The LP should be our ally not adversary.

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 08:20

I like that one ...

"The LP should be our ally not adversary."

.. that's exactly the point. I'm guessing they'll start behaving as such far quicker if it becomes clear that their gravy-train is dependant on our agreement to their actions and continued appointment. Roll-on creditor committee.

KSFIOM wasn't that big so a good chunk of our money will certainly disappear very fast if PwC continue without genuine accountability. You can be absolutely sure that every chargeable action they have made is logged and it should be a quick process to expose this log.

I think the Tynwald meeting this week will bring a greater level of disagreement over whether to liquidate or not than there was at the last meeting. It's a tough one - e.g. those who are over the £50k limit might still rather have £50k now than 2 years (for example) of procrastination followed by an undefined result. Therefore :

  1. If KSFIOM is not to be liquidated, look at getting rid of PwC quickly to reduce the cash-burn. IOM gov need to define clearly WHAT would happen in a run-down, or ther scenario, and WHEN it will happen.

  2. If KSFIOM is to be liquidated then existing funds should be payed out quickly. PwC actions ongoing must be exposed and weighed against the possible benefits ie. don't spend £2m to recover £1m etc. Also, explore scenario : Could DCS pay the £50k now and take it from future recoveries ?

  3. If there's an adjournment then PwC need to explain what they'll do until the next hearing. If they can't do much in the IOM unless something major changes then funds can be spent on the 'big hitter' to push for those major changes, but it could well be pointless to have an army of PwC consultants in the IOM office during that period.


Payout of funds

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 10:09

Very good words BustedFlat. I hope they pay out a dividend of some sort soon. I, and I expect many others, are getting into a position where I am running out of ready cash to live on. The money I had invested was a nest egg and the cash to live on until I am 65 ( I am currently 61).


Thanks Diver

  • depositor
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 20:19

Thank you Diver for yet more revealing information.

The addition of a big-hitter from London and a further 60 days could help to our cause, but are we in a position to judge due to the lack of transparency and the possibility of misinformation.

The FSC web site still says that they are responsible for Financial Supervision. Therefore I have just sent them another e-mail suggesting that their action is overdue.


IOM legal representation

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:54

Thanks Diver for all you've done so far and for the comprehensive report. I note this has been followed by a slew of posts generally denigrating Simpson. I'm not going to be an apologist for him but I think there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. OK the reports from PwC have been far too infrequent especially at this critical run up to 27th. OK he may have been econimical with the truth regarding the appointment of assistant prov liquidator. But I have no real visibility of what he's doing or how well he's doing it so I feel unable to comments beyond some disappointment regarding the aforementioned points. Yes maybe someone else would do a better job but then maybe not.... impossible to judge since we know neither his actual progress to date nor the identity of a successor. If Mike Simpson finds a buyer or if he proves to be instrumental if facilitating a restructure which gets us all our money back, then in a years time I won't give a monkey's toss about wekly reports. Conversely if he is as some others have described him and thing go even more pair shaped here on in, I'll be regretting my circumspection here.

Regarding your conditions, what would happen if the court needed our legal representative's acquiesence to adjourn for 60 days but could not guarantee the conditions you have set out. What then? The comments I've read so far deal only with Simpson and no comment as to whether the conditions are wise. I agree broadly with conditions ,2 and 3 and 4 but I'm not sure about 1. Would like to see pro and contra arguments.

I did contribute and I'm one of the "names".


Good Work Diver

  • adambw
  • 13/10/08 31/08/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:25

Good work as always Diver. I trust you have had good support in getting in contributions for legal representation. (From those who can afford to contribute). I see that ng says he can no longer do web work for free (understandable). I think that those who can must cough up for him also. Its will be a small price to pay for the return of our capital (+interest).


Surely if Mr Simpson mislead

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:49

Surely if Mr Simpson mislead the IOM court on 12th November he could be held in contempt. Or is that not how this work on IOM.


contempt of court

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 23:29

It's contempt of court in my view, the very court which appointed him in the first place, as well as contempt for all depositors for whose interests he is supposed to be acting.What puzzles me is his motive for behaving in this manner. Lying to a court demonstrates that he is not "fit for purpose"


On the subject of your 2nd update

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:24

Well Done Diver, and thank you so much for all you efforts. Intelligently focused, fair-minded and determined as always, and we are with you more than ever. This Simpson man is clearly not up to the task. It truly is infuriating the manner in which we depositors are being dealt with by him, and his office. And we are paying for him, to boot! There could well be a monumental battle brewing here but WE are up to the task and this WILL be pursued to the end and eventually we WILL get 100% of our deposits back. Our assets were stolen by our government and our government must be held accountable and made to return them to us. Justice will prevail in the end, of this I have no doubt. But more the pity we can't be recompensed the mental anguish this government has put us through.


2nd update

  • Yoda
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:40

Diver..once again, our heart felt thanks for your concise description of what is going on.
My teeth have been ground down to little stumps, and I have to wear match sticks in my eyes cos I cant sleep.
Thank God, for you keeping us in touch.

Mike Simpson is definately out of his depths, and needs to be replaced. I know he is held in high esteen at PWC but the man seems like a biased tosser. I wil be trying to get some info from my mates that work with him - and see if I can get a bit more info on the guy.

Keep up the good work - we all love you for it!


Diver 2nd update

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:18

Hi Diver Thanks for your comments on this matter.I'm somewhat alarmed at the thought of a further 60 days adjournement of the liquidation hearing.This suggests to me that there is currently no likely prospect of any imminent solution to this situation. If this is going to be the case is there no prospect of some kind of interim payout to assist, in particular, those who are really desperate for funds? This possibility has previously been mentioned on a few occasions including I believe by the IOM authorities (Brown?)

It appears that the UK treasury has the power to intervene and allow the repatriation of the £557M to KSFIOM (as per the transfer order para 27) and that ,if this were achieved, our problems would be more or less over. I wonder what can be done by us in order to try to pressure the treasury into following this course of action?


An alternative view would be

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:43

An alternative view would be that another 60 days would allow inter-Government and inter-Bank discussions to continue and reach a beneficial solution.

A magic wand on Thursday is NOT going to appear. Perhaps another 60 days will? Things ARE happening in the background [any recent reports on Treasury night-lights?] and I honestly don't believe this was EVER capable of being unravelled in 6 weeks. To many people, that must be feeling like a life-time ... but just try to think through what would be involved, with all the different agencies and governments and banks, to unravel it. put yourself in one of those offices, and ask yourself what you would do.

Be realistic, folks.


I'm not sure what you mean by

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:27

I'm not sure what you mean by an alternative view, but for me the solution lies with the £557M in KSFUK. Without the repatriation of that money how can there be any restructuring/sale of KSFIOM or 100% payout ? The UK treasury caused those funds to be effectively frozen,the treasury has also forbidden KSFUK from returning those funds to KSFIOM by virtue of para. 27 of the transfer order, but the treasury also has the power to allow the repatriation of those funds if it wants to. What ideas do you have as to how the treasury can be convinced that they need to return those funds without further delay? The alternative is to continue to await the outcome of any future liquidation of KSFUK and there is currently no way of knowing for sure what percentage of the £557M might be returned. There is also no way of knowing how long it might be before KSF goes into liquidation..it is currently in administration and for all we know E&Y might be looking at selling/restructuring KSFUK and not releasing our money at all. Forget Iceland.. they quite rightly blame the UK for causing this problem, as does IOM.

I was interested to see that our legal rep said that, according to his knowlege of IOM law, a winding up order was the most likely outcome on 27th but that Diver says that the IOM authorities will most likely be petitioning for a 60 day adjournement.


I'm not a financier, so I

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:54

I'm not a financier, so I haven't got a clue. The technical side is way above my head.

IMF/Iceland?
UK/IOM?
KSF UK/KSF IOM?
ING?
EOY?

I honestly don't know the financial answers, but I'd bet the cat's life on the fact that the IOM sees it in its OWN interest to reach a solution [using whoever's money, I really don't care]. Likewise, Iceland will be trying to prop up its reputation. And Darling will be trying to prop up his.

Because I don't understand the financial world, I'm able to step back and look ... not at details, but at whose self-interest will be served by sorting us out. And I think there are a lot of people in wood-panelled offices who would want this solved as well [for their self-interest, but coincidentally ALSO for ours].

IMO, E&OE, that stuff ...


I'm not sure what you mean by

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:27

I'm not sure what you mean by an alternative view, but for me the solution lies with the £557M in KSFUK. Without the repatriation of that money how can there be any restructuring/sale of KSFIOM or 100% payout ? The UK treasury caused those funds to be effectively frozen,the treasury has also forbidden KSFUK from returning those funds to KSFIOM by virtue of para. 27 of the transfer order, but the treasury also has the power to allow the repatriation of those funds if it wants to. What ideas do you have as to how the treasury can be convinced that they need to return those funds without further delay? The alternative is to continue to await the outcome of any future liquidation of KSFUK and there is currently no way of knowing for sure what percentage of the £557M might be returned. There is also no way of knowing how long it might be before KSF goes into liquidation..it is currently in administration and for all we know E&Y might be looking at selling/restructuring KSFUK and not releasing our money at all. Forget Iceland.. they quite rightly blame the UK for causing this problem, as does IOM.

I was interested to see that our legal rep said that, according to his knowlege of IOM law, a winding up order was the most likely outcome on 27th but that Diver says that the IOM authorities will most likely be petitioning for a 60 day adjournement.


Go mann - I agree

  • Yoda
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:49

Unfortunately, I agree with you. I hear through other sources, that re structuring is a real possibility. This takes time. We too, are really desperate but I think we have to realise that this is going to take some time to get to any beneficial conclusion.

I really really want my money - but I would rather wait and get iteventually, than never.
How awful is it that we grab onto any ray of hope??


Go mann, I also agree with

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:06

Go mann, I also agree with this logic-based approach, but what about the social considerations of the <£50k savers? (I am a bigger loser). I thought some mention was made this morning in the Tynwald about the smaller depositors, but it was somewhat sketchy and I've not seen a transcript. For those of us with more at risk then I guess we have to hope that any plan is better than liquidation, but for the <£50k folks who may well be struggling already, there is no apparent benefit other than 'hanging in there for the team' - which is extremely admirable and deeply appreciated - but perhaps the IoM Govt have something in mind?

All thanks to Diver for setting everything up with the legal rep!


early payout?

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 20:02

IceCrusher If you haven't already seen this affidavit then take a look at para 12 which suggests the possibility of an early payout whilst not yet putting the bank into liquidation,this is what I have always hoped might happen:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Sig...


Many different <£50k

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:27

Many different <£50k depositors. For some that's everything, for others it's just part of a portfolio. I think we could spend forever trying to break all these things down to ...

  1. OK, I've "temporarily lost" a very small %ge of my portfolio.
    or,
  2. Sh1t, I've lost virtually everything.
    or,
  3. Every other possible permutation.

The fact that "some people are struggling" could mean that they've lost £750k or more, lost house/business/future/everything. Or they've lost the £10k they needed to pay next year's University fees. Or in my case, as a "<£50k", I've lost more than that on one bad share deal, and frankly I'm VERY pi66ed off but otherwise not massively damaged.

IMO, these subdivisions are almost pointless, because the impact is NOT a matter of numbers, it's what those numbers mean to a particular individual. And timescales are the same ... some need money NOW [or yesterday], and others can wait a while.

I honestly don't believe we can micro-manage anything. I sincerely believe, with the exception of those at The Hub who obviously understand things, that the rest of us have to just remember to keep breathing. We'll get there.


Easy for me to say, as the

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:59

Easy for me to say, as the archetypal "minor victim", but I honestly, HONESTLY, believe we "DON"T PANIC".

How some people get through the intervening period I cannot comprehend, but I'm having a strong sense that, amidst all the political bullsh1t being generated ... a solution lies out there.

It will NOT be instant, the War will not be over by Christmas [if it is, it'll be the first time!] but in a few months [let's say April 09?] I firmly believe this will all be history. Governments and jurisdictions have too much to lose to let anything different happen.

Ignore Darling's noises ... he's trying to save his job, the UK Govt and the Labour Party. Behind the scenes, he WILL do what is necessary, otherwise his career, and Broon's, and Labour's is over. The Media aren't letting up ... this isn't yesterday's news, it's being NOW and is STILL NOW and is continuing to be NOW.

Bath time, then coffee and a Famous Grouse.
Easy for me, not so easy for many of you, I know.
We ARE getting there, thanks to the amazing efforts of the core teams.


Simpson

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 17:51

Surely, as i have said weeks ago,this guy works for us and all creditors. Why can't we apply to the courts to have him replaced?
His 'reporting,' has been,at best,very weak.Not one of us has had any direct communication with him.It is outragious that due to his lack of ability on such a major,high profile case,we have to now, have some one assist/lead the process.Why weren't they put there to start with?
What potential buyers (if any) have we 'lost,' due to his inexperiance?
How much more of our funds and time, have been wasted on other incompetant personell?
I think our legal rep' will uncover more of this crap!
Yes, i am bloody mad!


I asked this question

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 16:50

I asked this question sometime ago.
With £105,000,000 already secure,where is this money being kept?
What rate of interest are we getting for it?
It should be more than adequate to cover PWC charges.
Could our legal rep' ask for a dividend on a account?
This would help some of the more desperate cases.


Simpson

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 01:33

You didn't need the "legal rep" to uncover any of this - it was always there, plain as day for all to see. I've lost count of the number of times that I have warned about complacency regarding Simpson, and the requirement to out him if necessary.

Let's hope that PWC take notice that there is a very real chance that they will be down the road.


Mike Simpson - You're fired without pay

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:41

Why should we pay two provisional Liquidators now - with PWC massive fat cat salaries by the hour they are just whittling down the banks assets and our deposits.
If the London partner is more efficent effective and experienced and has the decency to report to us and update us why don't we just have him.
Let's face it if this man Simpson was an employee for us we would want to fire him if he is not producing or efficient.

Also main question is why is the simple order from Mike Simpson's solicitors to E&Y solicitors for KPUK not just "return the KIOM funds you have frozen immeditaely" and then our bank can operate again as a solvent bank without making further losses.
We can try to make up for our loss of interest instead of this whole drawn out extra 90 days after the 27th of us losing even more and the Liquidators earning and taking even more from us and then what if there is further ajournment. Liquidators themselves can lose all depositors assets with dragging on.
The Provisional Liquidators legal teams results are abysmal to say the least.
Maybe we can be proven wrong by them all enlightening us, reporting to us good news or proof of good acheivements thus far, and then I'll apologise - but I the meantime we are all getting really mad so let's start cracking the whip and and knock off Darlings eyebrows off his face while we're at it.


simpson

  • wood
  • 12/10/08 30/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:41

I'm angry too. Being walked all over in this way by Simpson is simply adding insult to already appalling injury.
I suppose whether he really is incompetent or out of his depth as has been suggested doesn't really matter as much now as why is he still in place?.
If he has misled the court by claiming to have disclosed his 12 Nov application to the court on the website and again by claiming to be providing weekly updates to depositors, then how do we inform both his employer and the court of his apparent misrepresentations and ask for his replacement before really serious damage is done, if that hasn't already happened?


Simpson

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 26/11/2008 - 00:42

Diver,

You may well be right to say that Mike Simpson is out of his depth with this KSF case....however, he is probably reading all these threads, so what kind of incentive is there for him to keep pushing on our behalf if we keep slagging him off?

Not a lot, I woild wager.

I know, I know....he should be doing a more visible job for us, and reporting more often and in far more detail. And if he really did mislead the court, then that's very bad. And he will have to go.

All the same, this seems to be a massively complex situation with big political forces in play (ie Darling etc), so not as simple as "give us our 550m back."

Anyway, Simpson's last report was November 14! What's been happening since then?


Simpson

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 17:45

Depositors have previously voiced thoughts about replacing Simpson with someone who would more obviuously be on our side. These two actions of his together with his overall inaction make me feel the same way. Could he be removed/replaced if so desired?


Simpson

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:20

I would support at very least a motion (if that is the right manx expression) to the court that he is warned as to his failure of commuincation and put on notice by the provisional creditors committtee if created that we reserve the right to remove him at the next hearing. We need a PL who works for all depositors it would be good if the judge (deamster?) reminded him of that on 27th.

Any view from the IOM whether he has the support of the institutions (IOM Govt, FSC and large insurance companys)?

He may well be doing great things beneath the surface but his interaction with us above the surface does not inspire confidence.


Hear, Hear

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:24

Totally agree


Diver, thank you. I had long

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 17:23

Diver, thank you. I had long wondered how well IOM generally was coping with this crisis, and it appears Mr Simpson isn't!

As for PWC, they're a bit like bankers, aren't they? Or did I mis-spell that?


Excellent Note Diver

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 17:18

Diver,

This answers in full an early comment I made.

The value of having a lawyer on the ground is shown by this note alone.

One thing you say "The transfer order that was enacted on KSF UK on 8 October prevents any funds being moved from KSF UK back to the IoM without the consent of the UK treasury" Is this certain as it would seem to be contary to the rules of adminstration for the Treasury to have a veto


The 3 pertinent points of

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 17:33

The 3 pertinent points of note 27 of the Transfer document are as follows:

Moratorium on payment to related companies

  1. – (1) Kaupthing shall not make any payment, dispose of any property or modify or release any right or liability to or for the benefit of a related party without prior consent of the Treasury, and any such purported payment, disposal, modification or release shall be void.

(2) No related party shall exercise any right of set-off or combination of accounts in respect of any debt owing by Kaupthing without the consent of the Treasury, and any such purported exercise shall be void.

(3) In this article, “related party” means any member of the same group as Kaupthing that is not a subsidiary undertaking of Kaupthing.

You will notice that point 3 makes KSFIOM a "related party" and point 1 prevents any payments to related parties.


Uk Treasury

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:54

So it all boils down to the consent of UK Treasury and Mr Darling if we have a hope in hell of getting our money back where it should be.


Sub category of unsecured creditors

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 18:11

That would disadvantage us versus other creditors I didn't know the executive branch could impose such clauses on the judicial branch of our government.
Thanks Diver.


IOM LEGAL REPRESENTATION

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 25/11/2008 - 19:46

Hello, Diver.

Your efforts are tremendous, and much appreciated by many fellow sufferers. However, is it only me that feels we are going backwards, and that the situation is worse than a month ago?

Simpson clearly has his own rules and agenda, and talk as much as we like, no one seems to know how to control him, or even influence him in our interests. We have only questions; no answers.

Darling and his merry men seem determined to see off the IoM as a financial centre; certainly there is no shred of evidence in the current posturing that any return of the £550 is even remotely likely.

Kaupthing hf has been granted a moratorium which can last a maximum of two years. Two years? The whole financial world could be upside down by then, politicians will have done their worst, and the parental guarantee will be down the pan.

On Thursday the petition will be to postpone any move to liquidate KSF IoM for another two months. Why? Well, the guys with a lot at stake will hope that some political accord will see them reimbursed, but we lesser mortals desperate to recover our meagre but much needed savings just see reimbursement disappearing.

Delays suit everyone except depositors. HMG would be happy if the delay lasted upto the General Election, and the longer the IoM Government can delay matters, the longer they can put off having to put the DCS into operation.

I honestly feel we are now deeper in the proverbial, and unless our legal man really knows his stuff and can cut through this lot effectively, all the efforts of the London and IoM teams will be shot.