blind rage

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 28/01/2009 - 23:50

Those who can overcome their feelings of revulsion at the sight of the exhibits to the affidavit of Clucas of Cains, may wish to focus their attention on paragraph 8, bearing in mind that Cains also acts for the bank (KSFIOM). He has something of interest to tell us of the beliefs of its directors.

3.666665
Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (9 votes)

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

Everyone to write to Cains

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 22:29

Coming late to this I have little to add to what has been said on this subject and support the disappoint of the majority of contributors.

I would Just would like to add that we should all be writing to Cains before the next hearing to express our personal views, rather than allow others to do it for us in this unsolicitated way. It should make for a long affidavit lets hope that they don't try and be selective from one hearing to the next.


John Wright

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 07:28

Has supposedly done just that in his address to the court, I must say I can't recall making a decision on the matter, but he has done it in anycase.

Strikes me a case of "same meat, different gravy".


Legal decisions

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 08:10

Captain M, I don't know if you contributed to legal funding or not - none of my business.

If you did, then I refer you (and others who are complaining) to Diver's original posting on legal representation:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/there-will-be-legal-represe...

"Lastly, if you are not happy with a very small group of people taking decisions on your part then please do not join in. Decisions will be taken as and when considered necessary and due to the nature of the material there can be no broad forum consultation or majority decision-making."


It's nothing to do with legal

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 08:27

It's nothing to do with legal representation per se - JW is being used in this case as a conduit to express the views of DAG members.

Since members are being pilloried here for doing exactly what Diver asked, and since there was no consultation even in the smallest way, it would be reasonable to then conclude that those who went their own way did nothing wrong, and in fact those who instructed JW without consultation of DAG members did pretty much the same thing, that is put there own personal point across.

Another point being made is that JW supposedly implied that his affidavit represented the views of 2000 DAG members when Divers statement above clearly contradicts the fact that he was in fact representing the views of all.

Truth is, it is all much waffle about nothing, the views of the majority of DAG members may or may not have been represented by the affidavits sworn by the opposing corners in this, and finally neither party has the right to say they represent any majority.

Don't know what they are all arguing about really - the only group winning are the lawyers.


Wright Affidavit

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 08:54

Have to admit though, after just re-reading the Wright affidavit, it does a very good job at representing all interests - large/small depositors, bond holders, small businesses, foreign currency deposits. As far as I can see, (not a legal expert) it's very impartial to any group, and more importantly, let's the IOM gov. know that they have to get their act together, and work in the best interests of depositors rather than their own.

Aside from using one's own lawyer, I don't see how a global group could have got a better representation. Just my opinion though.

As an after thought, I was just wondering, if we all sent letters to the Clucas guy, stating that we want an SoA with 100% return from IOM within 60 days, if he'll include those letters in his next affidavit?


Why do you care?

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:03

Elgee, there is just one thing that puzzles me.. why the hell do you care what the high depositors are doing to get their money back? You are protected anyway. You know that in a few months, no matter what happens, you will get your 9,000 GBP back, and it will be business as usual for you. Are you really putting in so much effort in your nit picking at everything for the good of others? Is your behaviour that altruistic?

I remember when you were very pro DCS (not sure if you're a DCS or SoA now, although you'll get your cash much quicker under an SoA), I asked you if you really didn't give a damn for the higher depositors....your answer to me was that you had to think about your family first. You were quite clear that you only had yourself in mind (it's on the forum somewhere). So why the sudden change of heart? It seems that you not only want to get your deposit back, but you want to continue to haggle the others once your plight is over. Why?


swiss <50k

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:27

I'm another Lessor Depositor. I'm looking forward to getting my lolly and getting out.

But the injustice of our situation! The sadness of our stories! We are all good people. Lot's of us have shifted around the world to seek our fortunes, saved in the knowledge that we are losers if we don't. We've done everything right. Then this. It disgusts me. I don't own a house and I never will. But I want to fight the men who failed us, the men who refuse to act in good faith, the men who seek to cast us into the shadows as they soak in their government pensions. The IoM government are working hard to weaken us. I'm angry. Now nine of our group have sold their souls, and maybe ours.

I want to fight with you all so you all get all of your money back.


I wish other depositors

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:45

I wish other depositors shared your sentiment.

Re "The Douglas Nine" - They haven't sold their souls at all - they haven't got anything more or less than the rest of us, and you don't know what old Corlett will decide on in any case.


Well, he'll be all paid up

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:12

Well, he'll be all paid up soon, so he will be able to get back to his family.
I for one wouldn't want to put him to any trouble.


cm

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:17

Captain Mainwaring, please don't post snide remarks.


Not snide, just my heartfelt

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:36

Not snide, just my heartfelt opinion, which I believe I am still entitled to.


cm opinion

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:43

I know it is your opinion. Posting opinions of people is unacceptable behaviour.
You are attacking elgee. Denigrating people on this site is not an entitlement.
Posting snide comments is not an entitlement. I ask you, please desist.


Sorry, I reserve the right to

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:56

Sorry, I reserve the right to my opinion that he is representing sub 50K depositors only, and as such is doing/going to do me no favours - it's as simple as that, I am making no other comment about him, his past, his abilities, just expressing the way I feel -

A few more people should stand up and be honest while we are at it.


Elgee is not "representing"

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 09:27

Elgee is not "representing" anyone, he merely posts his views, has been open about his situation, and I find him one of the most useful sources of information that regularly posts on the forum.

More worrying are the depositors who have written to KSFIoM's advocate claiming that they DO represent depositors without any consultation prior to posting their letters. How would you feel, CM, if Elgee had written a letter requesting liquidation, and claiming he represented the majority of supporters?

It is clear who at least a part of them are, which makes it extremely UNclear as to why the other members of the committee did not feel it appropriate to support the strategy (if they had, one assumes they would have written too).

There have been an increasing number of postings suggesting the members of the committee are pursuing their own agenda under the guise of DAG representation, and this only fuels that.

Clarification, someone.


I don't know what elgee has

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:17

I don't know what elgee has done/not done, perhaps you do, but elgee and I are not really compatible, so he doesn't tell me much ;-}


You would have to be a bit

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:40

You would have to be a bit daft to take seriously anyone saying that they represented such a large group, on face value.


Supposedly JW did. Obviously

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 07:30

Supposedly JW did. Obviously he is the DAG advocate, but I don't recall a vote on the subject.


Representation

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:47

That's my point - those of the 9 letters that are from committee members use their position within the DAG to add weight to their views supporting the SoA and a 60 day adjournment that are inconsistent with the contrasting opinions on this forum, and indeed with the affidavit of John Wright.


What good is 60 days ?

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:33

It is already clear that E & Y are extremely unlikely to offer any information within the next 60 days as to the likely amount of any dividend. Therefore, any solution (and consequent adjournement) that purports to include a return from KSFUK, would need to be longer that 60 days.
If the increased EPS was coupled to a longer adjournment with the prospect of getting closer to 100% payout than 65 p in the £, then would that not be supported by the voting majority? Whilst I am in the <50K group, I cannot lose sight of those larger savers who stand to lose significantly whilst I have a reasonable expectation of 100% return.


60 days more....

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:37

Would 60 days added to the period already elapsed mean that that S27 order would have time expired?


Ah Donald, I can see that you

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:19

Ah Donald, I can see that you may have been "primed".

Actually, anyone could have sent such a letter, elgee included, it just so happens is was those guys. Can't blame them for wanting to be like many other depositors, that is to say, seeing a 100% return.


related?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 04:18

I notice that one of the exhibited letters from supporters of the IoM Treasury's position on the SoA is signed by one Gordon Inglis, of Republica de Panama.

Is he by any chance related to a Gordon Inglis, of Republica de Panama, who on 5 October 2008, 3 days before our former bank collapsed, posted this remarkably insightful comment on the Times Online website?

"Kaupthing is a fantastically well managed international bank with strong fundamentals: excellent capital ratios, good liquidity position,c50% loan to deposit ratios, quality assets and more than two thirds of it's business outside Iceland and recently 5% owned by Qatar royal family.It's sound."

"Gordon Inglis, Panama, Republica de Panama"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...


Funny that, about 8000-10000

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 06:41

Funny that, about 8000-10000 other people felt the same way.

He can't be that much of an idiot bearing in mind the size of his deposit.


cm gordon

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:32

Gordon said that on 5 October? Heh, hang on a minute. Did he know the bank had hit the buffers and was trying to talk up the bank to prevent a run on the bank to safeguard his fortune?


If you knew and had that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:35

If you knew and had that dough at stake, what would you do?


Funny that, about 8000-10000

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 06:41

Funny that, about 8000-10000 other people felt the same way.

He can't be that much of an idiot bearing in mind the size of his deposit.


Inglis Letter Date??

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 05:08

Amazing to see that Mr Inglis who is apparently residing in Panama given his contact number, forwarded his letter to Cains on 22 January and it was received the day prior to it being sent. This of course is not the only letter received prior to it being dated and oddly enough there is similar wording in each of the letters although one or two have attempted to disguise them.


One gives an hotmail email as

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:36

One gives an hotmail email as the address.

Where on the planet is that acceptable as proof of identity?


It is a sworn statement, that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:43

It is a sworn statement, that itself is sufficient.

I didn't notice account numbers or indeed any other verifiable ID (but then the bak opened accounts based on such info).

I "own" a number of domains - you would do well to link them to me though.


It is a sworn statement, that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:45

It is a sworn statement, that itself is sufficient.

I didn't notice account numbers or indeed any other verifiable ID (but then the bank opened accounts based on such info).

I "own" a number of domains - you would do well to link them to me though.


So what does this mean? I'm

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:33

So what does this mean? I'm lost.


betrayed

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 03:55

Does anyone feel a sense of betrayal?

Are the super losers trying to secure a better deal after all?

I ask our leaders and representatives: please keep us better informed concerning your actions on our behalf. Communications from you are rare. If you act on your own behalf, please do not purport to represent the DAG or similar.


Care to clarify what you mean

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 03:42

Care to clarify what you mean about "feelings of revulsion"?

Are you refering to the fact that a number of people have requested 60 days postponement rather than than a shorter time period?

I must say I had to chuckle at old Steve's letter - surprised you with your little hawk eyes haven't spotted it yet - Cains received it on the 21st, but Steve didn't write it until the 22nd, same with Lynn and Dave, and also Messrs Cubbon,Osborn, and Inglis.

For those that use MS Word it's always worth right clicking "properties" and removing personal information, you'd be surprised how many get caught out with that, including those who play with SoA discussion notes.

When this is all over, I am going to by some shares in the IoM postal system - "Received even before you write 'em".


cm dates

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 03:56

so CM, your conclusions are....


Not a lot really, I suppose

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 06:45

Not a lot really, I suppose if approached, I would have also written such a letter, actually a bit surprised I wasn't. Apparently said letters caused some consternation amongst the hapee hutees.

It's really time for people to be honest and stop this charade with internal poilitics that has clearly been going on for months.

Something to remember "believe nothing anybody tells you and only half believe anything you see and you shouldn't go too far wrong".


WHY?

  • markH
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:05

CM - please enlighten me, as someone trying to understand this complex mess, why would you have been happy to request another 60 day adjournment if asked?

Are you content with the SOA as it is? Or, do you believe the IOMG and/or Alix will produce something better in the next 60 days?

I'm not having a pop here, I simply don't understand why the SOA is in our interests at all. I've got US$300,000 tied up here.


The more time that passes,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:16

The more time that passes, the more the rats come out of the drains.
What is the choice? liquidation and DCS is no good for us, we will get caned, and I also want to know why there is division in the committes/core/qourum or whatever it is called today, with some members wanting one thing, and other members wanting something else. If those people cannot agree, what chance have we?

A few people know a great deal more than they are letting on - that I do know.


SoA liquidation

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:37

Both are equally useless. What on earth is going on? Are we campaigning for 100% or are we fighting for 65%?


Received 21 Jan 2008 -- even better postal system

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 03:47

The postal system is even better than you thought by a full year 1 year 1 day -- date recieved stamp 21 Jan 2008....

They received 8 months before the bank went t*ts up...


dbl post

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 03:35

dbl post


Elgee, I wouldn't draw too much from that statement

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 00:21

Elgee, I wouldn't draw too much from that statement, fairly standard from ""former directors"" of a company in administration - the final % payout will always depend on the sale / transfer of assetts..

It can't get much worse from UK -- working on 10%
Loan book -- working on a default 15>20% -- that could possibly get worse, need answers from PWC on the make up of the book - this argument individuals could be identified doesn't really wash, all we've asked for is %'s

That's it as far as assetts go -- the loan book, KSF UK -- forget the Khf £10m


Pñease would you clarify where the UK 10% comes from?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 01:59

Why would you be working on 10%. Where does this figure hail from?


These are not MY figures

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 02:17

The figures for loan default & return from KSF UK come from one of the members involved in discussions with IoMG / Alix Partners on the draft SOA - it was belived these were the % used to estimate the possible proposal and comparison with liquidation.

A quick search through other posts over the last few days (since the draft was released) will give you the actual post and another topic where I've done some calc's using these figures to show the IoMG's commitment (or lack of it) to the depositors. ie anything over 25% return from UK with a 15% default IoMG effectively gives 0% to depositors, even using worst case figures of 20% default & 10% return IoMG & other 3rd parties only commit £44m over 6 years to the scheme.


in case you can't find it

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 00:04

Peter Clucas' affidavit is here:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/200...

It is wrongly described as Bruce Clucas' affidavit (Bruce being his middle name). He should not be confused with David Clucas of the FSC who is part of the team that so excelled in regulating KSFIOM or any others of that name, as there seem to be numerous people called Clueless in high places on the Island.