COI Update?

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 04/01/2011 - 11:54

Is it only me, or are others also missing out on the COI Update reports?

Checking back, the last one I received via e-mail was dated April 2010. Since then....silence. Que pasa? Hmmmm....

Once upon a time, we heard a lot from Gavin Brake, Nigel Smith (Frog) etc, and their contributions to the cause were excellent. Now, I guess they are sworn to secrecy and as the Liquidation slowly plays its way out, there is nothing they are able to say? Do they even check this website any more?

If it wasn't for Gordon 45, Ice Crusher and Arigault etc, I hate to think where we'd be.

Meantime, the silence is deafening....

4.11111
Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (9 votes)

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

@lostinspace

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/01/2011 - 20:03

I don't know who continues to check this website. But Nigel Smith (frog) is certainly not 'sworn to secrecy' as he is not a member of the CoI ...

The Discussion Board of the ksfomdag website includes a forum dedicated to the CoI and posts made there are transmitted to a CoI member for response (as far as they are able).

Minutes of CoI meetings (edited to remove confidential information) are circulated to CoI members for verification and (eventually!) posted by the JLs on the bank website (see Ice's post).


Frog

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 03:26

Hi,

A document I have (undated, but probably from when the COI was set up?) has the following names on it:

Axa
Peter Wakeman
Skandia
Michael Lees
Gavin Brake
Simon Bessant
S&F (IOM) RBS/Boat
Stuart Roberts
Alex Marsella
Nigel Smith
William McMurrary

Total number: 497
Total Value: 372,096,695

So this is now out of date? Frog has departed? Maybe he has got all his money back? Anyway, I/we used to get COI Newsletters on quite a regular basis - last one I've seen is No. 17. Since then nothing....


Hi, Well I'm still here, but

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 12/01/2011 - 01:19

Hi,

Well I'm still here, but have little to contribute any more now the liquidation is in progress - I dip in now and again to see what's happening. I haven't got all my money back, but I'm in the fortunate position of being able to work on making some more.

The regular contributions from IOM is certainly welcome, but now we are in the well tried and tested process of liquidation, really all that is needed is regular status reports on cash flowing. I appreciate Gordon 45's analysis as it saves much time and has interesting conjecture.

I must admit, I was never interested in the political dimensions that were explored by many here, with a clear belief that nothing would come of it - but I did draw the line at the vilification through PR of almost everyone involved as, as having a lot of experience in the marketing area, it was clear that it would be counterproductive. I suppose that element really didn't help our chances of getting the loan sorted out either.... bottom line - never let a PR 'expert' out on their own!

Anyhow, I think that the main contributor to my overall wealth (for mind over pocket) has been Cottesmore with the regular jokes - I'll almost be disappointed when the liquidation closes and we won't have the benefit of his contributions any more :)


@lostinspace - COI

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 04:17

Lostinspace - The document you have is a list of the nominees to the COI ( those who put their name forward for 'election'). On the KSFIOM web site the "ïnitial" members of the COI are listed as:

i.Axa Isle of Man Limited
ii.Royal Skandia Life Assurance Limited
iii.Peter Wakeham
iv.Gavin Brake
v.The Trustees of the Singer & Friedlander (IOM) Retirement Benefit Scheme
vi.Simon Bessant
vii.Stuart Roberts

see: http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.im/Pages/2009/July/30July2009.asp

I don't recall any COI newsletters. Since they would have not met 17 times in the last 18months, I have to think you are referring to something else, possibly 'Frog's' conference call updates (the conference calls stopped once the DCS was approved by the court and the COI formed)


COI Update

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 13:05

Thanks for the clarification re the names. However, I think we're on cross purposes re the newsletters. As Arigault says correctly, below, I see these were produced by the "Partially Protected Depositors Kaupthing IOM Depositors Action Group.'

With two of these newsletters, they lead with a 'COI Update' , the last one #17 (April 2010) written by Gavin Brake and Peter Wakeham. That's what I was getting at....

Anyway, we never hear anything from Gavin Brake (Hopper?) any more, newsletter or no newsletter. Shame....


We never heard from Gavin Brake........

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/01/2011 - 01:30

The guy is like a ghost. A real Goldman '¡squid on the face of humanity¡
Lost his case for 'funds in flight' and lost motivation. Missing the small change Gavin? Teach you to seek advantage offshore? Yes Gavin, I know, just another game for you.
Now known to be building a bunker on his hundreds of acres in Devon and claiming expenses for a the vast effort he's making on our (his) behalf on the COI.
Next thing you know he'll have won a seat in the Lords for being a co-traveller with the IoM Govt in it's rollover in front of the UK banking mafia.

So what exactly was the point of anybody voting for Gavin? Who picked him? How did he weasel his way in?

What exactly have you done Gavin?
Remind me, why were we recommended to vote for this sinverguenza?
He was in with the criminals? When will we learn?

Gavin you have an invitation to visit me.


likely job rejection

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 14:02

Dear Tao,
Dont hold out too much hope for your application to the diplomatic corps. I suspect it may well be rejected on several grounds.
Meanwhile, thanks to all those who actively work on our behalf in a calm and thoughtful manner.


Follow the Tao/Gavin Brake response...

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/01/2011 - 14:58

First, I accept your invitiation to meet you. Contact me with your details and I will meet up with you.
Second, I sent you a personal email yesterday but you have not responded. Hence, with regret, this posting. As I mentioned in the email, I promised not to use the forum site any longer after being elected to the COI and signing the confi agreement. But your post is worthy of a quick, personal reply and a few depositors have brought this to my attention. I will not enter into a debate though, so please do not try.
All four retail depositor representatives continue to work hard on the most important aim - getting all of our money back with interest asap. In terms of the contribution of any one of us, I would say it was pretty much equal. Ask Simon and Stuart if you wish, since they were voted in as DST reps. Or ask Peter who was voted in by PPDG and DST. In any event, the four of us work together on all COI issues anyway.
But let's get one thing absolutely clear - because of the confi undertaking we cannot give you all the information you want, but this will not change, however much this upsets you.
In direct answer to your assertions regarding my personal contribution, there is one example I can point you towards, without breaching the confi agreement. If you look back through the early COI minutes produced by the Joint Liquidators, you should find that I came up with the idea of managing the FX risk inherent the loan book (depositors paid back in sterling, but quite a few loans in other currencies). From my banking experience I had come across a similar problem before, and I proposed a solution at a COI meeting. This was put in place early on. I cannot disclose the full details but it is an "insurance" approach locking in the gain, we are NOT taking any risk. This has often been disclosed in the frequent loan book updates provided by the Joint Liquidator on the usual website. The sums are quite large, and to the benefit of all depositors. For example, the section on the loan book in the 8 December 2010 update by the Joint Liquidator shows a positive FX position of £14.6m with sterling-euro options adding a further £2.1m and sterling-dollar options a further £0.1m to the receipts due on these loans as disclosed in the explanatory text as of 30 Nov 2010.
Massively more than the few hundred pounds of expenses I incur and claim back by the way. Overall, this idea has locked in somewhere between 1.5p and 2p of benefit to each an every depositor - including you and me. One specific/disclosable example of my contribution, as you requested, but let's be clear here - I may have come up with the original idea but the decision to go ahead was made by the entire COI.
Simon, Peter and Stuart have all made equally valid contributions, but not all are disclosable. None of us ask for, or want, any public recognition at all. I had no intention of ever having to write such a response on the forum site, but your comments below have required this to happen.
Just to make it crystal clear, I will say again, Simon, Peter and Stuart have all made equally valid contributions, but not all are disclosable. Please remember that.
I understand your frustration but throwing around personal insults won't get our money back any sooner.
You can send me your contact details through the email system for this website, and then we can arrange to meet.
Gavin Brake


Late, but present.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 27/01/2011 - 02:16

I got your reply Gavin.
And judging from what I read above it is appropriate that you said something.
I only check in here occasionally now. I haven't read below. I will and I'll respond.


Hello Gavin, I understand

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 14:42

Hello Gavin,
I understand that you have no desire to start a discussion on this forum, but perhaps another CoI member or DST person might be in a position to enlighten the rest of us with regard to the confidentiality agreement. I don't have sight of the agreement to which you signed-up, but below I have copied an extract from a typical form:

"The obligations of confidentiality and non-use will not apply with respect to any of the following:

1 information which is generally available to the public at the date of this agreement;

2 information already known to the party at the time of disclosure;

3 information which is subsequently disclosed by third parties having no obligations of confidentiality;

4 information which is or becomes generally available to the public in printed publications in general circulation in the United Kingdom through no act or default on the part of the parties or their agents, employees or professional advisers."

The above conditions seem entirely logical and fair-minded - allowing quite some leeway in their interpretation both in spirit and deed. It is also true that an enormous amount of information relating to the administration of KSF and provisional liquidation of KSFIoM that was otherwise withheld is now out in the public domain - if one has a mind to go seek (and understand!) it.

I guess I find it a bit odd that CoI members have been obliged to promise not to use the forum site. There must be an awful lot of information that you could pass on to depositors that is already in the public domain that would be better understood and presented by members of the CoI - after all we did vote you to the position in the belief that your knowledge would aid and assist us all. It does seem that although we voted our 'best talents' to the CoI, those talents have been effectively denied access by regular depositors. It is not to say that you have not aided the return of our collective monies, but we have no knowledge of what it is you have done - or whether they represent tangible benefits - or would have happened anyway.

Either IoM Confidentiality Agreements really button you all down; or you are playing things close to your chest in order not to 'cross the line'; or you are not fully scrutinising what is said to be confidential (by the JLs) and what really is confidential. I do believe there is a lot that you could explain to regular punters without compromising your integrity or stepping on PwC's toes.
Ice


Confidentiality agreement

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 15:04

"... perhaps another CoI member or DST person might be in a position to enlighten the rest of us with regard to the confidentiality agreement. "

Ice,
I have no special information on this, but the Non-Disclosure Agreement was posted on the public site as part of a DST update of 18/08/09 here: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/dst-update-18082009

It seems the final agreed version is no longer accessible (no idea why), but the version as originally proposed by PwC and marked up with the amendments made after negotiation with DAG's legal advisors is still available there. As I understand it, this is effectively the final version.


@anrigaut - NDA

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 16:12

Hi Angela,

Thanks for the link, but being denied access to the version signed by members of the CoI doesn't bode well IMO; the amended version may indicate the desired outcome of DAG, but it sure doesn't confirm the final document agreed by PwC!

If the proposed version were somewhere near the accepted wording, then the provisos I mention above are not so very dissimilar; the crux of the matter depends on what is truly 'unknown' to anyone other than that disclosed by PwC, and that which can be determined from elsewhere - and I didn't see anything about CoI members promising not to report 'anything' on the forum. There have been issues (e.g. collateral shares) that were kept confidential but now common knowledge, even so, it would be enlightening to know what did happen after the event.
Ice


@Ice - NDA

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 16:54

Hi Ice,

I have emailed ng over the 'access denied' message.

However, the DST Update does say that the amended version was agreed with PwC "after long negotiations" as an "acceptable compromise" - so certainly not just a desired outcome ...

I can't speak for Gavin, but note that he didn't say to whom he had promised not to post further on the forum. I took this to be a personal decision (ie he had promised himself) and not that he had made any such promise as part of the NDA (which I very much doubt).


Sometimes you have to

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 18:42

Sometimes you have to recognise that I'm trying to tease out more than the obvious :-)


Gavin

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 18:19

I am sure we all agree that your posting, should not have been necessary.This should now finish the misplaced outburst from Follow the Tao.
Thank you for all your efforts (and others of course) and we all know that you are working to one aim only.......EVERYBODIES money back.


COI

  • dodot
  • 10/10/08 01/06/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/01/2011 - 16:34

Gavin

Be assured I very much value the work you and other members of the COI are doing in conjunction with the Liquidator in order to maximise our return. Thank you.


We all do what we can contribute

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 14:04

Let me say that the last three years have been bad for most depositors and for, some of us the anguish goes on. However, this website has been ( and remains) a sole source of information and comfort for many. In the course of the last three years I have seen many personal, sad stories appear as the result of the KSF debacle but out of these ashes have emerged a strong, resolute spirit from depositors, large and small against the injustice of the collapse of KSFIOM. Just in human nature, we have seen, in face of the collapse of this bank, the whole gambit of human reaction - despondent, indignat, defiant, complicit, outraged. This is to be expected. So is the division amonsgst "the ranks" that has happened in time. None of this is unusual. We are only human after all! However, despite different approaches, I always expected a deference to commonality and social good graces. Personal venom and verbal accusations were left outside this website. Leave this to anyone who deserved this outside of DAG members. Don't dissolve the comrade spirit of the common goal. Many members are working hard behind the scenes:some in the fore front; some in print; others restrained by legal prohibitions but ALL are making their mark and for those of us remaining in their lamplight, they deserve our commendation and NOT condemnation. For those who do condemn, well get out there and fight the fight and stand up and be counted!!


Dotdot, I fully endorse your

  • ianw
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 11:56

Dotdot,

I fully endorse your comments regarding Gavin and all his collegues on the COI. The harsh reality is that although many people have made and continue to make massive efforts regarding our cause, no tangible benefits have been achieved to date through this route. However, we are extremely fortunate to have a committed team in the COI. I am very grateful for all their efforts and considerable unpaid time in continually challenging the liquidator and freely contributing their experience to maximise our returns.

Ian


Thanks to all

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 13:34

It can be a thankless task working on any committee and I for one fully appreciate the ( voluntary ) efforts of all four of our representatives on the COI. Indeed for all the criticism of the JLs, I also appreciate Mike Simpson's regular ( at least monthly ) postings on the website and the follow up analysis / insights given by Glen, Anrigaut and others. In regard to information we appear to be better served than the creditors of KSFUK who appear to have to wait for 6 monthly updates from E&Y.

Hopefully all of these efforts will expedite ( 100% ) return of our money.


@lostinspace-COI etc

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 09:23

The list of creditors elected to the CoI as posted by expatvictim is I believe still current. Certainly the 4 depositor reps are still there. They are Peter Wakeham, Gavin Brake, Simon Bessant, Stuart Roberts and were all present at the last conference call (as shown in the meeting notes and posted by Ice). The other 3 members (representing the Life Companies and the S&F Retirement Scheme) would be John Hollis, Neill Angus and Mark Kiernan.

As for the 17 newsletters, I think you must be referring to the Newsletters of PPDG - nothing to do with the CoI. The last of these I saw was indeed n° 17. DST continues to send out regular updates to all depositors registered on the ksfiomdag website.


CoI members

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 04:03

Present
Mike Simpson, Joint Liquidator
Peter Spratt, Joint Liquidator
Mark Loftus, PwC
David Morell, PwC
Simon Bessant
Gavin Brake
Stuart Roberts
Peter Wakeham
John Hollis
Charles Hewetson, Reed Smith
Peter Hardy, Reed Smith
Seth Caine, Cains
Gunnar Jonsson, Jonsson & Hall
Johannes Eiriksson, Jonsson & Hall
Apologies
Neill Angus
Mark Kiernan


@Lostinspace

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/01/2011 - 17:23

Hello Lostinspace,

To see the notes on the CoI Conference call you can paste the following address into your browser:

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.im/Pages/2010/December/23December2010.asp

This provides you with a short-cut to the relevant page on the KSFIoM website. I am guessing that some of the CoI members joined with Mike Simpson on a conference call and discussed the old 'chestnuts' (parental guarantee; liquidation costs; KSFUK claim; expected dividend etc.) It would appear that the JL wrote the notes and posted them on the website only after 5 weeks had passed - and then only after getting a 'reminder' from Anrigaut. It seems to me that we depositors gain nothing by having members of a CoI who are legally bound to remain silent - the IoM put one over us there good and proper. How can the rank and file discuss their concerns with the CoI when those on the committee cannot provide feedback? We've been trussed and stuffed like Xmas turkeys....

Précis
1 Parental guarantee - not admitted, cost of review likely to be more than any benefit.
2 KSFUK Claim - still pending (Oh yawn...)
3 Loan book - a few defaulters are having their goods sold to recover money
4 Dividend - JLs expected > 7% (would have been nice to know without waiting 5 weeks).
5 Liquidation costs - higher than anticipated. (By whom? We always thought it would be more!)
6 Concern over IoM TM possibly 'misleading' creditors by stating 97% final recovery - who would believe an IoM official? Especially a Treasury Minister! There are an awful lot of loan monies to be recovered over the next few years from both KSF banks - who can truly 'predict' anything? Will the developments in the Bahamas get finished? Will they sell? Will the unfinished developments go to rot and ruin? The same applies to many other works. These are primarily 'balloon' loans - no capital repayments are due until the end of each of their terms - and will that principle materialise or not? No one 'knows' we just hope that it all works out over the coming years; other than that, it's all guesswork.
Ice


Utility of CoI

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/01/2011 - 19:48

RE: "It seems to me that we depositors gain nothing by having members of a CoI who are legally bound to remain silent - the IoM put one over us there good and proper. How can the rank and file discuss their concerns with the CoI when those on the committee cannot provide feedback? "

While I share Ice's frustrations over the limits imposed on the CoI as regards dissemination of information, I cannot agree that we gain nothing by having four depositor members on the Committee of 7. I genuinely believe they represent our interests and do not simply act as a rubber stamp for whatever the Liquidators do.

It is clear that there are matters discussed there which cannot, for valid reasons, be widely disseminated - either for reasons of confidentiality with respect to third parties (eg in relation to outstanding loans) or indeed in the interests of the body of creditors (as in the ongoing forensic investigations). This inevitably means that the minutes/notes of CoI meetings are edited accordingly. However, the very fact that the JLs are required to release such minutes at all was the result of DAG's insistence and redrafting of the confidentiality agreement with CoI members (something which I believe all such Committees have to be bound by - and not only in the IOM). I have no reason to suppose that 'our' members do not ensure that nothing which can reasonably be communicated is held back. Indeed, my regular contacts with one of the CoI members convince me otherwise.

So yes, it is frustrating. But that doesn't mean it is without benefit. Maybe it is something we just have to live with.


OK, tell me of one extra

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/01/2011 - 04:09

OK, tell me of one extra penny gained by having a CoI or one dodgy deed disclosed...

"I have no reason to suppose that 'our' members do not ensure that nothing which can reasonably be communicated is held back. Indeed, my regular contacts with one of the CoI members convince me otherwise."

Indeed, this website is full of varied and interesting feedback from the CoI members eliciting creditors questions, raising points of order for presentation at the meetings etc - couldn't ask for more could we?
Ice


CoI & creditors

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/01/2011 - 20:27

This is a general response to the issues raised in this thread, not just the comment above.

The NDA or confidentiality agreement was heavily negotiated (as far as these things go) - including a consultation with English QC on the principle of the request for an NDA. Most of the changes that you see in the mark-up linked to by anrigaut above were requests by me (including the various caveats) - I am reasonably familiar with NDAs in my professional capacity. The form she linked to is the one that was signed. It also contains the following paragraph:

"5. I undertake on the basis that after each meeting of the Committee the Joint Liquidators will place upon the Company’s website an update report (“Update Report”) disclosing such information as can be put in the public domain and that the Joint Liquidators shall have regard to the views of the members of the Committee when determining what information is to be placed on the Company’s website in each Update Report"

This paragraph (in particular the last phrase ("and that the Joint Liquidators shall have regard to...") was specifically negotiated by me following on from discussions and concerns I had surrounding the NDA and communication with creditors, and is one of the reasons why it is inefficient for the CoI to report separately on CoI meetings or matters arising from them.

A number of questions that creditors wanted asked were listed and addressed in late 2009 in a Q&A list - see: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/qa-list-committee-inspection

I for one am happy to deal or raise specific further questions that people wish to have raised with the JLs or directly dealt with by us, and have done so to date, with the support of the other members of DST.

It is regrettably the case that those things that people probably have most interest in are the very ones that will be sensitive matters and that will be caught by the terms of the NDA.

Please rest assured that I for one, and, in my view, all the "retail consumer" members of the CoI, remain committed to their roles. I am acutely aware of our responsibility to creditors generally - that involves monitoring and steering, where appropriate, PwC's and their advisers' conduct of matters, and representing legitimate concerns of creditors with them. I think if you read the CoI minutes, you will see this being done, although it is not there in chapter and verse for the reasons mentioned above (and of course because the preparation of the minutes is also a cost of the liquidation).

I think it won't surprise anyone if I say that there are matters that are in hand that may, if they come to fruition, increase our returns. But we have to be circumspect about them and also supervise the day-to-day efficient management of the liquidation, whilst progressing those matters. Those first two items are our main priorities beyond the general representation of creditors' interests and concerns. If anyone has specific areas of concern, they should feel free to raise them with me or any member of the CoI.

Best wishes to all for 2011,

K E


Hi KE, Thanks for making the

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/01/2011 - 15:31

Hi KE,

Thanks for making the effort to respond; nothing personal, but I just have to make the following comments 'cos they're so flaming obvious!

Quote: "...It also contains the following paragraph:

  1. I undertake on the basis that after each meeting of the Committee the Joint Liquidators will place upon the Company’s website an update report (“Update Report”) disclosing such information as can be put in the public domain and that the Joint Liquidators shall have regard to the views of the members of the Committee when determining what information is to be placed on the Company’s website in each Update Report"

1 How do you 'undertake' that the JLs place an update report 'disclosing such information as can be put in the public domain' on the website? (do you put a gun to their heads!)
2 Who determines what can be put on the website - the CoI or the JLs? (ha, bloody ha)
3 Who writes the report - the CoI or the JLs? (what a wordsmith he is [nearing agreement to agreeing]...)
4 Who chooses when to put it on the website (5 weeks late) - the CoI or the JLs? (ha, bloody ha)
5 How exactly, do you ensure that the JLs take due regard of the views of the CoI members? (thumbscrews?)

Fact is, the JLs determine the extent of any report; write it up; send it out to you guys for 'approval'; and then stick it on the website when they see fit (they care little of depositors concerns to provide data in a timely fashion) - and there ain't nuthin' any of you can do about the deed once its done. I'm sorry, but there it is, the JLs have total control of the whole sorry business and the CoI are just bit-parts to a stage-managed production of PWC and the IoM Courts. Nothing of real significance has been resolved - specifically the value of the KSFIoM claim that has remained an itching sore since Nov 2008. PwC cannot fix this with E&Y of their own accord let alone with anyone else having their tuppence-worth. Both sides are scratching around for some way to prolong this ongoing saga even of it costs more to fix it than pay out what's there already. It's a joke - and we are the fools being taken for an even longer ride on the back of this money-burning beast.


Ice - role of CoI

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 11/01/2011 - 12:30

Hi Ice

Thanks for your response. My responses to your issues/queries (in order) are as follows:

1 - I think you need to read the undertaking more carefully (anrigaut linked to it above,
albeit in a marked-up format). It seems the 'final' version was never uploaded (a pure oversight by other DST personnel), but I can confirm that the version I signed is as indicated in the mark-up format.

It is wrong to read this paragraph of the NDA in isolation from the rest of the undertaking. Of course I did not undertake anything on behalf of the JLs. In summary, however, what it says is that I undertook to keep things confidential on the basis described in my post above.

If the JLs don't keep to their side of the bargain, then it is arguable that my side of the bargain is also in doubt (of course, that is a gross oversimplification and overstatement but it would be substantial ammunition in a court hearing – you may not have any faith in the IOM Court, but that is where the liquidation is happening, so I can't really see who else to turn to as an arbiter on this sort of thing). The threat should be enough, in reality/

2 (and 5) - again, you really need to read the undertaking. The fact is, the undertaking says that the JLs determine it but if we disagree then we can go to court for a determination on that. Clearly we hope it would never come to that, but it is something we would do if necessary (and the 4 ‘depositor’ reps constitute a majority on the CoI) and as such should represent a strong deterrent to the JLs against over-riding our collective views.

3 - the JLs write the minutes (or their lawyers do). However, corrections can be - and are - made by CoI members (see below). Because we had problems previously on their accuracy and completeness, physical meetings
(as opposed to telephone conference calls) are now recorded to ensure they are full and accurate (as I for one had some issues on that). Other things can get in the way of their timely production by the JLs. The minutes aren’t top
priority for the JLs – other more important tasks such as attending meetings in Iceland etc. can intervene - something I accept - but that does not take away from the fact that they should be published within a meaningful timeframe.

4 - the JLs decide, but of course we nag them.

All the points referred to above on the NDA were considered and discussed at the time, and legal advice was sought, as I mentioned in my post above.

Your description of the procedure for production of the minutes is a little flippant and I’m not sure what your end goal is in making these statements. However, for the record, as I mentioned above, the minutes are in fact subject to review by the CoI and are commented on by the CoI, which does not simply act as a rubber-stamp. I can’t show you evidence of that, you will just have to take my word for it.

In terms of provision of data, there is little point in providing data that is inaccurate or incomplete, since this will only raise (legitimate) questions from creditors. Dealing with creditor queries is already a significant (and not inexpensive) workstream - and one of the areas that the CoI monitors is the costs of the liquidation.

I agree that the CoI are not going to produce a rabbit out of a hat or uncover the smoking gun in the library that some people seem (still) to be holding out for. I can only draw your attention to what I have said in my post above
on that and on the management of the liquidation generally.

I am sorry if you thought that the CoI would somehow solve all the problems that the creditors face, but, with respect, I don’t think that this is the remit of the CoI. Whilst I fully understand your and everyone else's
frustrations, I don't see that there is anything to be gained by impotently shaking one’s fist at the sky (or the CoI) and raging against the fact it is raining (or that it rained a year and a half ago or even two years ago). We
have sought to deal with creditors’ queries, to represent the concerns of creditors, and to hold the JLs accountable for their actions, and will continue to do so.