Creditor Committee update

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 07/07/2009 - 16:02

On Monday night at 8:00pm, (following a HNW conference call at 7pm on Sunday) Gavin wrote on behalf of the HNW to the DST on two issues.

Firstly, having taken the PWC issue and conflict liquidator proposal seriously and debated it thoroughly, the email recognised that the DST and HNW Group have different views on the matter. We suggested how best to move forward, and that we need to respect each other's views and vote in accordance with our stated positions.

Secondly, regarding membership of the Creditors Committee. The HNW approach has been supportive of DST to date. In all our communications to depositors we expressedly stated we would be supporting the DST nomination. For example, we came up with the idea of a block nomination of 4, and we actively pushed for one of these to be a DST representative. We still believe this to have been the right decision - being mutually supportive of the key groups of depositors, and should have ensured we all get at least one seat each on the Committee.

Over the past few days, as our levels of proxy support became apparent, the HNW group extended a second offer of mutual support to the DST in order to guarantee depsoitors four seats on the committee - this was namely that the DST, the insurers and the HNW work together to give each group one additional seat on the Committee. If we all worked together this could have be achieved since we would have been able to reach in excess of the required 50% level by number and by value. Gavin has had a huge amount of discussion with the insurance cos that having two, two and two reps on the committee would make sense. In effect, that would mean on a committee of seven, we would have four retail depositors, with the right skills to represent us.
We told the DST team that we believed both our supporting groups of depositors expect us to cooperate in this fashion.

Our offer of mutual support was NOT accepted by DST.

We have yet to receive an explanation as to why DST resisted this.

This morning, as you know, the vote was held. As above, we did not support the conflict liquidator proposal put forward by DST, which was not a lightly made decision.

When the resolution to pass the block nomination of 4 was put forward - including Gavin Brake and Stuart Roberts, DST voted AGAINST the motion. Of all the votes cast, DST was the only one to vote against. the only one. Meaning that we DID NOT get two automatic depositor seats on the committee.

So then they went to an open vote. There were 11 nominations - two island depositors (lees and McMurray), two insurance cos, three HNW, three DAG, and one pension fund. Each group was alllowed to use their proxy six or seven times (I cant remember).

Think through some of the numbers (approx values only) then take your own shot at guessing about who put which votes where... Robert had some 300 - 380 votes, and 74Million in value, HNW 145-180 votes and £65 million in value, the insurance companies £290million and 11 votes (but several were voting independently).

....we will have to wait to see the outcome now, but one thing I'm prepared to guess about is that the island guys are going to get huge protest votes against DAG from the insurance companies.

In conclusion, possibly we now could have a cred committee made of two insurance cos, two island people, one pension fund, and maybe two seats left for depositors

Had DST co-operated with ourselves and the insurance companies we would have had a committee comprising 4 depositor reps right now.

Please can we ask for a decent explanation from DAG as to why DST would not support the initial block resolution.

3.5
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (34 votes)

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

CC Voting Block Vote

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 10:47

Anrigaut.

I missed this debate yesterday (Saturday) because I was working, but let me add some history here to what happened. The block vote of 4 was my idea which I put to PWC back in May. I actually put to them the idea of a block of 5 because at that time I assumed the DCS would want a seat, just like the FSCS did in the UK situation for KSFUK. I think I first suggested this to them on the day before the SOA vote. To me it was a no-brainer. Looking at the way the SOA vote came out, it was very likely that any CC vote would result in a similar situation - the insurers & DCS controlling the VALUE vote, with DAG (DST + HNW) controlling the NUMBER vote. It struck me that, unless there was a way in which both "camps" could be "encourged" to vote for any one candidate, then in theory all candidates could be "blocked" from the Committee (given that each would need 50% both by number and value).

Hence I suggested a block vote of 5 candidates (at that time, DST, HNW, DCS, insurer, one other). A few weeks later the DCS decided against having a seat. Hence it went back to 4 instead of 5. This block of 4 still meant that, rationally, it ought to have received both the value vote and the number vote. It was a blatant way of trying to get opposing groups to vote together on a resolution which offered mutual benefit.

I have made my views clear on DSTs refusal to support this resolution elsewhere - I will not repeat them here, but I thought you would appreciate knowing the above. Being direct, as I tend to be, who would have benefitted most from this block of 4 ? First, Boal & Co for the pension fund trustees, second HNW, third equal DST and the insurers. This ranking is based on voting power, which I had to guess at that time given this idea was suggested long before the proxies came in. Had the DCS been in the picture, third equal would have been DST/insurers/DCS.

I would observe though, that given recent events & actions by the DST, it took a lot of work to convince certain parties to vote yes for any resolution including DST nominations on the CC. I am not passing judgement here on those recent events & actions (court action, press releases etc), but we all must recognise that there is signficant hostility towards DST from other groups of depositors. The expenses ruling is a good example of this. Remember that the vast number of the 11,000 or so depositors support neither DST nor HNW, but everyone over £50k (retail, plus bondholders > £20k) will now pay for DSTs SOA costs since 28 Nov 2008 through a pro-rata levy on your deposit. In fairness to DST, they did not ask the Deeemster to make this ruling - they wanted the Treasury to pay, but this is what the Deemster decided on. There is a significant body of depositors who did not support DST's court action but now have to pay for its costs through this pro rata levy. Hence their view to "keep DST off the CC". Personally I believe this view is fundamentally wrong - hence my work to offer DST a guaranteed two seats on the CC, which they rejected. Do remember also that this was a guaranteed package deal which would have given retail depositors 4 seats out of 7 overall, ie. a majority.

In terms of voting rules for the CC the problem here is lack of clarity/precedent in IOM law & bankruptcy practice. I have not looked at the law myself, but from advice I have received I understand that the 50% thresholds by value and number are required for any individual to be automatically voted on to the CC at the meeting itself. What happens now is that PWC count the votes received for each candidate (by value and number) and report these facts to the Deemster, who then has to decide. In our case, it may be that one or two candidates have both the number and value needed, but I would doubt that this will apply to 7 people.

In the UK, in such a situation, more weighting is now given to the value vote rather than the number vote. The DST had better hope that the Deemster does not decide to follow UK practice.


@Hopper - CC voting

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 12:31

Gavin:

Thank you for your honest reply, which I appreciate. I think I have probably said enough on this now, but would like to make just a few comments on your reply:

  • the main point of my post above concerned the process itself and the fact that the JDROs could put forward any resolution which appeared to be expressing their implied support of certain candidates over others (and that even before nominations had been officially invited). I realise this may have helped DAG, but I guess I'm too much of an idealist: I want us to 'win' but not at any cost. I can't blame you for trying, but am still surprised that the JDORs accepted (and tend to wonder why).

  • "who would have benefitted most from this block of 4 ? First, Boal & Co for the pension fund trustees, second HNW, third equal DST and the insurers. This ranking is based on voting power"
    Well yes, your proposal would indeed have benefitted HNW more than DST; I appreciate your honesty in saying that. Given that, it is surely not surprising that it met with less support among the latter than among the former (who you admit were also divided on the issue).

  • "we all must recognise that there is signficant hostility towards DST from other groups of depositors": unfortunately yes; but it is clear that significant hostilities exist also towards HNW. I did my best to pour oil, but the divide obviously goes deeper than that.

  • "In terms of voting rules for the CC the problem here is lack of clarity/precedent in IOM law & bankruptcy practice. I have not looked at the law myself, but from advice I have received I understand that the 50% thresholds by value and number are required for any individual to be automatically voted on to the CC at the meeting itself. What happens now is that PWC count the votes received for each candidate (by value and number) and report these facts to the Deemster, who then has to decide."
    Agreed about the lack of clarity! I have not looked at the law either, but it does appear (as stated in the Letter to Creditors) that only 50% by value and number can guarantee a seat on the CC (though what would happen in the unlikely event that more than the maximum number - 7 in this case - achieved that threshold is also not clear). Beyond that the procedure is ill-defined - at least insofar as Creditors were informed; I'd be interested to know your source for the information - new to me - that the Deemster 'has to decide'. Was this fact explained in the meeting prior to the vote? If the Deemster has to decide with no guidance as to on what basis, that is truly incredible... but it seems anything can happen you know where! Presumably the Deemster will hold up the list (by value and number) and stick a few pins in it? Once more, it beggars belief. But then, I'm a mathematician, not a lawyer...

Thanks for trying anyway. We can only wait and see.


Anrigaut

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 07:11

Hi, I asked PWC what would happen if no one candidate received 50/50 on the day. They told me it then goes to the Deemster to decide. I think I asked this in late May or early June - hence the block of 4 or 5 idea.
Gavin


Gavin: I said I'd said enough

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 08:19

Gavin:
I said I'd said enough on this subject, but I can't let that go. To my mind, if you - or anyone else for that matter - had been aware a month or more before the vote (as you now say you were) that the system in place for voting for the Committee was non-sensical and thus inoperable in the quite likely event that exactly seven candidates would not receive 50/50, surely the right and proper thing to have done would have been to alert all DAG members and work, together with DST, to ensure that this crazy and unacceptable anomaly was rectified, by pressing the JDORs to seek guidance from the judge - not after the event but before, so that a fair and open election could take place under well defined rules guaranteed to give a result. Instead of which it now appears that you attempted to connive with them to get around this potential problem and prevent the anomaly from coming to light (actually, the problem could still have arisen over the election to fill the 3 seats remaining from 7 candidates). Moreover, if I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), you did this off your own bat without consulting DST, who still enjoy majority support in the DAG. And then you wonder why they did not support your resolution?

You will no doubt reply that this would have guaranteed seats for DAG. But I repeat that, for me at least, the end does not justify the means.

Now we are faced with the unhealthy situation that the JDORs, now with full knowledge of exactly how the votes were cast, can go to the Deemster with a concocted proposal as to which of the candidates who did not pass the 50/50 bar should be elected to complete the 7-member committee. Since there are obviously infinitely many criteria which could be proposed to order the list of candidates taking into account, in some ad hoc proportion, both the number and value of the votes cast for them- and which could give different outcomes - this clearly opens the way for the JDORs to exercise THEIR preference as to who (apart from those already elected) will sit on a committee whose job will be to monitor their performance. Brilliant!

This is in no way the fault of the creditors who simply voted as they saw fit and had a right to expect that their preferences would be duly and honestly reflected in the result according to the rules in place. Of course, the root cause lies in the faulty legislation. But those who were aware of this in advance and did nothing about it must - in my view - bear a heavy responsibility.


Anrigaut,I am struggling to

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 09:22

Anrigaut,

I am struggling to get to grips with the focus of your attention here. I think you are saying that our biggest problem is that we are unclear of the way the voting rules would work, and we have to retrospectively find this out. This is a red herring. How do you see that it makes any significant difference to the fact that we could have had four seats on the cc and now we dont? How could knowing the voting rules have changed the outcome for us one iota? All I can see is that any way you slice it, we voluntarily shot ourselves in the foot, anyone knows that voting rules in a democracy are majority based, which we could have very easily worked together to achieve. It appears that we are now trying to focus the debate on the culpability of the deemster and JDORs, to me that is just another waste of emotional and intellectual energy for all the - already fraught - parties concerned.

I am a large depositor with a lot to lose, and the only thing I see is that it would have been a MUCH easier ride for us for the next five years if we had four seats on the creditors committee as retail depositors.

The Creditors Committee is there to represent the different groups of depositors - insurers, HNW, DST, trade creditors. No one group should dominate, and it should consist of individuals who can bring different skills to the table. This view was behind our offer to work with DST and the insurers to create a Committee of 2 DST, 2 HNW, 2 Insurers, 1 trade creditor.

HNW offered DST a strategy for us each to have one guaranteed seat (via the resolution appointing 4 en block). DST rejected this and voted its proxy against it. DST alone prevented this happening.

HNW also offered DST a strategy for us each to have two guaranteed seats (four in total). DST rejected this offer.

I do not understand the reason why the DST voted against the resolution appointing Stuart Roberts, Gavin, Axa and the pension fund trustees. The HNW voted to support the DST. So did the insurers. The DST was the only group to vote against this resolution, which surprised everyone. These actions have marginalised the DST even further in the eyes of the insurers and IOM community, with whom we HAVE to work for the next five years.

The DST has used its (how many of yours?) proxies to create a situation of complete uncertainty regarding the membership of the Creditors Committee. We could have easily had a Committee decided by now, with 4 retail depositor representatives out of 7. Instead the DST has created a situation where, right now, we are not certain that any retail depositor representatives will be given a seat. Why take such risks ? Is this in the interests of retail depositors - ie DAG members ?

Debating the rights and wrongs about how the votes would be counted in an ideal world is just deflecting the issue.


@liebenk, banna - re CC Voting

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:16

Liebenk,

I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. I too am struggling. Maybe banna's comments below - which sum up very well most of my concerns on this issue - will help to make it clearer. Thank you banna for putting it so well.

I would just like to add that
i) I was not discussing the outcome of the resolution you refer to; for that I prefer to wait for the statement from DST which I think will not be long in coming
ii) rather I was questioning the apparently undercover way in which the resolution was arrived at by, I suspect, some sort of wheeling and dealing with the JDORs; for a group (HNW) which trumpets its so-called transparency at every opportunity, I find that worrying - not only for the past but for the future
iii) the fact that the voting rules were not only not known but not even formulated in advance means that the JDORs can now attempt to fiddle the results (which they of course know) to produce the result that suits them best; your group was aware at least a month before the vote that this could happen, but did nothing to resolve the question - other than by trying to circumvent it as you thought best through secret discussions and no consultation with either DST or the DAG membership in general ; was that in DAG's best interest? Moreover, had your resolution passed, the vote counting problem would still have existed for the election of the 3 remaining members.
iv) my impression to date is that HNW played a significant role in shooting us in the foot; you say "we could easily have worked together ...". But isn't that the point? As far as I can see, you did NOT work together but made your own deal and then expected DST to fall in with it (see banna's post for more on this).
v) I am not trying to focus the blame on the JDORs - and certainly not on the Deemster who has as yet done nothing and is in an unenviable position. Though I do think the JDORs should have acted to obtain clarification of the silly and unworkable rules they were asked to apply.
vi) I do not accept your tacit assumption that the retail depositors belong in any way to two distinct groups (DST, HNW); many on this site do not wish to be so classified and many other depositors are not even 'members' of DAG; this is a new idea which I find highly disturbing

The rest I think is well summed up by banna.


OK Anrigaut

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:50

Its clear you hold some very strong views on this matter, which its obvious that no matter how many times Gavin, myself, nigel or any of us reply, you are not going to be persuaded otherwise. I am comfortable that the people who asked us to represent them are supportive of the actions we have taken, and have been taken with noble intent.

BUT I guess you cant please everyone all the time and I accept that you think we have done the wrong thing, so I throw my arms up in defeat!


OK Anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 12:02

HNW represents only around 150 depositors. Whether or not they are all happy remains to be seen, but I think that that number must be taken to be the upper limit on those depositors who are happy with HNW's actions. There are around 2500 depositors in DAG.

I am confused by the use of the word "noble" above, in relation to members of the HNW committee:

http://www.dictionary.net/noble

"Noble \No"ble\, n.

"1. A person of rank above a commoner; a nobleman; a peer.

"2. An English money of account, and, formerly, a gold coin, of the value of 6 s. 8 d. sterling, or about $1.61.

"3. (Zo["o]l.) A European fish; the lyrie.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

May we assume (1), and is that by value of deposit or birth?


Lastworditus

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 13:04

I think we have all had enough of this immature lastworditus.


@elgee

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 13:01

There are about 2600 members of this site. According to many, there is a proportion of this number that are 'enemy spies', and a large number, possibly the majority, that are fully protected under the DCS for whom I would imagine the current posturing between the DAG and HNW is just another insignificance. So to claim, with such certainty, that the DAG represents 2500 depositors would seem to be pushing the bounds of reality slightly, in fact at the moment I am not sure who the DAG really represents as all they appear to be doing is making more and more enemies amongst other depositor groups and those that depositors are going to have to work with in order to get the best return.


You forgot the intended definition...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 12:41

Definition: Possessing eminence, elevation, dignity, etc.; above whatever is low, mean, degrading, or dishonorable; magnanimous; as, a noble nature or action; a noble heart.


You forgot the intended definition...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 13:04

Ice: Thanks for that. It did not appear in the source (I gave the link), but is that really the intended definition? Eminence, elevation? Or just dignity?


Elgee, You are right! on this

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 12:20

Elgee, You are right! on this matter we represented 150-180 depositors. DST 300 depositors. Both around the same amount of value. Neither even close to the 11,000 depositors in the bank. The fact remains that for those we both represent, it would have been better to have four of us - the majority - on the committee. I am sorry you picked up on noble and took some kind of aversion to it. No you are wrong, there was no implication in the use of the word. Farmers in Africa dont have any delusions of grandeur as you suggest, they just have a pretty tough life. Should I send you the photo of my father again to remind you that we are actually people standing to lose our homes and farms - not a blog called liebenk specifically here to be at the mercy of your humour?


Elgee, You are right! on this

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 22:17

Liebenk: All depositors have fathers and most of them have siblings, families and children. All of them are "people" and the DST does not single out any one group as more deserving than any other, nor claim that one group knows better than all other depositors what is best for them.

It is the actions taken by the committee of your group, the HNV, HNW, MTFK or whatever TFK it is currently called, that have been damaging, not its existence. They have been divisive and have negatived much of DST's work. I think that is a great pity.

Please see:
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/setting-record-straight-dst

Also, a little humour from time to time does no harm


voting on the creditors' committee

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 10:13

Liebenk,
Like you I am struggling to understand a few things .

But what I am struggling to understand is:

  1. Why has this supposed clarification of the manoeuverings that went on in the background prior to the meeting on July 7th only now come in to the public domain?
    2.What right did the HNW have to propose itself and among others the Pension fund Trustees as members of the Committee up to one month before the meeting? Without any discussion with other depositors.Many of whom have more money at risk than some in the HNW group.
  2. Why was this debate not openly arranged on the site before the meeting? Why was the apparent split hidden by you from us until the last moment?
    4.Had the HNW group seriously considered the injustice of allowing the pension fund trustees to sit on the committee and gain de facto accreditation as a creditor? Do you regard it as just that we should have to fund the pension fund from our deposits?
    5.What other discussions went on between you and PWC? Were you party to the presence of the new PWC nomination which supposedly allows PWC to provide the supplementary means to investigate any wrongdoing on the island and pursue any guilty parties?
    In what way is this better than the conflict liquidator?? Do you agree it it will certainly be more costly? Wouldn't an independent conflict liquidator be less open to pressure from PWC? Do you really believe that an added member of the PWC team is going to put at risk the future business opportunities for PWC on the island?
    If you were party to this proposal why did you not put it up for discussion with the rest of us as a counter proposal to the conflict liquidator?
  3. As far as the action for costs against IOMT and PWC is concerned why did you not robustly argue that PWC should not have the right to charge us for work they did for IOMT? Would that have ruined the relationship you were obviously trying to establish with them?

Liebenk, it is no good HNW negotiating in secret with PWC and then claiming that you are the injured parties - and that if only the rest of us had done what you want then all would be well. if you had told us what you were doing you might have got more input from the rest of us and not made the evident mistakes you have made.

You should understand that I am not taking part in the HNW vs DST argument. I am not affiliated to either group. I am strongly 'affiliated' to the large sum of money my family has at risk and make up my mind about issues with the best logical approach I can muster. I do not consider HNW to be blameless in the present shambles.


Hi banna I will give you as

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:41

Hi banna

I will give you as honest an answer as I can.

Q Why has this supposed clarification of the manoeuverings that went on in the background prior to the meeting on July 7th only now come in to the public domain?
A. I think you are asking about our talks with Ins cos and PWC? If not, let me know who you are referring to
There are many good reasons for us to be talking with them, and its important that its clear we are talking with them in the interests of getting the max return on our money, its the wrong language to be suggesting there is some subterfuge or underhanded plot going on. Here are some of the reasons we believe we should be talking with all stakeholders as often and transparently as we can:
- to build relationships and trust with the people we need to be working with for the next five years
- to understand as much about their thinking as position as we can to be able to make the most informed decisions possible about our (HNW) steps.
- and as soon as we had some clarity, we 1. proposed the resolution which was in the public domain and 2. contacted DST with our proposal.
This was then discussed at the committee meeting, voted on, and then communicated to the people who have provided us with their proxies, and defacto responsibility for their money. Those are the people we had a responsibility towards, and an obligation to share information with. We have been very clear how we operate, and how we take decisions.

Q.What right did the HNW have to propose itself and among others the Pension fund Trustees as members of the Committee up to one month before the meeting? Without any discussion with other depositors.Many of whom have more money at risk than some in the HNW group.
- I guess it was not a 'right', nor did we position it as such, it was a proposal, which had to be voted on, which all stakeholders were able to vote on, and which DST voted against, for reasons known to themselves, but that was their right. I am questioning the sanity of doing that. As depositors together it had to have been better to get those two seats. I guess you are right, individually some depositors might have more than other individuals, but we were proposing ourselves as a group of £70Mil value, which relative to insurance cos, pension fund, DST felt significant enough to be at least a proposition.

Q. Why was this debate not openly arranged on the site before the meeting? Why was the apparent split hidden by you from us until the last moment?
- again, the language you are using is incorrect, 'hidden' implies some plot. This is just a group of depositors doing what they believe will be in the best interests of the people they have been asked to represent
- the site has 2700 registered users, and only ever some 20 or so on at a time. the bank has 11000 depositors, the site does not represent the majority of deposits in the bank. Should we be openly debating on a site with a few hundred active users, or with the creditors who hold the max value - the ins cos, or with the people who hold the other large amount of retail depositor proxies - the DST. In the name of expediency - we spoke with ins cos and DST.
- if you gave your proxy to DST then you should be asking why this was not put to you, so far I have not had a single HNW member (180) complain about lack of information, access to questioning us, or how or why decisions were made
- I dont understand the split point. We openly wrote to DST to propose the vote to get us four seats as soon as we could, which was the weekend before the CC meeting, which was when the proposal emerged.

Q.Had the HNW group seriously considered the injustice of allowing the pension fund trustees to sit on the committee and gain de facto accreditation as a creditor? Do you regard it as just that we should have to fund the pension fund from our deposits?
A. No, this has not been a hot topic of conversation between us, we were focussed on how retail depositors could maximise their opportunities for majority seats on the council. Bearing in mind we knew we were seeking a majority by number and value, we were focussed on negotiations to achieve that for the retail depositors. I dont think the insurances companies would ever have given retail depositors their value vote for say five seats, and them take two.
I'm probably not best qualified to comment on this, suffice to say we did not agonise over it.

Q.What other discussions went on between you and PWC? Were you party to the presence of the new PWC nomination which supposedly allows PWC to provide the supplementary means to investigate any wrongdoing on the island and pursue any guilty parties? In what way is this better than the conflict liquidator?? Do you agree it it will certainly be more costly? Wouldn't an independent conflict liquidator be less open to pressure from PWC? Do you really believe that an added member of the PWC team is going to put at risk the future business opportunities for PWC on the island?
If you were party to this proposal why did you not put it up for discussion with the rest of us as a counter proposal to the conflict liquidator?
As far as the action for costs against IOMT and PWC is concerned why did you not robustly argue that PWC should not have the right to charge us for work they did for IOMT? Would that have ruined the relationship you were obviously trying to establish with them?

A: on all of these PWC questions, Gavin (hopper), myself and Nigel (frog) have tried to explain as best we can elsewhere, so I will not go into it here again. We have explained:
- how we came to the decisions we did AND highlevel why we came to the decisions we did. I appreciate you might not agree, but theres no point in us covering the same ground on the site
- We have provided the details of the thinking to the 180 people in the HNW group. I respect that the committees decision is not the opinion everyone has, but please respect our right to form our own opinion on it. Again, the members of the HNW group have had access to questioning us personally on it, and general updates on the decision
- We will not be apologetic about having ongoing dialogue with PWC. It is not some secret plot. it makes very good sense for us to be doing it. Nigels conference calls and subsequent relationship with Mike Simpson has been very helpful to many depositors for many months. The more dialogue we have, the more hope we have of influencing and understanding the direction the liquidation will take over the next five years. This is a bank in liquidation, not a John Grisham novel
- we have also discussed elsewhere that the HNW vote would have made zero difference anyway to the outcome of the proposal as we would not have swung the vote either way, so all of this although interesting vigorous debate is consuming our emotional and intellectual energy. I would REALLY recommend that everyone rather spend their time writing to MPs than revisit this every day.

Q. it is no good HNW negotiating in secret with PWC and then claiming that you are the injured parties - and that if only the rest of us had done what you want then all would be well. if you had told us what you were doing you might have got more input from the rest of us and not made the evident mistakes you have made.
A: We are not claiming the HNW are the injured party. Unless we get incredibly lucky now, every single one of us as retail depositors will be the injured party. But that is my opinion, and you can form yours. I guess I have nothing further to add, except to re-iterate that 'negotiating in secret with PWC' is inaccurate. We are in ongoing dialogue with PWC, and believe we should be. If you think this is wrong, please let me know what your suggestion is .... is it better for us not speak to them at all to avoid the suggestion that we are meeting in secret?

regards,
Adrienne


strategy and stakeholders

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 14:59

hello Adrienne,

thanks for your reply to my posting. I am grateful.

My posting was not intended to suggest that there was any "subterfuge or underhanded plot" on the part of HNW group. We have to get away from this continuous bickering and realise that we are all members of one group of depositors whose only aim should be to get 100% of our money as fast as possible. What I said was a reaction to what has gone on for some weeks now and more directly since the meeting of 7 July, and since DST have said nothing since that meeting it seems the movers in this discussion are HNW so it was to them that I addressed my remarks through you.

My remarks were intended to comment on my view that had HNW been more inclusive and more open in its proposals we could have had just one voice speaking for us on 7 July and not have had to worry about why one group of us could not agree with another group. You seemed to have chosen to negotiate with PWC without prior discussion with the mass of depositors and then be rather upset when everything did not go as you wanted.

My reactions to what you say:

  1. I fundamentally reject your views about PWC and the need to keep in contact with them or consider their point of view. As to stakeholders, I recognise only one stakeholder in this issue, namely the depositors who have their money at risk. I think it inherently dangerous to our interests to believe there is any other stakeholder.Every other body is a potential ally or a potential enemy and has to be treated as such. I have no doubt that we need to understand PWC's motivations and their role, but I do not regard them as an ally. I suggest to you that their actions since October last make it clear that they are not an ally and I think you are flying in the face of the evidence when you try to treat them as such.

a. They should have been objective and decisive about the merits/demerits of the SoA. They were not. They said they were neutral but then turned out not to be, and came down on the side of the SoA.
b. They should have told the IOMT that they were not prepared to do the work for the SoA unless IOMT paid the bill. They did not do so and used our money without our approval to to work against our interests.
c. They refused to support our claim that IOMT should pay the bill for the work PWC did on the SoA and left us without their support in court.They made us look very foolish.
d. They have known for many months that the Group 3 creditor was the pension fund. They said nothing until they had agreed with you to include the pension fund in the 'slate' you agreed with them and then slipped it in. This means that if accepted we depositors pay more than £3m to fund the pension scheme - and you did not even question it. And what is more it is an open ended committment. We have no idea what figure the actuaries will come up with and you apparently waved it through.
e. Simpson was proposed to the court as liquidator by Docherty. Simpson has maintained Docherty in post paid with our money since October 8th. I have personally asked for justification of this unjustifiable action and have been brushed off. Have you asked Simpson for a justification and been satisfied?
f. The accounting error over the balance sheet was inexcusable even for an accounting student, let alone a senior member of a Big 4 accountant. Then instead of apologising and explaining the reason for the error Simpson has surrounded it with mystery. He has still not given a technical explanation. Why not?
g. You apparently were told by PCW that there were tax reasons for not changing the liquidator. BDO say this is not true. What does that tell you about PCW's motives?
(I accept that BDO's suggestion might not have been entirely disinterested - but that is not a reason for rejecting it).

  1. I have the very greatest regard for the professional backgrounds that I know of the HNW members, but faced with the catalogue of errors and omissions I have listed above I cannot understand why you should all be prepared meekly to sit back and suggest we should parley with PWC. They can do little or nothing for us - and have shown themselves to be unwilling to try. What do you all expect to get from negotiating with them - they have nothing to give. Sure, they can pay out a little more slowly, sure they can be ineffective in recovering the loan book, perhaps even prolong the agony of the pay back. But will discussing the composition of the Committee without a unanimous point of view change any of that? And will it stiffen their resolve to investigate and pursue any of the guilty parties who brought us to this pass?

  2. HNW criticised and voted against the nomination of an independent liquidator. I gather from the fact that you did not answer my question about Schwarzmann ( is that the name?) that you were party to and and supported the nomination of this third PCW partner? If so, why not discuss it openly before supporting it? As rational business people you surely cannot believe that he is going to take or propose any action in our favour that is not in the long term interest of PCW in IOM? We are now faced with a 100% united PCW block, and no recourse. And we were denied the possibility of having an independent person alongside PCW because in part you voted against it. If we had shown an absolutely unanimous view either to change the liquidator or to have an independent with PCW don't you think we might have won the day? Divided ranks always give the opponent an advantage.

Adrienne, some weeks ago and long before 7 July, when I first became aware of the
potentially dangerous split between HNW and DST I made a public and personal plea on this site to you to get together with the DST team and present a united front. I don't care about the rights and wrongs - I just want our money back.

So, finally, I ask you two questions :

  1. Will you please get together with the DST members and thrash out a common strategy so that we can push forward together ?

  2. What is the defined HNW strategy for getting back 100% of our deposits and what action plan to we need to put in place to to achieve it?

If we can get positive answers, and subsequent action, to these questions, all this debate will have achieved something worthwhile, and with now a few hundreds of us remaining to be paid out through liquidation rather than the many thousands at the beginning we should be able to hammer out a common plan of action.

best wishes.


strategy and stakeholders

  • Anonymous
  • Offline

@banna - strategy and stakeholders

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 16:36

banna:
Thank you for another excellent and highly perceptive post. You hit the nail on the head.

I too have pleaded many times on this forum for HNW and DST to get together and hammer out an agreement acceptable to all. But I have now become convinced that a majority at least of the HNW group of 9 simply do not want to do this; they just do not want to listen, either to DST or to the mass of depositors, as demonstrated clearly by your observation above ("You seemed to have chosen to negotiate with PWC without prior discussion with the mass of depositors..."). This is in perfect accord with liebenk's statement above that her committee believe they have a responsibility towards and an obligation to share information with those (150 or so) who gave them their proxies. So clearly, in their mind, HNW and DST are not "together"; this is just something HNW pretend to when it suits them.

Yes liebenk, I do feel very strongly - for all the reasons banna gives and more. Reluctantly, I feel I can no longer sit on the fence and have no choice but to choose my camp. I don't think I have to say where my choice lies, but I wanted to make it clear to those who have supported my abortive attempts to pour oil on troubled waters. I have also been among those who have criticised DST for their lack of communication, which I believe may have cost them dearly. But I have never seriously doubted their sincerity and commitment.

Thanks again banna. Maybe you will have more luck than I have. If so I will be among the first to celebrate.


banna. I know you are going

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 16:21

banna. I know you are going to hate my answer, but i will repeat what I tried to say it in my previous posting. regarding the issue around PWC, it is a complex one which we debated at much length, considered all the pros and cons, and did our homework on. We owed an explanation to the HNW people who gave us their proxies, which we have provided. there is no point continuing to debate it on a wider forum. We are NEVER all going to agree on this issue, we all have personal views on it which differ from eachother. We are not 'in negotiation' with PWC - they are the liquidator and we are the creditors. The debate is a moot point - you need the insurance companies to agree to it. Like I said to Anrignaut, I appreciate you are clearly upset about this issue and have strong views of your own on PWC, but please respect our rights to have a different one to yours. I know gavin has spent some time with you on the phone and we have tried to explain as much as we are willing to on the forum. I am sorry its not good enough, but with respect we do not owe an explanation to anyone when it is completely moot.

'HNW' is not a job for anyone of us. We wanted to ensure representation of people in our same shoes on the creditors committee, and we all try to get involved where we see we can add personal value which might improve our mutual predicament.

Your request to see a defined HNW strategy for getting back 100% of our deposits and what action plan to we need to put in place to to achieve it seems odd. There is no such strategy, banna. What would you suggest the strategy to be? The best we are offering is to give our time, experience and money to help ourselves and other depositors in the same position as us. We make time to provide some thinking on the more complex issues, provide some of our professional experience, use our contacts, and use some of our money to travel and see the people we can who might be able to help us resolve this. Importantly we were trying to get maximum representation on the cc, to ensure we are a central part of the liquidation process for the next five years, and not outsiders looking in.

We dont have a plan to get your 100% back.

If you want to work alone and do whatever you can to help get your money back, great. If you want to join up with DST, and participate in what ever action they are focussing on, great. If you want to be part of whatever efforts HNW are doing, great. If you want to be a silent by-stander and just keep informed, great. If you completely disagree with what everyone does, thats ok too. As Gavin keeps on saying, I am frankly suprised given our diverse circumstances that there are not more groups arising from this issue.

A wise lady depositor said to me the other day that what we need now is "a vocal , strong ,determined and understanding arbitrator who has not previously been in the picture but has in depth knowledge of our situation may be the way forward . He /she would need the respesct of both groups. This would take time and effort ! At this stage does anyone have those qualifications or the inclination ? "

In absolute seriousness, do we have any of those willing to volunteer.


Liebenk - we need you and HNW inside our group

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/07/2009 - 09:50

No,Adrienne, I hate neither the message nor the messenger. I admire your energy in forming your group and from what I know of that group it contains competent and well qualified depositors.We need you inside the main group not leading a separate army.
I had the same initial reaction as you to the PWC issue: change is disruptive,costs would increase, payouts might be slowed... But I forced myself to look at the evidence that I listed in my recent posting and all the apparent complexity disappeared. It was clear to me that we were in the hands of sombody who was less than competent, had/has no concern for our needs and priorities, was/is deceptive and is in a position where he dare not prejudice his future business prospects by vigorous action to investigate and if necessary pursue any persons on the island who might be partly responsible for our situation. And what is more his partnership bosses would not allow him to endanger their business. And that is the nub of the problem with the Schwartzmann appointment. And it is one of the keys to getting or not getting close to 100% of our money back.

I cannot agree with Gavin's view, expressed by him in an earlier posting and alluded to in your message, that having fractional groups is good for us because, as he said in his posting, it allows us to represent the diverse opinions we have. When fighting for survival one cannot afford the luxury of internal warfare. Perhaps I'm over dramatising the situation by calling it a fight for survival, but for many of our fellow depositors it must be close to that. There are some terrible cases out there.

I am disappointed that HNW have not defined a strategy for trying to get back 100% of our money. I am realistic enough, I hope, to know that the chances of doing so are slim and all our attempts will require a great deal pf courage and persistence.
But if that is not what we want to do what are we doing together as a group? Is it just mutual consolation we seek? Or a chance to let off steam occasionally? If that is the case, let's just sit back, not get too excited by things and gratefully receive whatever liquidation returns to us.

Unfortunately that doesn't satisfy me. We need to right the fundamental injustice
visited on us, compounded by self-interested posturing by IOMT (alright I know everybody does not see it that way), worsened by the contempt shown to us by our politicians and civil servants - with a few honourable exceptions- and betrayed by an Icelandic bank that has walked away from the guarantee it gave us and the FSC. I must be clear: injustice is a vague concept yet it angers me - but I have a clear practical aim which is to see if we can get 100% of our money back, and then my anger will fade away.

One of the planks of my strategy was to change the lLiquidator or at least get an independent alongside him whom we could trust to investigate and pursue anybody on the island who might be shown to be responsible in part. That has probably disappeared and we now have to re-define how to proceed.

If we are to achieve any of that, Adrienne, we need to be united and committed to it. If I say that I sense in your posting a hint that you and your group might be willing to find some way of reuniting our forces would that be unduly optimistic of me?

The idea of an arbitrator is interesting but I don't find it strictly necessary. What I think we need is a room in London for a day, big enough for 50-60 people. We need to get HNW and DST people round the table, together with any other depositors who want to be involved and we need to stay there until we have resolved our differences and (s)elected a team of people prepared to accept the challenge of pursuing some realistic goals that we have hammered out between us.We then have to trust those people to get on with it and make sure they tell us from time to time what's going on and consult us when they need more opinions.
The meeting needs to be chaired and we need an agreed agenda.

Do you think we could achieve that?


voting on the creditors' committee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 10:33

Banna, you have a remarkably good understanding of what has been taking place.

You are right to raise the issue of PWC's secret weapon, one Dan Schwartzman. While HNW were apparently discussing this in secret for several weeks beforehand with PWC, the DST was not let into the secret until the Friday before the creditors' meeting (when Hopper told me, after obtaining permission to do so from someone at PWC, and also told me that HNW had been discussing it with PWC for some weeks beforehand). I do not know when HNW told the life cos. about him.

The idea was obviously one hatched to counter DST's proposal for a conflict liquidator. It was, I was informed, HNW's main reason for deciding to oppose the conflict liquidator. When we were told about the secret weapon, the DST made some enquiries and determined that his introduction did nothing to change our decision.

I think you may find that the introduction of the person concerned is merely a red herring and makes no difference.


Voting on CC Committee

  • iak1655
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:47

As a HNW depositor, i find the DST's actions on the CC vote incomprehensible - 'shooting ourselves in the foot', spiteful, asinine are all thoughts that come to mind. Until i see a clear rationale behind these moves i have suspended any contributions to the legal fund as i am no longer convinced that DST is working for me. Just who they are working for is not clear, as after the DCS pays out, who is left other than HNW customers ? I dont regularly post but am so disgusted by what has happened i feel the need to do so this time.


Agreed: We need an answer.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/07/2009 - 09:25

DST have to provide an answer. Period.


anrigaut, re:Blocked Vote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:09

As a rule I find your posts are well researched and presented in an informative manner but methinks you may have jumped the gun when you made this statement ..."seems to me only right and proper that it [block vote resolution] was rejected by the creditors as a whole". I for one was not aware that the DAG DST had asked the depositors for their opinion on this matter so, when they chose to turn the proposal down, I suggest they did it based on what they may have BELIEVED the creditors would want. Had the proposal been put to all DAG creditors the 'resolution' may have passed.

If, prior to the vote, this proposal was made known to all depositors on this site and DST's decision was to vote it down then please correct me.


@undone - re resolution 3

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 13:25

undone:
Fair point. I was merely expressing my personal opinion, which I maintain. What I should have said however was that, had I been asked, I believe I would have voted this way for the reasons I have given. So I am not unhappy that my proxy vote was use in this way. Obviously, I cannot speak for others.

The proposal WAS made known prior to the vote (in the Letter we all received and on the KSF website), but indeed DST did not organise a poll on this subject (nor for that matter did HNW).


anrigaut, re:Blocked Vote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:18

undone: I believe that the "slate" resolution was set out in full in the documentation sent by JDORs to all depositors (creditors) dated 10 June 2009.


@anrigaut

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 10:18

I believe that the LP had no say on the resolutions - they were put forward to be voted on to the LP and they reported them in the run-up to the voting - they couldn't reject or form their own resolutions. They had no vote and had no influence on what resolutions were put forward. That certainly was my experience anyhow. Similarly, the composition of the committee of inspection will be now made by the Deemster - not the liquidator. Who knows how that will go - but with the poisonous PR put out by DST in our name - I am concerned that it will be difficult for the Deemster to be impartial.

Not sure about your democratic comment - guaranteeing two depositors on the committee was a good start; 2 others would have followed IF DST had agreed with the (in my view) rather reasonable proposition. Four depositors with our bond holders represented by two life companies as well - six out of seven would be a very good result.

I understand the voting process is rather well defined within liquidation rules, but the amount of seats is variable.


@anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:11

Frog, all the resolutions voted upon at the first creditors' meeting were proposed by the JDORs (the JLPs if you like). I believe that the one in question (the "slate") was suggested to them weeks in advance by Hopper of HNW.

The one resolution proposed by DAG/DST (on the conflict liquidator) was not allowed by the JDORs to be put to a vote.


Actually not. The resolution

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 18:40

Actually not. The resolution for the 11 people wanting to be on the committee was proposed by each person (or on behalf of them). The liquidators administered the process of putting them to the vote. I repeat again, that as described in the minutes (yes, from Hopper) - the resolution wasn't legal, so could not be included as a resolution - it wasn't the liquidators who decided that the resolution couldn't go forward, they just administered the process.


Actually not. The resolution

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 19:08

Frog, it appears that you do not know what you're talking about again.

  1. "The resolution for 11 people" that you refer to above, was proposed by the JDORs (that is the same as the JLPs, but wearing a different hat). The only contribution from the 11 people themselves was their names. As it happens it was not properly put as a resolution anyway, which is why PWC can't decide how to select 7 from the 11 and have to ask the court how to do it.

  2. I don't know how many times you have to be told this, but I will say it again. No-one has claimed that the conflict liquidator resolution was not legal except Hopper. That is wrong. The JDORs (note that, Frog, the JDORs) have claimed (in my view wrongly) that the law required that another resolution be put first and only if that resolution was passed could the conflict liquidator resolution be put. I think that the JDORs interpretation of the law is wrong. So does EC. Whether or not it was, the FACT is that it WAS the JDORs (once again, that is the same as the joint liquidators) who decided that the conflict liquidator resolution could not be put. Lest you are in any doubt about this, I have an email from Seth Cain of Cains which confirms that.

Is that clear now?

Are you sure that you are the right person to have been questioning Simpson over the past 9 months?


Oh dear - more insults about

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 22:25

Oh dear - more insults about my lack of knowledge... I'm getting used to this from DST. Fact is, I have a lot to lose in this whole process, and I'm keen to get the best I can from the liquidation - hence my search for clarity and an attempt to get the best way forward.

  1. The rule is clear - at least 50% by value and by number. As it is possible (I don't know for sure) that the seven couldn't be chosen because the above rule wasn't achieved in all seven cases, PWC can't be allowed to decide - maybe another vote? Or the court decides.

  2. I haven't been told this before - so once would do - please pay attention. Either way, my comment about the fact that even if the resolution was passed, it would have failed still stands.

With regard to questioning Simpson over the last months, let me be clear - anyone else could have done so - and in fact anyone else can still do. I did this for my own benefit and for the benefit of other depositors caught up in this sorry mess. I'm sorry, but resorting to insults is not what I expected from you just because I have the audacity to disagree with you and the DST.


Oh dear - more insults about

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 00:36

Frog: It is not because you disagreed. It is because you have of late been propagatiing factual errors


Facts as you see them I

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 13:04

Facts as you see them I suspect.

I'm out of this conversation, your hair-splitting isn't advancing the cause at all and wasting my time - you aren't answering the key questions I'm asking anyhow.


Facts as you see them I

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 13:18

Frog: it is a pity that you are seemingly unable to distinguish between facts and mere bald assertions and opinion.

As for your questions, which ones haven't I answered?


@frog - CC voting

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 11:56

I don't know the source of your "belief" (that the LP had no say on the resolutions) - maybe you could enlighten me. He obviously did have at least some say as he was perfectly able to reject the Resolution proposed by Robert at the meeting. Nor do I understand on basis you state that the composition of the committee will now be made by the Deemster and am shocked by your suggestion that - if indeed this is the case - it will be difficult for him to be impartial.

As far as I am aware, the first and only information to creditors concerning the meeting on 7 July - either by post or on the bank's website - was the Letter to Creditors dated 10 June and posted on the website on 12 June. This letter - from the Joint Deemed Official Receivers (formerly the LPs) states (1.8.3) that "WE have proposed an ordinary resolution ... for the appointment of the above 4 creditors to the committee". A notice accompanying this letter and relating to this same resolution confirms with the words "...will be proposed by the Joint Deemed Official Receivers of the Company". I think I can therefore be forgiven for assuming that this resolution was put forward at their instigation. However, if such was not the case, would it not have been normal that the person or persons putting forward the resolution be named?

The Letter of 10 June contained a call for nominations for the committee, while at the same time proposing a resolution that 4 creditors who had already proposed themselves before this call was made, be appointed to fill 4 of the 7 seats. There was (as far as I can see) no call, either in this Letter or elsewhere, for advance submission of resolutions to be put to the meeting.

If all of this is not undemocratic, then it is it at least disturbingly opaque. Democracy is not about getting those we want on the committee by whatever means; it is about everyone (and that includes all creditors, not only DAG members, and not only retail depositors) having an equal and fair chance to vote as they see fit. Lobbying and campaigning is one thing; manipulating the voting procedure is another.

As to the voting procedure itself, I have not seen the liquidation rules, but the process was certainly NOT well defined in the information provided to creditors prior to the meeting. As I have tried to explain (maybe inadequately), as it stands it is simply inoperable. This I take to be a question of incompetence rather than any attempt to compromise the procedure.


@anrigut, The reason for the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 17:26

@anrigut,

The reason for the belief is that when I put my name forward for the committee, I didn't have to get the LP's approval to do so. I just told him I wanted to put my name forward and he complied. I would therefore believe that the others in resolution 2 (the 4 proposed candidates for the CC) also agreed to put their name forward too. Maybe they were rolled together in one resolution by the LP - I don't know. I also don't know why DST voted against it and the silence around a rational explanation.

I understand that the attempt to put a new resolution in (the conflict liquidator) was not refused by the LP just because he could; it was because the resolution couldn't be put in by law (reading Hopper's summary - I wasn't there, so that's where I got the info). Also the decision of the CC makeup will be done by the Deemster (again Hopper's summary) as I understand it - and my concerns that "shock" you are in my mind, quite valid. I trust he will override the personal feelings that he must have after reading the general and poisonous attack on his country and countrymen by DST.

Again, with regard to democracy, the rules surrounding a liquidation are clear, and they certainly do not produce an equitable split of creditors - just look at what happened in the KSFUK. I also can't see a charge of incompetance because the LP didn't spell out the voting rules when sending us the voting papers because these rules are standard liquidation rules.


@frog - CC vote

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 19:54

Frog: I hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. But you seem to comparing apples and pears. Putting one's name forward for the committee, as you and the other 10 candidates did, was obviously a completely different kettle of fish. That is the normal procedure and the LP could not, even if he wanted, either approve or disapprove of the nomination of any bona fide creditor. But 'rolling together' 4 of the candidates (even before the other candidates had had a chance to put themselves forward) into one resolution to be proposed by the JDORs seems much more questionable and unfair to the other 7 as yet undeclared candidates - yourself included. Do you not agree? Did this not constitute explicit preferential 'approval' by the JDORs of these 4 (ie all candidates are equal but some are more equal than others)?

I'm sorry (truly) but I can't find any 'minutes' by Hopper; maybe you can direct me to them? Or do you mean Lieben's post at the head of this thread (which do not purport to be 'minutes' and where in any case I can see no mention of the Deemster). My understanding is that the 'results' as determined by the JDORs will be communicated to the court early next week and maybe he will have to approve them (or not). I accept that certain parties in the IoM have been heavily criticised by DST (perhaps sometimes OTT, but arguably understandable in our situation). But I would trust that one of the prime requirements in a judge is to be able to act independently of any such 'attacks'. So your concerns seemed to be putting his professional judgement into question at least as much as anything DST have said.

I repeat that I have not seen the general rules surrounding a liquidation, so cannot pronounce on their clarity nor whether the rules in the IoM are the same as those in the UK (which are apparently based on value only). All I am saying is that the procedure as outlined in the Letter to Creditors is simply inoperable in practice; as such I rather doubt whether it is enshrined in any standard liquidation rules (even in the IoM!). I maintain that it was incumbent on the JDORs to explain clearly and unambiguously the procedure to be used before the vote was held; those voting had I believe a right to this information.


No, not deliberately being

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 22:40

No, not deliberately being obtuse - just working with what I know. As one of the other 7 candidates, I do see your point about the 'unfairness' of having the 4 in the voting papers while I and the others had to rely on the voting on the day - but then I put that down to the fact that if I had applied before the papers were sent out, then my name would have been on them as a candidate - there was time to apply between the initial court case throwing out the SoA and the posting of the voting papers. I must admit I really don't feel that it was anything sinister - just bad timing on my (and the other 6) behalf.

With regard to my comments about the Deemster, I hope you didn't think I was implying that he'd take a personal view of the situation and rule against people based on that - my point was that everyone is human and we could have done without such provocation. I don't agree that this comment is anywhere near as unpalatable as that PR put out prior to the meeting. I strongly regret what was said in that PR.

With regard to whether or not the full liquidation procedures and processes should be explained by the liquidators or not to all creditors explicitly, well I guess you'd have to look at how other liquidations do proceed. I think it is rather unusual that so many retail depositors and individuals are caught up in a liquidation event, so this must be virgin territory and the normal rules are probably not adequate as they assume that creditors are 'informed' entities like other companies (and not so many!)


@anrigaut - MInutes ?

  • burns284
  • 19/04/09 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 21:18

Might these minutes be something distributed to HNW members and those who provided their proxies to HNW ? Just a guess; but I seem to remember seeing a reference to this recently in another post.

Perhaps a case of all DAG depositors being equal, but some (HNW ones) being more equal then others ?


@burns284 Minutes

  • sam
  • 07/12/08 30/09/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 22:00

Could these be the minutes? Try under, "Recent Blog Posts" select, "NEW NUMBERS FROM TODAY".


minutes?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 07:41

Yes - that might be the confusion. But these are not in any way minutes of the meeting. These are detailed notes of the "PWC update which preceded the formal meeting", an update which I presume (?) should have formed part of the JDOR's report which they had announced they intended to send to creditors prior to the meeting, but had not - and still have not - done. Nor it seems was it distributed at the meeting, since Gavin was obliged to take notes, which he has kindly typed up and made available to us. Thank you for that Gavin.


They are the ones - not much

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 22:16

They are the ones - not much from elsewhere.


@anrigut, The reason for the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 18:06

Frog: The DST and Edwin Coe do not agree with the JDORs (JLPs) interpretation of the relevant law (conflict liquidator) resolution). We will explain why in due course.


Of course you will.... maybe

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 18:41

Of course you will.... maybe you can also answer the other questions that I've asked you?

Anyhow, I couldn't see how the resolution would have succeeded anyhow - look at the voting numbers.... the resolution would not have had the support of any life company or the HNW. I hope you aren't wasting the DAG legal fees challenging a position which would fail anyway. We will need the honestly given donations by DAG members to the legal fund for useful advice during liquidation rather than any pointless ego trips.

BTW, if the lawyer was there - why didn't he challenge the statement about the invalidity of the resolution at the time? That puzzles me.


Of course you will.... maybe

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 12:33

Frog: First, I do not determine how the DST spends it legal fund.

The resolution might have been supported by the life cos. had the HNW group not refused to support the conflict liquidator proposal and had it not informed the life cos. at length that it was doing so and briefed them on the reasons why they too should also not be supporting it. How could the life cos. be expected to agree with the depositors if the depositors could not agree amongst themselves?

David Greene (the DAG lawyer to whom you refer) was not permitted to speak at the meeting because he is not a creditor. The lawyers for the JDORs were permitted to speak, because the chairman allowed it.

What do you mean by "honestly given". As far as I am concerned, all the donations to the legal funds were made by depositors who rightly put their trust in DAG/DST to ensure that those monies are properly spent in the best interests of depositors and DST has long had an accountant in charge of the funds.


Of course you will.....maybe

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 17:18

Laurence, I have had all the discussions with the life companies on behalf of the HNW Group.

For the record, the life companies informed us of their views on the conflict liquidator long before we had taken our decision on the topic. The life cos were very strongly against the idea, whereas, as I have informed you before, the HNW Committee had a split decision at its final committee conf call at 7pm on Sunday 5 July, but a majority against.

Please do not try and imply that the HNW Group briefed the life cos against the CL idea. This is a blatant lie. You have never been party to any discussion I have had with the life cos. I would have thought better of you than to invent such facts.

Please debate this and other topics - but please do not make up facts. Stick to the truth.

Gavin


elgee, legal expenses

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 11:03

Laurance (elgee), Nigel (frog) raises a good point about using additional DAG DST legal fees to challenge a position which would not have been passed if it had gone to vote anyway. Aside from the differences of opinion here, please can I ask that you and the DST give this due consideration - surely it would not be prudent to spend DAG members donations questioning the legality of a resolution which would not have been passed anyway?


Well said anrigaut

  • Pat
  • 10/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:56

Whatever the situation was between the DST and HNW - the DST obviously felt that they could not agree with the HNW and it would seem that there was meeting point between the two. This is now in the past and we need to move forward. The rules for the votes seem to be another IOM incomprehensible three legged "heads I win Tails you lose" situation.

Homer Simpson has been a disaster in my view, how anyone could continue to support him is beyond me - and finding he costs 500 quid an hour is totally unacceptable for an accountant that can't add. PWC is not part of the real world in recession and does not deserve to be stealing our money as well.

Please let's regroup and join to fight those who have taken and continue to take our money.


Well said anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 14:48

Pat: Sadly there will never be another opportunity to unseat PWC, unless they do something extraordinarily and unusually wrong. 7 July meeting was our one opportunity.