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...good post from anrigaut

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 09:48

I have been keeping quiet until the results of the vote for membership of the CC are announced but i would echo what anrigaut has posted

the proposed four candidate ticket didn't seem particularly generous to DST and I think they were wise to take an independent line given the confusing voting rules

in fact the DST got more votes and value than HNW

but why each constituency was only allowed six (if it was six) votes seems bizarre... it doesn't conform to any type of electoral process that i have heard of

usually a transferrable vote system would be fairest in these circumstances


iainb - CC posting

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 11:32

Iainb - You raise some good points. I would make the following observations.

  1. I presume DST supported the four candidate ticket when I first proposed it back in late May/early June. Otherwise they would not have agreed put Stuart Roberts as their DST person on this ticket. It would seem that they first supported the idea, then changed their minds.

  2. DST did get more votes (roughly 2 to 1) but simliar value on this proxy exercise. I don't recall the exact numbers.

  3. We each had 7 votes to give, one for each Committee place. You had to tick 7 out of 11 boxes

Gavin


@Iainb

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 13:46

Please could you explain in simple terms exactly what you mean?

What do you mean by constituency?

In what way was the 4 candidate ticket ungenerous?

Surely 4 seats are 4 seats?


@Iainb

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/07/2009 - 14:34

what you call the 4 candidate ticket only included 1 DAG seat and 1 HNW seat.

The other 2 seats were life cos and non-depositor creditor


Bellyup

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 11:40

Here are the facts.

The first mutually supportive deal was through a resolution appointing four people to the CC as a block. The four person ticket included Stuart Roberts (DST), Gavin Brake (HNW), Axa (insurer), Boal (unsecured creditor). The insurers and HNW voted in favour, DST voted against on the day so the resolution failed.

This would have guaranteed us two retail depositor representatives out of the first four seats on the CC.

The second mutually supportive deal was an agreement to vote in Simon Bessant (DST), Peter Wakeham (HNW) and Skandia (insurance). HNW put this deal together. The insurers and HNW were prepared to do this, DST refused.

Overall , this would have guaranteed us four retail depositor seats on the seven person CC (a majority).

Hope this helps clarify things.

Now we do not know how things will end up. The Deemster now decides. DST is responsible for this. Let's hope we still end up with a sensible Creditors Committee.

Gavin


Thank you

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/07/2009 - 14:25

Thanks Gavin for this explanation


Selection of creditors for Creditors Committee

  • Expat13
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/07/2009 - 19:39

Such discord amongst HNW, DST and the insurance companies is just what the IoM Government were hoping for. Thanks guys I'm out of here.


selection of creditors

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/07/2009 - 20:54

Hi Expat13, don't throw in the towel, we need you to keep a balance in the DAG. Otherwise these smarty pants will take over.