creditors committee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 28/05/2009 - 07:33

How do we decide who gets on it?

I guess there's going to be certain individuals pushing for their involvement with it, but I can't see it's reasonable for them to ask for their support without revealing their true identity beforehand can it?

Thoughts?

3.11111
Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (9 votes)

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

Creditors committee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 08:04

Another quite unnecessary delay, extended by the Deemster by 2 weeks to a very long 6 weeks - just to form a committee!!!


Creditors committee

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 10:54

The DAG QC didn't make any comment in Court against the proposal by the PL to allow 6 weeks.
There was additionally consent given by the Court to allow for the proof of debt forms to be sent by email/fax and also for the purpose of the first creditors meeting to allow (at the discretion of the receiver deemed liquidator ) for faxed/emailed copies of the claim forms/proxies to be accepted.
I think the rationale behind this was (i) to avoid complaints about time for postal delivery and (ii) to permit a more modern treatment of electronic communications then was envisaged in the 1934 rules!
It is also at this first meeting that the liquidator could be replaced so I think that this was an attempt by MS to try and allow a more inclusive process giving everyone time to consider matters fully.


Creditors comm

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 08:01

Are you not putting yourself foward for election to a place on the committee?

Anyone who takes one these positions needs to have a few ounces of altruism, the time and the inclination to do it. So it will cost them in time and money.

You still up for it

As you always seem to ask about the identity of others perhaps you could explain your identity.

Perhaps some ideas from you on the make up of the committee would be useful instead of beating around the bush, and commenting here there and everywhere - be postive lets hear your thoughts


Hear, hear

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 08:48

I agree Tricky Dicky with your comment. I'm tired of this individuals stirrings (not even musings) - STIRRINGS not troll or plant or whatever. It's as if he gets off on hearing his own voice without really contributing anything either substantive and /or positive. As stated earlier, I think the forum is excellent but ploughing through certain individuals contributions is a waste of both time and money...


Uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 08:51

So suggesting those that represent the creditors on the committee should be clear about who they are is stirring? How odd. I think it is an absolutely reasonable point. Each to their own (which is the beauty of free speech).


I agree wholeheartedly with

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 09:25

I agree wholeheartedly with you that any body who seeks to represent us should be known to us but what I don't understand is why you should think this wouldn't be the case?


Surely, common sense is the answer

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 09:39

It is surely common sense that we would HAVE to be informed about who it is that will be representing us on the creditors committee. I'm sure that will include deposit at stake and relevant experience (eg. lawyer, accountant merchant banker etc).


Tricky Dicky

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 08:42

No, I am not putting myself forward for election. Those who do though, should reveal their identity beforehand, don't you think? What is there to hide?

I hardly see how my original post is beating around the bush and why you appear so upset about my writing it. Please don't confuse positivity with realism. How you tried to defend John Wright's "greedy" accusation in another thread spoke volumes. Why pick a fight with me?

Anyway, the "debate". if we're still allowed one, can also be found here:

http://www.whenbankscrash.com/index.php/topic,5.0.html


Hiding??

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 09:55

Chris - aren't you jumping the gun a bit? It seems you enjoy seeing problems even where they don't exist.

Who is trying to hide? Have you seen any call for members of the CC, let alone anyone proposing themselves as candidates? It seems obvious to me that if creditors (and that means ALL creditors, not just members of this forum) are to be asked to vote for representatives, then the candidates will forcibly have to be named... So why waste our time with this nonsense?


Facts

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 09:45

Hi Chris,

No 1 : I have posted nothing re the JW 'greedy accusation. This is a problem in that people comment and do not get their facts right.

No 2 : In order to have a debate there needs to be some ideas to debate - so what is your side of the debate re how the committee should work and who should be on it. That would show positivity and realism.


Apologies Tricky Dicky

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 10:08
  1. You are absolutely correct, you did not post anything regarding JW. My memory failed me and I retract the accusation unconditionally. I confused you with 'Lucky Jim' for some reason.

  2. My point was whoever is wanting to be on the committee should reveal their identities beforehand. This may seem a ridiculous thing to ask for, but given there is much secret squirrel (no doubt for honourable reasons) as to who actually represents DST and the various non-communication by core/group representatives of different depositors in each class in the past, I did not want a similar situation to develop again, in case it could.

Positivity and realism: The bank is now in liquidation. Finally. Treasury seem to indicate the DCS should pay out in the "same way" as SOA. I will believe it when I see it and we should push for this. How the DCS can be "better" than SOA defeats me, as if Treasury demonstrate it pays quicker than SOA, then a substantial positive element of the SOA will be exposed as sham. Pay out of the full protection should be a primary aim and fits with the 100% for all mantra. Costs for the IOM preparing for the SOA should not be deducted from the liquidated assets and Treasury originally assured us that it would not. Reasonable costs for DAG in opposing the SOA should not be deducted from the assets either. Should PWC be removed? I don't think so as it will be too costly. Should Simpson be removed? Possibly. Can we force PWC to appoint someone other than Simpson? I don't know. Is this basic stuff? Yes. Is this all responsibility of the committee? Someone more learned than I can perhaps answer.

Happy to join the debate but wanted to ensure we could put all this intrigue as to who is really who within DST behind us. I believe I have legitimate reasons for making this point. Apologies again for attributing words to you that you did not write. It was not intentional.