@DAG-legal: arguments against SOA?
As a contributor to the legal fund and a lower-end class 2 depositor still uncertain how to vote, I really need to know and understand the precise reasons why 'our' lawyers remain against the latest version of the SOA.
Having read the latest version of the scheme, it seems to me that as far as the quantitative element is concerned (timing and amounts of payments), the unfavourable comparison of SOA vs DCS presented in "DAG strategy team analysis of SOA v liquidation & DCS" and based on the previous (9 April) version is no longer valid - as no doubt IOMT intended when they upped the first two assured payments to 35K and 50k respectively.
So the perceived disadvantages must lie elsewhere. These have been eluded to (possible loss of rights, legal concerns re contract vs statute etc), but, for me at least, insufficiently clearly stated to form a basis for a rational decision on how to vote. I realise that there may be problems associated with posting too much detail on this public site, but it is very disappointing and frustrating for those among us who have supported and contributed to the legal efforts not to see the reasoned arguments of the lawyers on this. Could these not at least be emailed to all on the legal "list"?
I understand and tend to share many of the misgivings (to put it mildly!) expressed here concerning the motivations of IOMG. Instinctively I would prefer to put my trust in the DAG legal team to use my vote wisely. But before doing so I need some reasoned arguments "from the horse's mouth" to convince myself that I would not be shooting myself in the foot. After all, with the best intentions in the world, it may well be that one size doesn't fit all and that they cannot act in the best interests of everyone, even within class 2 voters.
So PLEASE DAG team, inform us succinctly (by email if need be) as follows:
- what are the legal arguments against the present SOA?
- what changes would make the SOA acceptable (and cause DAG-legal to vote in favour)?
Is this too much to ask? Otherwise, the near-certainty (as I see it) of getting 50k (representing 67% of my deposit) back within little more than a year via the SOA may prove too tempting. I know I will probably get back rather more than this eventually with or without the SOA - but 'eventually' may be a long way off.
Thank you DAG Strategy Team
Thank you DAG Strategy team for the Summary of the QUALITATIVE Issues of the proposed SoA posted today (http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/ksfiom-soa-summary-qualitati...).
This document, which incorporates advice from DAG lawyers and other legal experts, is exactly what I had been asking and hoping for. I realise you have been very hard pressed, but it is nevertheless a pity this comes so late as many depositors may have already returned their proxy voting forms.
I would urge all those who have not yet returned their forms to read this document thoroughly and consider the points contained most carefully before making a final decision. It has been prepared "to assist depositors in understanding DAG's opposition to the SoA". It is asserted that "the defects in the SoA described in this document apply equally to all depositors". I have no reason to doubt this assertion.
I had myself identified many of the points made here as possible defects, but as a lay person felt unable to assess their importance. Having read carefully this summary, I now believe that the many problems or defects identified here outweigh any apparent quantitative advantages conveyed by the scheme.
I think I now know how I will vote.
Ask enough legal experts the
Ask enough legal experts the same question and eventually you will find one that gives you the answer you want. It doesnt mean they are correct but it will ensure another bumper pay day for themselves at our expense.
@expat1france: But you have to trust someone?
We are not in a position to take on all the injustices of the world.
We are in this situation not from choice, possibly from naievety, but still not from choice.
Whilst our counsel is self interested from the aspect of their personal gains in any action is this not always the case? What is different about this case? Your naievety does us no favours. Your personal stake in this debacle is incidental, and I use the phrase with care. But your voice is approaching that of a scream. This isn't appropriate, nor intelligent, it is simply purely selfish.
Tell me why are you screaming?
Screaming!
So one paragraph questioning the sincerity of legal opinion is screaming! Yet in your verbose posting elsewhere on the forum you verbally abuse those that dare have a different opinion to yourself and call those that deposited less than £50,000 selfish. Perhaps they just took more care and due diligence with their money.
YOU decided to deposit money in KSF IOM.
YOU decided to either not read the terms of the DCS or to ignore them and the associated risk.
Yes, YOU were NAIVE and perhaps even STUPID. Now thats screaming!
@expatfrance1 - legal opinion
A more substantive response to your comment is that the recent document from DAG is not simply a legal "opinion". It is a well constructed detailed critical analysis of the issues raised by the proposed SoA. As such it responds to what I for one was asking for: the reasons behind the opinion, explained in such a way that a lay reader can come to terms with the problems and assess them for himself. This is quite different from blindly following a stated opinion.
For me, as a (former) scientist, this is crucial. My personal assessment of the evidence now presented is that the opinion we have received is well founded. Of course I might be wrong. But that is my personal opinion.
OK - I know a little about
OK - I know a little about statistics. But I didn't do that. I didn't go around asking experts until I got the answer I wanted. Nor I believe did DAG. Their (few) legal experts were selected carefully at the outset, have been retained and all agree. So it makes sense to take note of what they say - at least to me.
Nor did I have a pre-conceived answer that I wanted to hear. Maybe after all that has happened to us I am still too naive, but I prefer to continue to believe that there are still some honest people around and that not all lawyers are only out to fleece us. Without that life becomes not worth living.
Of course I might be wrong in this instance. But in the end it comes down to following one's instincts and putting one's trust somewhere.
Thank you DAG Strategy Team
It's a fantastic analysis for those like me who couldn't get their heads round the overly long SOA documentation.
As a legal fund contributor It is also great to get some written feedback from the lawyers we have all paid for. Why people prefer to trust the IOMG over our own lawyers is beyond me.
Here here!
I totally agree with that RWT as I have contiually said to make the right decision for ourselves we need to have Information, Its known as "An Informed Choice" without it is like be "up the Creek without a Paddle!"
!!
People were NOT being Stupid in Placing their Money with the KSF IOM we were All lead by the High Interest Rates ...anyone would want to make money on their Money that's the Idea of it!
I think people are losing sight of the Fact that this has been One Big Premeditated Scam fron the Outset by the HMG and we all Fell for it!
What about all the Councils that Lost Millions and Naomi House Hospice from my County, were they Stupid No just trying to be Prudent and Make money, the sad thing is the way I see it is that HMG knew where they could get hands on the Money they needed Pre Budget and Robbed us of our RETURN. Why because most of the Banks in the UK were going to the Wall... I am only a Lay person but I can see this, the sad Truth is Our Money is not Ours it appears...
The way in which this has been done is criminal, why should we even Negotiate with these People I prefer to deal with it through the Courts that's WHY i have voted for Liquidation..
The IOM T have stalled us for long enough, they can't even put EPS funds into my correct Account... God knows why we should TRUST them to Deliver THE REST OF IT on their Terms.
Thanks DAG Strategy Team for a very insightful Document!
I think what is happening on this site is people are now Fighting amongst themselves OH HOW THE IOM T WILL LOVE THIS.. STOP IT!!!! and Get the Job Done.... VOTE with Legal Backing!
Aurora
Edwins Coes address + email
For anyone who needs it .
Edwin Coe
2 Stone Buildings
Lincoln's Inn
London
WC2A 3TH
Remember that you can also scan and email the document to
KSF(?)EdwinCoe [dot] com
or
Fax +442078914040
(post original copy as well)
Excellent Summary of the SOA Issues
Whilst I have been leaning towards Liquidation I have been reading all the arguments both for and against the SOA v Liquidation. The complexity of the SOA makes it almost impossible for a layman to understand and clearly it is a scheme that now appears to leave itself wide open to costly and delaying legal challenges.
Thank you DAG for an excellent document incorporating the legal advice on this matter. I too now know exactly how I will vote.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SoA?
I am a contributor to the legal fund and am an upper end Class 1 depositor. I completely agree with anrigaut. If there are good reasons why the SoA should be opposed, the legal team should state them clearly, otherwise many depositors will be tempted to support the SoA. If reasons are not given, one must question whether they are convincing.
The arguments could be E-mailed to contributors as suggested. However, there appears to be no reason whatsoever why valid arguments should be private.
Support the Legal Teams Expertise
I also am a contributor to the legal fund but a class 2 depositor.
I have given the DAG legal Team my proxy vote to use as they think fit (sent by email and Royal Mail). I can well understand that they may not consider it wise to publish their latest rationale on the SoA or DCS. When you're playing chess you don't tell your opponent what is in your head. Whether they choose to email their strategy to us is for them to decide.
Having contributed to the dogs upkeep, I'll let them do the barking:)
very reasonable request
if there aren't any STRONG arguments against the SOA, maybe the sincere recommendation from the legal team should change? i understand that the savers right up at the top could be few % lower with the SOA in the short term, but what bout the rest?
haven't made my mind yet
@anrigaut
Anrigaut, while waiting for the document you have asked for above, as (if I recall correctly) you are rather good at maths, perhaps you would consider the following issues concerning the graphs appearing in Simpson's most recent explanatory note and let me know whether you think they are misleading:
(a) dividends appear on abcissa at equally-spaced intervals, but they are most certainly not equally spaced in time;
(b) dividends payable under scheme appear on the graphs as being coincident with dividends under liquidation, whereas these do not occur at same points in time;
(c) worst case appears to have been assumed for operation of DCS, in respect of loans and in respect of call on DCS by HV depositors;
(d) no account taken of differences in admin costs between scheme and liquidation+DCS
As a result of (a), for example, the long delay in payment of a dividend after bank-catchup begins (at 70p) is not apparent on graphs, so the expected discontinuity in scheme payments at this point in time does not appear.
As a result of (b), we never see the liquidation curve crossing the scheme curve, as would be expected whenever a given dividend is paid under liquidation in advance of the time it would be paid under scheme
(a) and (b) would be cured if the abcissa was a time axis and all the dividends were shown as occurring on the dates on which they are expected to occur and not treated as if they occur at same time under liquidation and under the scheme.
to deal with (c), a realistic case is needed
to deal with (d), realistic estimates are needed, since it would appear that scheme would be much more expensive (two administrators and no control over their fees - any and all are required to be paid)
@elgee
Good comments elgee!
YES, I do think these graphs are potentially and (dare I say it - probably intentionally) misleading and need at the very least to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
As you may imagine, I had immediately realised your points (a) and (b): that the abcissa (horizontal axis, for the uninitiated) was not a real time axis, which is what we would really want to see, and - more importantly - that the timing of the dividends under the scheme and under liquidation would, with the possible exception of the first one, almost certainly not be the same. The latter effect could lead to a very false comparisons - and we are given no information about the expected timing of the various dividends (other than the first two under SOA).
I have to admit I had not looked further into the assumptions used to produce the figures used (partly because I didn't want to print off all 71 pages of the notes and I have as yet received nothing by post here in distant France - goodness knows what that means for folk in really remote places, some of whom will not have internet access - no-one has told me what happened to the 28 days we were supposed to have between the mailing from KSF and the creditors' meeting, but that's another story). So I checked...
Re "(c) worst case appears to have been assumed for operation of DCS, in respect of loans and in respect of call on DCS by HV depositors"
Yes, you are right about that too (23.5.3). Since the DCS timing remains highly uncertain (one of the problems about voting for it), there should ideally be 3 scenarios for that too - ie 3 black curves on each graph, of which the present one would be the lowest.
"(d) no account taken of differences in admin costs between scheme and liquidation+DCS"
In absence of data I can't really comment on this except to say that I can see no assumptions concerning costs in the document.
"(a) and (b) would be cured if the abcissa was a time axis ... "
Indeed - but more assumptions would then be needed, notably concerning likely distribution dates for both DCS (in the 3 DCS scenarios) and liquidation dividends.
So yes, it looks very much like a case of misleading publicity for the SOA. But having said that, this is not what we are asked to vote on. So I hope the DAG 'document' will come soon.
@anrigaut
Anrigaut: "So yes, it looks very much like a case of misleading publicity for the SOA. But having said that, this is not what we are asked to vote on. So I hope the DAG 'document' will come soon."
The reason that I offered you this graphical data in the interim, was because the motion that you are asked to vote on is wholly the choice between the (i) SoA and (ii) liquidation/DCS, and that is precisely the matter about which the graphs are supposed to inform you. In fact, those graphs are the entirety of the comparison data presented by those promoting the scheme and the only evidence offered by them that, on a quantiative level, the scheme does better or no worse than the alternative. And that evidence is, for the reasons we have both identified above, at best highly misleading.
You may disagree, but it seems to me that you are not merely being asked to approve option A in isolation, but to select option A over and above option B. I hope you would agree that the two options are mutually exclusive and they are the only two options on the table. If I were foolish enough to bet on a horse race, and I place money on a horse called IMscheme to win, I am not merely making a statement that I like the look of IMscheme but also a statement that I think he is more likely to win than the other horses. I am sure you get the point.
Yes, I get the point and do
Yes, I get the point and do not disagree. I am only too painfully aware that it is either A or B.
Unfortunately my folly occurred some years ago when I placed money (too much, with hindsight) with Derbyshire Offshore. Needless to say I didn't think I was placing a bet. But now I find myself obliged to bet on one of two horses, neither of which I like the look of (or to let someone else place the bet for me).
Your argument is a good start and I thank you for pointing out something I had missed - the use of a worst case scenario for predicting the behaviour of horse LDCS. But I'd still like to see the legal opinion on the prospects and dangers of backing one horse or the other.
Maybe you can intervene in the right quarters to make the 'interim' as short as possible? Time is fast running out.
Post/Mail
I live in France and on the 4th April my new Credit Card from the UK was posted via surface mail. I phoned them on the 20th April to ask them when they would be sending my new Card. It was necessary to cancel the 'surface mail' as it had not reached me in 16 days - however my 'airmail' reached me in 3 days
Does that mean you think KSF
Does that mean you think KSF are using surface mail? Seems unbelievable given the limited time which already is far from respecting the court ruling of 28 days. Imagine surface mail to Australia ... ! As for France, I thought all normal mail to Europe came by airmail. Mail from my friends in UK usually arrives in 2 or 3 days.
If I receive nothing by Monday, I will of course download the form. But how many depositors do not have Internet and will thus be deprived of a vote?
If nothing else, this suggests ulterior motives. Maybe 'they' think that the fewer non-IOM depositors who vote the better it will be for their scheme? I think paranoia is begining to set in - maybe not before time!
DAG should say what's wrong with the revised SOA
I agree with anrigaut. We need reasons from the DAG legal team and importantly, what further changes are needed to make it acceptable. Not much time left!
Yes - not much time left.
Yes - not much time left. Indeed.
Thanks for your support. I hope someone is listening and will respond.
I am not for or against. I am looking for serious reasons to inform my (Hobson's) choice.
At last some sanity
Well said, anrigaut! I couldn't agree more. The revised SoA is quite clear (especially the summary provided in the latest voting documentation sent to creditors) but we are in the dark as to why the DAG legal team is still against it.
I recall that one of the objections was the loss of rights and another was that the IoMG could make changes to the SOA, but as I understand it now, any changes can only be made with the approval of the Creditors Committee and can only be made if they are to the benefit of creditors.
I wholeheartedly support anrigaut in asking for DAG to please provide a summary of the latest differences between the SoA and DCS as well as an assessment of the risks associated with both.