DAG OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE HIGHER MINIMUM RETURN UNDER SOA

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 27/04/2009 - 14:36

Now that the IOMG have increased the assured return under the SOA from 60% to 70% following the Administrators Report on KSFUK, and given that the final version of the SOA to be voted on has not yet been ciculated to the depositors, I believe this is now the right time for DAG's lawyers to negotiate with the IOMG a higher assured return. If DAG's lawyers feel that they could possibly support the SOA on behalf of the depositors then they could negotiate a higher assured return (say 75% minimum) on the basis that they give an undertaking to the IOMG prior to the vote that they will recommend depositors vote for the SOA.

2.466665
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (15 votes)

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

More Money !!anyone with more than a £50K deposit???

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 16:37

Only if the DAG lawyers can negotiate in time to have a meaningful case scenario on view for everyone to make a reasoned decision of which way to go.

The last minute dash prior to the April the 9th meeting was counter productive in putting pressure on the IOMG, FSC and the liquidators who all seem to be acting in concert against the best interests of the depositors the very people the are duty bound to protect.

Jeff Wilkins


assured since when?

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 15:37

Nothing is assured except 50k under BOTH the DSC and SOA. The rest is in no way guaranteed, it is only "expected" based on conservative calculations. The IOMG has put a spin on this "assured sum" that I believe has confused many, including myself, at times. Thats my opinion.


Can DAG's lawyers confirm return under SOA is not assured

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 16:47

As you say this has become very confusing. In the early days when the IOMG started to promote the SOA I clearly understood that the ceiling percentage return under the SOA was not assured. However based on the recent documentation that was submitted to Court and the subsequent reports on this site I seem to have been persuaded that the return under the SOA is now assured. I stand to be corrected as I could have easily misinterpreted this critical issue. This is so important - have IOMG confirmed in writing that the % return under the SOA is not assured? If the current 70% is not assured I feel that the IOMG are just conning us with this publicity campaign so I am very reluctant to vote for the SOA under these circumstances.


hopeful, re assured SOA payments

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 02:06

The SOA guarantees Protected Depositors (individuals) that the first payment will be at least £35,000 but not to exceed the balance in ones account(s). The second payment will bring the cumulative guarantee up to £50,000 but once again not to exceed the amount owing.

The 70% to which you refer, is the point where the IOMG start to recup any top-up payments they advanced. Many believe asset recoveries will exceed the 70% level otherwise the government would have started claiming their top-up payments at a much lower asset recovery level. However, as stated by Mike Simpson in the 'Explanatory Statement' included with the Voting Package they are hopeful of a 70% recovery but there could be pitfalls. If so, the IOMG would not get back the top-up payments and as such the higher value depositors under an SOA would benefit.


Undone - hopeful, re assured SOA payments

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 12:51

Well said,

Gordon 45


My understanding

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 17:17

There are from what I have read only 3 gaurantees in this whole load of spin
1. SoA will pay out £50k max to each and every depositor over the dates below
2. SoA will pay out a) 90 - 100 days from the effective date b) on the first anniversary of the effective date b) on the second anniversary date
3. DCS will pay out £50K max to each and every depositor

The rest is should, could, would, expect, assume, possible, potentially, anticipated, might, maybe,


I hate all this!

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 13:07

I hate all this it seems to me to be made as difficult as possible.

And I can see one result CONFUSION!

This to me epitomises the IOMG strategy all along.

CONFUSE and BAMBOOZLE.

This makes me want nothing to do with the SOA.

There is not a SOLID SECURE WORD in it.

AND AS IT STANDS I SHALL VOTE AGAINST IT.


Absolutely

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 15:34

Agree 100% with your comments bellyup


@ bellyup // Cheer Up !

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 14:01

I have a friend who's with Landsbanki Guernsey.

He's got, I think, 30% back and would love a place in the Kaupthing lifeboat if you want to swap.


landsbanki dividend

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 14:34

thats 30% more than what we have at this point in time and I am sure that more dividends for Landsbanki depositors will follow in due course.


And dividends will also be

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 16:10

And dividends will also be paid out to KSF IOM depositors in due course!


KSF dividends in due course

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 16:20

When?

see Podathers post in new forum.

I expected a higher dividend sooner but it seems that is not the case.


As you know that will depend

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 16:32

As you know that will depend on which option is voted upon, but under both schemes dividends will be paid in due course.

I was responding to you flipant remark regarding Landsbanki depositors being OK because they will receive another dividend in due course.


Not correct for all

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 15:07

Your statement is incorrect for everyone. The early payment schemes 1 and 2 have already returned 36% of my cash and 66% of my wifes


agreed

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 16:16

Agreed. The SOA was always going to be good for some and not so good for others.
I am pleased that you have received your payments and will have the rest in due course. For others it will be a long wait. The people with much more in this "frozen kitty" will have to fight on a bit longer to get a better deal, if possible. Others can sleep peacefully either way.

We put forward opinions based on the situation we find ourselves in and share info accordingly. At the end of the day, I will vore for what is best for me and so will you.
Simple.


DCS perception

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 17:05

insameboat, I don't want to get tied up in nit picking but I must correct you on one small point. You say you will vote for what is best for you and by that I assume you me the DCS. However, as an over £50,000 depositor myself, I believe that you should have stated the you perceive the DCS to be best for you. We just don't know what may be paid out under the DCS or when and, if the very high value depositors press for legal action under the DCS (which the team seem to be suggesting), can we be assured that payments will not be delayed even further.

While I am an part of the over £50,000 group, I am also in my mid 70s and would like my money back without further delays. Many depositors are living on a shoestring and can't afford lengthy legal battles.


DCS perception

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 19:28

Undone. I agree with your comment. Here's how I feel as a well over 50k (empathising I hope)

The SOA is "on the table", The contents are as clear as mud sometimes but at least there is some certainty. In contrast, the details pertaining to liquidation and DSC are not so clear and this makes people nervous. It is difficult to cope with the unknown, especially when one does not have previous experience of liquidation, collapsing banks etc etc. (I speak for myself)

What bothers me however, is that possible dates etc for payout and dividends related to liquidation and DSC have never been put on the table. (MS made a statement last week about a 20% dividend but then we hear today that it is not to be). The lack of info, to my mind, leaves the majority in the dark as to what to expect under liquidation and so we are drawn to to that which is perceived to offer more security.

If we had some idea from MS/IOMG as to what to expect from liquidation and some assured dates of payment from the DCS, I believe that many of us would feel much better about the whole decision making process.

Personally, thus far, I feel totally railroaded and I believe that we need to persist in the battle for our rights a while longer.

Thats just my opinion.


@insameboat

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 06:27

Whilst the IOM could and should issue assured dates for payment from the DCS, the nature of any liquidation is that money is distributed as and when it is available, and when the liquidator feels he has enough to make a distribution worthwhile. No one really knows in advance when that might be. They can guess but they do not know.

Most of the assets of the bank are tied up in non liquid assets that will have to be sold, sell too soon and those assets may be sold at at a lot less than book value reducing the amount available to distribute. Hang on to them for longer and the value of the assets may go up, or, in the current financial uncertainty they may be worth even less.

Even the 50% return from the UK is only an estimate. As the UK administrator has indicated they have enough to pay a distribution now but any further distribution will be made when assets are sold. And the longer it takes, the more money that is paid out to the administrator/liquidator.


DSC assured payments

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 09:33

So expatfrance, if "they could and should" why dont the IOMG then give an indication of assured payments under the DSC?

Without this information, some depositors are fearful about voting for anything but the SOA. Thats clearly what IOMG want.

Depositors should have all the necessary info at hand in order to make a decision.

IMHO it is a manipulation of people who are very vulnerable at this time.


last liquidation on the island 23 yr payout of 30 percent..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 05:39

There is none that hates the isle of man more than me, they are one word disgusting in all ways. I speak as someone who might not even had accounts opened, placed 48hrs before collapse, yet our considerable amount was taken away like everyone elses. I think looking at this lot, they care little about humanity and if the soa is not followed than they are sure to mess up the dcs/liquidation and say we told you we couldnt handle it, . There has been guidance here by alix partneres like it or not they are known in the field, so it will not all be in the dark.As for sueing this one and that well it will be nice fat cheques for the lawyers, for example legal bills 500 pounds to get in the end 50 pounds., come on wakey wakey. Never mind how long it will all take, we need an improved soa with higher pasyments.


insameboat, thanks for your kind reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 20:12

You expressed my concerns much better than me. As I've tried to get across for quite some time (it often feels like years), we, as a group, have analysed the SOA in great depth but have not really examined the DCS to the same degree. Why? I suspect it is because the document is laid out in general terms with little indication as to when payment will be made. It is hard to criticise a scheme in detail when it is vague.

I, like many depositors, can't understand why the IOMG has spent so much time and money on the development of a new scheme when that effort and money could have been used to enhance the DCS. However, that is in the past and we must now decide whether to support a scheme we are not entirely happy with but know quite a bit about its detail OR do we vote for a scheme that on the surface seems to provide greater autonomy for depositors to persist with the battle in the hope that it may bring about a better return. Unfortunately, this is what bothers me. Legal battles, especially against governments, can be very costly and take years to finalize. How many of us can afford even the smallest fee or wait much longer for our money?


legal battles

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 21:28

Undone.. I see that you assume legal battles ( you mentioned it in both postings) and that these legal battles could cause delays. As I said before I have ZERO experience of liquidations (or SOAs) but it seems to me that most of the funds would come in over time (to the bank), as indeed, they would do under the SOA.

Would it be correct to say that the liquidator would use appropriate legal measures , as he has done over the past six months, where necessary, to get the returns?
Would the liq. modus operandi be essentially the same as it has been over the past 6 months but that much of it would be subject to consultation with the creditors committee? (us). Or is it a given that under liquidation there is much more litigation?
Could someone with more experience help with this?

I speak from a over 50k point of view and request info for the sake of clarity.


legal battles

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 21:37

Hi insameboat,
I dont think may of us have been in a situation like this one. I would say however that regarding legal battles, there may not actually be any, there may be some. What would have to be considered is the cost invovled against the likely return. The is no point taking someone to court for £100 if its going to cost you £1000 with no chance of recovering costs. So it would be necessary to take the legal teams advise as to what battles we can win and which battles would be too costly. We can still win the war though


Payment under DCS

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 01:19

The DCS does not pay out 50,000 to "each and every depositor". This would be the maximum payout per individual depositor ( not bond holders or those saving via insurance cos. ) dependent on their level of deposit ie you won't get more out than your deposit. Also note that the 50,000 max. is for depositors' first 50,000 ie if a depositor's funds are 100,000 and recovery from KSFIOM is 50% ( 50,000 ) the balance of 50,000 is not paid out of the DCS. The DCS pays nothing if you have already recovered 50,000 from KSFIOM. There is understood to be no difference under the SOA.( I raised the same issue under "Questions for Mike Simpson " a few days ago and Frog was good enough to clarify same for me. Have a look ).


Bond Holders

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 08:10

You say NOT BOND HOLDERS....but is it not true that the Insurance companies will get that payout and this should/will be passed on to the depositors within the Bond..........so in effect Bond Holders WILL get the same as everybody else..........whilst not guaranteed I dont think the life companies are going to not get the very maximum of their 200 million plus....and in turn pass it back to their customers...Or am I missing something...?


chipmunk dont worry...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:00

listen, this is exactly why my husband and father do not want me on the site because some of you act like bondholders dont get a penny, ofcourse we do chipmunk, we get the percentage of our deposit but not the 50k. I have done endless campaigning for our cause beleive me , so I get sick of this and |I am not the only bondholder to think that way and go away for a while so stop it...


D Ram

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 08:07

Thanks for the corrections, I was generalising too much in my earlier comment, the intent of which was to point out that essentially the amount of payments (up to a maximum or your account deposit) and the timings (hopefully - under SoA) are the only gaurantees in either scheme. That there are no fixed %age returns guaranteed as some people perhaps believe their to be.


you asid Now that the

  • Jerome.broke-in...
  • 14/10/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 15:11

you asid Now that the IOMG have increased the assured return under the SOA from 60% to 70% following the Administrators Report on KSFUK

Sorry but

There is not now.
There has never been
There will never be
an assured return as a percentage.

It is expected that the return will be above 60% but it is an expectation. It is not assured.


Which is, of course, the problem

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 14:28

Because there is no assured percentage return, there is an element of risk (as they see it) for the IoM to offer more than 70% (before they claim back).

What risk is worth taking for IoM to save it's 'reputation'.

What's the magic % which will make HNW's and the IoM align on an SOA?

I don't it see as being 100% anymore (but here's hoping).


'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 05:43

Superseded


DICK TURPIN IS ALIVE AND WELL

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 15:27

Keep in mind that Dick Turpin lives in the IOM.


IOM cynicism

  • keving
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 03:14

Somehow, I just cant quite believe that IOMG were as ignorant as us for over 6 months in knowing just how much recovery would be forthcoming from KSFUK. Knowing that such crucial information would have a major effect on any SOA details, they would certainly have made enquiries as to the likely outcome, and would likely have received an estimate in return. I just cant quite take it in that the IOMG were as in the dark about the recovery as they claim.

If this is the case then their miserly 60% offering is even more cynical than before. Perhaps the IOM game was first to offer the 60% pittance, which of course we all predictably get upset at. Later when the 50p (think about it – this is only half of your money!) recovery news is announced, our anger turns to joy, they add a few crumbs to the 60%, and we are more than happy to accept.

Problem for them is that is too many in the DAG have seen through the SOA from the beginning and have publicized this fact. The IOMG has not reckoned on a continual push for liquidation and DCS. This is the deal that they signed up for, the deal that they publicized so widely and the deal that they are now squirming out of. Why the big fuss over an increase from 60% to 70%, its still nowhere near our 100% claim. Let them take it to the 85% level and maybe they will get my vote, until then its liquidation and DCS.


negotiate a higher return under soa

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 05:58

Thats what we want to negotiate a HIGHER RETURN UNDER SOA...LETS GET GOING, 70 percent plus. My father read the whole mess as he was too distraught for us., up to now to know everything. He said after reading all what has gone on this is an isle of man problem, they were highly negligent in this and should give all depositors a 100 percent return through the soa. They have had it cushy for too many years, as far as he saw it uk saw the loophole in this and took advantage. We want our money back.....