DAG PRESS RELEASE 19.02.09 SENT BY 17.00HRS GMT
KSFIOM - no longer a financial disaster but fast becoming a financial scandal
The KSFIOM Depositors Action Group (KSFIOMDAG) is devastated that the Deemster has decided to prolong their distress even longer now giving the Isle of Man Government (IOMG) until the 9th April to develop an alternative Scheme of Arrangement. Just 21 days ago he decided that the uncertain situation was not acceptable and gave the IOMG an extra 21 days to organise an adequate repsonse for depositors.
They failed to deliver anything until 24 hours after the court's deadline and then the little they did deliver offered nothing of substance on which to base an informed decision. So why has the Deemster now decided that a further 60 days will allow the IOMG to satisfy depositors needs? What have they done to demonstrate that they deserve yet a further opportunity to delay, against the wishes of depositors.
It is clear that there are only two objectives behind the Scheme of Arrangement:
1. to avoid triggering the Depositors Compensation Scheme thus avoiding having to admit that a bank on the Isle of Man has failed and avoiding the collection of levies due from other banks on the island;
2. to avoid maintaining depositors rights to pursue third parties who may be deemed culpable in this matter: the UK Government, the Financial Services Authority, the Isle of Man Government and the Financial Services Commission. Regulatory failure is the root cause of the probelms facing depositors yet it will have been 6 months before the IOM courts decide to do anything to recompense depositors.
In today's environment with Kaupthing depositors in all other jurisdictions receiving 100% compensation, the Isle of Man Government has to understand that this is the only route acceptable to all depositors caught up in what is fast developing into a financial scandal. We refuse to be political collateral to preserve the island's faltering reputation.
KSFIOMDAG will not be deterred. We will use this adjournment to work with our lawyers and appointed counsel and pursue our case against third parties to ensure that all regulatory failures at the highest levels are exposed.
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/ksfiom-no-longer-financial-d...
I know we need to keep
I know we need to keep pushing the IOM government for a solution to this problem but I hope we are not doing that at the expense of continuing to put pressure on the UK Government as well.
We are pressing the IOM Government to at the minimum not seek a return of any money they provide until depositors have recieved 100% of their return. Are we doing the same with the UK Government?
They could provide a solution to all of this mess, helping us, the charities and local governments who depositied in KSFUK by not claiming a return of the money that they provided to ING bank when they transfered the retail accounts, until all depositors in KSFUK have 100% of their funds returned.
This could be achieved with no fuss, so it did not look like the UK tax payer was bailing out those 'naughty tax evaders'. They could be seen as helping out the 'poor charities' and I do not see that it would significantly intefere with the 'normal' liquidation process.
@expatfrance1
@expatfrance1
Bonjour,
You're clearly well-intentioned (but are all your shipmates ?).
I don't know which "value group" you're in but have you looked at this topic which just might have implications ?
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/group-topic/update-royal-skandia-re-soa...
bobby shafted, I am not sure
bobby shafted,
I am not sure what you are trying to say. For what it is worth I am in in <50k group but I do not see what that has to do with my original comments.
I cannot see anything in the post you directed me to that relates to my original post.
What I am trying to suggest is that this war must be fought on multiple fronts and we must make sure we do not focus on one, which may have run its course for the time being, at the expense of others.
In the end I dont think any of us care where the money comes from, we just want it back!
@expatfrance1
What I'm trying to say is this:
If your deposit (doubtless made with a careful eye on the statutory guarantee ?) is <£50k, do you want ALL of it back or are you content with just a proportion of it ?
Myself, I want ALL my careful deposit back (and sooner rather than later) !!
Read the RS affidavit !!
I don't know whether all the other Insurance Companies have issued similar ?
I don't know whether BondHolders want to shaft small and small / medium size "ordinary" depositors in order to get their investments back ??
Hopefully they'll tell us their intentions.............
I really dont know why my
I really dont know why my original post should have caused another rehash of the >50k v <50k and bondholder v non-bondholder debate.
As far as I understand as a <50k depositor (non-bondholder) I SHOULD thankfully get all of my money back regardless of whether we go down the DCS or SoA route. However I would prefer that everyone gets 100% of their money back and I am not convinced we are going to achieve that by just focusing on what the IOM can or will provide. I am just concerned that in the last week we may have taken the eye off the ball as far as the UK Government is concerned and it may be time to step up the presure in the UK again.
In the short term I am really not bothered about who was to blame for our situation, I am more interested in who has the will and means to refund our money.
expatfrance1, I believe....
Bobby Shafted is not disagreeing with you, he is simply trying to draw your attention to a statement within the Insurance affidavit which basically advocates that 'all' depositors should receive proportional payouts, which would include those in the under £50,000 group. If that were to be accepted it would mean that the under £50,000 would only receive a maximum of £30,000 if 60p on the pound was the best that could be achieved.
Cheers
OK I understand where he is
OK I understand where he is coming from now. Hopefully the Deputy Deemster will ensure that depositors are no worse off under an SoA than they would have been under the DCS.
@expatfrance1
Hi expatfrance1, I agree with your post, we need to keep our eyes on the ball and on alternative routes to justice. Take a look at the release below and wonder what our 'representation' by the UK in Iceland is bringing us? If I were an Icelander treated in such a despicable way as these people were treated by the UK, who would be first in line for compensation, the Brits or the Germans? It is interesting to note the similarity of funds seized in the DZ bank.
Ice
10.02.2009
Kaupthing Bank has secured sufficient funds to pay back the large majority of German Kaupthing EDGE deposits.
In light of the interview with Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, President of Iceland, in the Financial Times Deutschland earlier today, the Resolution Committee of Kaupthing Bank hf. would like to reiterate the announcement it made at the creditors' meeting of the Bank last week. In addition, the Resolution Committee would like to stress that payments to depositors will be made out of the funds of the Bank and therefore, payments will not require funding from the Icelandic Government.
The Resolution Committee is committed to paying back all priority claims as quickly as possible, and it has therefore since last October placed great importance on settling the claims of the 30,000 depositors in Germany and has put forward several proposals to achieve this aim. As the Bank has now secured sufficient funds it is possible to pay back the large majority of the German deposits. However, EUR 55 million have been seized by DZ Bank and therefore it is not possible to pay deposits back in full at this stage. It is the opinion of the Resolution Committee that these funds belong to the German Kaupthing EDGE depositors and hence, they will be used to pay back depositors as soon as the funds have been released by DZ Bank.
The Bank wishes to start making the payments as quickly as possible. A meeting between the Resolution Committee and Entschädigungseinrichtung, which is a subsidiary of the Bundesverband deutscher Banken e. V., is scheduled today to discuss this matter further. Another press release will be made once the plan is ready.
Do we really have to have comments like these?
Bobbyshafted, have you ever watched Humphrey Bogart's performance in the film 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'? If you can, get hold of it and take a look.
Do bondholders want to 'shaft' (as you so eloquently put it) the sub 50k group? No, they want their funds returned in the same way everybody else does. See the DAG mission statement...100% for all, not excluding any group.
I have under 50k, mine is in a bond, do I need my money less than you? I guess we will never know who needs it most.
Bobbyshafted, you and others bang on about having one eye on the depositor compensation scheme when you invested. I put it to you that this is false as the 50k DCS came in after 8th October, not before. I believe we all had a vague idea that our money was safe in the IoM in regulated institutions. Some had heard of a 20k compensation scheme, some had heard of a parental guarantee, some had been told by their insurance companies via their IFAs that their money was covered 90%. We all just thought it was safe. I am sick also of hearing that bondholders were looking for higher rewards so took a risk. We did not. We were getting the exact same interest rate as other depositors, with deductions taken out to pay for the insurance companies and IFA cuts.
Should sub 50k depositors be in line before bondholders, just because IOMG hastily cobbled together an unfunded 50k DCS? Personally, I don't think so. The equitable thing would be for all of us to be in line for the same percentage return of funds, hopefully 100% (including any millionaires on here, by the way).
I detest one thing in life above all others and that thing is INJUSTICE. I am sick of posting like yours and Mekong's. Please stop trying to get the group divided as it helps no-one. A lot of vulnerable people read this site and I can only imagine how comments like these affect them.
Off-topic - for information only
"We were getting the exact same interest rate as other depositors, with deductions taken out to pay for the insurance companies and IFA cuts."
For a financial simpleton, could you explain what are the supposed advantages of bonds over direct depositing (in normal circumstances).
@lancara
Hi,
If a deposit was to give someone, say, 6% gross and an investment in a Bond also 6% (presumably tax then had to be paid ?), then deduct a fee for advice etc, and ignoring any element of risk, then I would have chosen a savings account.
Lancara
I have asked myself the same question. Maybe i am not the one to answer as I have no real experience of finance.
For me, I had some money for the first time in my life, approached and expert (IFA) and was advised to put it in a bond with Royal Skandia. Then at various points in the future the funds could be switched about to take advantage of the best rates on offer. I had never even heard of KSF and was unaware even whilst watching Chancellor Darling on TV talking about Icelandic Banks that I had an acount with one of them.
I suppose advantage is sometimes taken of people with money but little knowledge of finance. I am not stupid (in my field of work I am quite clever as it goes) but I tend to spend my spare time on other matters than reading financial publications, so trusted an expert. I guess a lot of us are in the same boat.
If anything, the whole bond thing seems to be a disadvantage now, as the insurance company chose to amalgamate a whole lot of deposits and place them in the bank under its (not our) name, so we are not even covered by the DCS.
Who is to blame? The Insurance Company? The IFA? The governments of Iceland, UK or Isle of Man? City bankers? One thing is for sure, I don't believe any depositor is to blame. The phrase 'good faith' springs to mind.
@ gazfuk
I'm always careful how I spell your "name".
Anyway I'm totally with you on the above, every time we have opened discussions for bondholder issues we get the same sort of flack, as happened on the thread i started the other day.
As bondholders with absolutely no input into any of this other than trying to keep the rest of the group informed by posting whatever information we have found out, how can we be accused of trying to sh**t other depositors.
It is totally beyond our control, our hands are tied. As you say we want the best result of everybody.
I have been on the end of some cyber bullying on this site and it is not nice to read how some speak to others. Yes, we are all frustrated by the whole sorry mess but we are all supposed to be working to the same end.
I'm sure the frailer and less confident never post anything for fear of attack, that is not what this site should be used for.
stop aggressive posts site protocol
Yes, with aggressive language and suggesting one group is shafting another, the site worsens. I wish people would be kinder to each other: we are all victims. I constantly appeal for calm and restraint, but you know how people can be.
A reminder: no bad language, no personal attacks on other posters. You can disagree with other posters' opinions, but please do so politely. Imagine you are addressing them in person. Mind your manners.
On the DCS topic
I'm a sub-50k loser. So, I expected to get a portion of my money back under the initial Depositor's Compensation Scheme. The IoM raised the DCS to 50k to align with European countries (including the UK). This will completely cover me. I expected to be compensated under this scheme. I am not being. The IoM is cheating me by refusing to activate the DCS. What happened to the parental guarantee. This also is not being activated - and nobody is being held to account.
On the Beeb site
UK's new Banking Act
If a bank collapses, the act allows for savers to receive compensation within a week. At present, payouts for savers with failed banks can take weeks, leaving many customers concerned about access to money in the interim.
The UK is way ahead of the IoM behind...sigh.
Cypheath
Thanks for the message. Gaz = Gary, F = Fearon (my surname), UK = United Kingdom, but I know how it looks.
I totally agree with what you say. In a way I can understand some people being worried - we all are - but it is easy to seek out targets to take it out on. As a bondholder, I firmly believe we should be treated the same as everyone else. Even if I wasn't one, I would think the same. I don't really get the distinction in the eyes of authority, but some people see it as a way to up the pot for themselves. In a nutshell, I want my share, no more and no less.
It is a shame really as in the early days I was very impressed with the solidarity shown by a lot of 'big money' people especially on this site. I am probably different to a lot on this site in that I have never had a lot of money. I was a worker in a Council and an active trade unionist. I remember thinking how the principles of trade unions can be applied here, standing together for our mutual benefit and all that? However, self-interest appears even in trades unions.
I hope people will think a bit more about what they write and have respect for other people's positions in future. We have all been dispossessed and all want our money back.
London Team - DAG Press release
While not wishing to go against the London Team, and stating that I am neither posting for or against a SoA. I think errors should be pointed out
1) An extra 60 days has not been allowed. It is in fact an extra 49 days. I know this is no good to anyone. But there should be clear reporting.
2) “Just 21 days ago he decided that the uncertain situation was not acceptable and gave the IOMG an extra 21 days to organise an adequate repsonse for depositors.”
http://www.judgments.im/content/J910.htm
On reading the Deemster’s judgment from 29 January 2008 I don’t think he asks for an adequate response to depositors. However he thought there were certain fundamental issues that needed addressing and so brought the Court back 21 days later so these could be answered. What he did ask was for certain legal points to be cleared up not least to ensure that all legal remedies available to a company in liquidation would be available to a company in a SoA. On these points the Court was satisfied, but still with one or 2 clarifications still to come
3) “2. to avoid maintaining depositors rights to pursue third parties who may be deemed culpable in this matter: the UK Government, the Financial Services Authority, the Isle of Man Government and the Financial Services Commission. Regulatory failure is the root cause of the problems facing depositors yet it will have been 6 months before the IOM courts decide to do anything to recompense depositors”
The preservation of legal rights was exactly one of the things the Deemster did ask for clarification on at the hearing on 29th January. The answers he got yesterday convinced the Court that all legal actions that could be pursued by a company in liquidation could be pursued under a SoA with the Provisional Liquidator still in place as the Scheme Manager. If my memory serves me right the only legal remedies not available to the Company in a SoA as compared to in liquidation was that they could not pursue the company for fraudulent trading.
4) “In today's environment with Kaupthing depositors in all other jurisdictions receiving 100% compensation”
Are we absolutely sure that German depositor have been compensated in full? I haven’t seen news to this effect. But if they have I apologise in advance for raising this comment.
I am neither for or against the SoA and both options are pretty unpalatable. But I think what everyone needs is clear heads. Misposting of facts does no one any good. If you want to counter any IoM PR campaign you have to ensure your facts are correct.
IN Reply to DAG Press Release 19.2.09 - London Team
Dear London Team,
I thought your last statement was good. This one is taking up the cudgel against IOMG and the proposed SoA. We are hearing so many different things about losing rights to pursue claims against 3rd Parties, the further delay till 9.4.2009 etc.
We all know that the IOMG want to allay problems with those living there - and that is understandable. We also know thay want to put in place a scheme that will return all cash to <£50k to meet what people will get through DCS or Liquidation - again meeting most people'e requirements who stay on IOM.
They are probably trying to keep on the right side of the Life Companies as they give them the big business - understandable although I and others may not like it.
But if any one thinks they are going to get 100% of their cash back through - DCS, Liquidation or SoA they are wrong. But what we might get back through SoA is the 60% - not enough but a start. I am a large Bondholder through - very sadly a Life company - with nearly all my Pension savings - making no fast bucks, looking for security - ha ha.
I have not yet managed to get access to all the relevent Affidavits put forward before yesterday, but on reading D Lovett's 4th one, I thought there was manouverability in claims against most parties - not all.
And for those who say Bondholders can claim against - IFAs, Life Companies you are correct - but how many can afford the costs - it has to be via the Ombudsman and who knows how that will go - one thing certain, probably talking a period of around 2 years to get answers there.
I also think Diver and the team have done a fantastic job so far - through time and effort - but he/they do not speak for all of us with their latest views on 'SoA' is dead - as John Wright is supposed to have said yesterday. I wrote to john Wright recently among another 13/14 people - Deemster, Tony Brown, Allan Bell, Life Companies guy - Paul Morris, Alan Morgan -Moodie of AILO etc etc - Replies came from Mike Simpson (most surprisingly) and from John Wright and he said as a bondholder the best way for me was the SoA. Now I am not saying the guy has changed his mind, he was probably giving me his own opinion as against what he has been told to say on behalf of DAG. But the Affidavit from 'Liebman' (I think) and others - big bond holders - is more my viewpoint at this time.
Surely if the up to £50k people can get all their cash bank no matter what Scheme is agreed or undertaken - and hopefully through SoA quicker (who knows), then they should stand aside and let the individual big bond holders and people like myself big bonds through ( very unfortunately) the Life Companies decide the best way for us and not skew any vote. Because whether you have £1k in the Bank or as one woman has £2.6M (although she is against SoA) we all need our cash ASAP.
If I can get 60% back even if it takes between 2-6 years it's a start, I need some now and hopefully through an SoA I'll get some this Aug/Sept
What we need is a direct comparison between DCS, Liquidation (if it's different) and the SoA. Probably something in table format. and let's get everything into it like who can or cannot be sued via a SoA, detail exactly payments and and when in clear language what that means to all.
Spend time now - not in fighting the SoA but in using every avenue to enhance as much as possible what we can get. If we can 'use' the Life companies through pressure (they bring in millions to the IOM coffers) to further guaranteed enhanced payments showing defined times - within reason, get them paid quicker - great.
If we can force the IOMG to not only leave their £10.7m in the bank until all other creditors are paid and not charge interest on money loaned to cover the first 3 payments brilliant. Why can't we get them to wait until we all get 100% back before reclaimimg their £150m or wait until we get more than 60% - say 80%. It would all help
We need the Liquidator Provisional to come out and say what he expects back from the Loan Book in KSF - IOM. He said to me that the offers for the Loan book at discount were too low - fine. I suggested 80% back from the loan Book - no comment. We now need to know what he expects as I asked him in my letter (over the 6 year period). If any of you look at my Blog that I posted recently you will see that I also asked about expected returns from the KSF- UK bank based on the net £402m due. I also estimated what we might get back from the CDs - Mike Simpson is the guy who said he expected something back now from KSF - UK - I estimated lowly at £200m based on a excess book value of
£1.3b. I did a table showing my figures -I took Mike Simpson's Balance statement of 8.10.2008 and I added a further two columns to show my thoughts. My thoughts have not changed since then but it might be worthwhile to amend that table to show the £150m coming back off if/when claimed back by IOMG.
I was showing in theory we could get all our cash back if IOMG did not reclaim the £150m I also said that the Life Companies should input at least £100m in to the kitty (but not taken into account in my table). We need these people to start giving out real estimates in order to make judgements.
I want everyone to get their cash back - and don't worry as has been said elswhere on this site - once we get what we get - if it is not 100% then we can cause total havoc to IOMG, the Life Companies, perhaps name IFAs and their Companies, put in claims against KSF Directors and perhaps some IOM officials - who knows. but let us get the best deal we can for all, including us Big Bondholders whether individual or through Life Group Bonds.
Let us not split up now when it is even more important that we try and stick together,
Yours
Gordon 45
Gordon, For sake of clarity.
Gordon,
For sake of clarity. The SOA only states that 35% would be returned to HVD (>£50K) and that once 60% obtained they IoMG step in to retrieve the money put into DCS. The bit between35% and 60% will be realised by the sale of assets and recovery from KSF London. This would be exactly the same under liquidation. However under liquidation the IoMG recover funds at the same time as HVD (by assuming the rights of those compensated) and not in preference to HVD. Therefore liquidation puts more emphasis on the IoMG in assisting in recovery as they get their last penny at the same time as HVD get theirs.
press release error ?
isn't the regulator in the Isle of Man the financial supervision commission and not the financial services commission....???
FSC is "supervision" not "services"
Yes, you are right - http://www.gov.im/fsc
After one delay after another
After one delay after another Is it not time for the DAG legal team to tackle the IoM FSC and the KSM IoM Directors who are the real cause of our financial plight. In my personal view both the IoM FSC and KSM IoM Directors should be charged with criminal negligence for failing to protect (ring fence) KSM IoM assets sent to the UK. In my view the IoMG is stalling for time to prevent having to admit failure on the part of its financial regulator.
Tackling the FSC & Directors
Please read the press release found HERE
We have been gathering information and investigating the activity of the FSC, Directors & Officers for a number of weeks.
As you will read Counsel have been instructed to now commence review of liability of 3rd parties, this will be coupled with a review of what would be required in a SoA for us to be able to maintain these rights.
As you will see from the letter to John Spellman 02.02.09 HERE the IOMG have had the requests to enshrine our legal rights into an SoA, alone with all other requests. We have stated clearly that we could not even consider their proposals to date unless they included these, yet they have ignored these requests, and we would imagine they will continue to do so, as there are several reasons why IOMG do not want KSFIOM to go into liquidation and we are not one of them! There are many repercussions of liquidation that would be disastrous for IOMG, there are many repercussions of the SoA that could be disastrous for us..... it is entirely possible to have both a liquidation followed by a SoA in order to protect our position.
Replies---
Of course they don't reply---John Spelman is asking simple questions so that we can be aware of what the SOA really means.
They have been championing an alternative to the DCS from early on--why did they upgrade the DCS?--PR stunt to attract more money and mitigate the perceived problems of the IOM banking system?
Why did they put up 150million for the SOA?
Why are they following the EPS route?--total cash now circa 100 million?
Now at last the insurance cos. put in their 2 pennyworth--that's actually more than it is worth--since they all said the same thing, they could have made a joint affidavit and given the savings to their bond holders.
As I suggested before, there is a cunning plan here.
I used the interest on my DEPOSIT to supplement living expenses with the occasional capital withdrawal for treats etc.
4 months on, I am having to count my pennies and these suits are still prevaricating.
DD Collett gave them extra time and they did NOTHING except try and penalise the forex investors.
Yet, he still gave them more time---my flabber is gasted--we now know whose side he is on--maintain the status quo.
His appointment was the subject of criticism as well---but the AG was not on the interview board--pity.
Material interest will prevent anyone in authority from answering any reasonable questions unless they are forced to--I don't know how to do that---I am quite happy to be really offensive and commit libel and slander if necessary because I don't care if they sue me as they have no chance of success in my situation.
There are advantages in living in a "developing" country.