DAG's CLAIM FOR £346,000

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 27/07/2010 - 18:53

This then, according to what you say, is what this claim is all about:
1. A claim is made on behalf of DAG and the bank (which is now the same as the liquidator, as you say) for the sum of £346,000 against IOMT for legal costs incurred in fighting their (i.e. the IOM's) SOA.
2. But the bank (i.e. the liquidator) does NOT want to make a claim against the IOMT for costs!
3. The court then decrees that we (DAG) win the case but that the bank (i.e. the liquidator who was supposed to be working for us but who didn't even make a claim for costs in the first place), is to pay all the costs.
4. Then the bank (the liquidator) incurs even more expenses by having to use expert advice to find out how much it has to pay out of its (i.e. our) coffers.
5. Then you say that £346,000 is not much and equates to only 0.035% of everything at stake.
6. So, we won the case but we still have to pay and you say it is a small amount to pay in any event.
7. My observation on all this is that there is something very seriously amiss here and I hope that the expert team we have working on our case at present doesn't get taken to the cleaners, or, as is more the point, us.

4.555555
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (9 votes)

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

whoever authorized these

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/10/2010 - 04:07

whoever authorized these expenses is responsible for paying them. i did not.


Well actually you are.........

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/10/2010 - 04:47

Sorry but we are all going to have to pay for them
And no we didnt authorise them
And some people will in effect be paying twice - those who contributed to the legal fund.


Peter & Louise, That about

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/07/2010 - 07:41

Peter & Louise,

That about sums it up.

All that (your points 1-3) took place over a year ago (Court hearing, 23 June 2009) and we (DAG) were indeed taken to the cleaners then.

As this was a ruling of the IoM Court, there was not much we coud do about it; appealing the judgement would have incurred even more costs. We did our best but - as you say - were not supported by the Provisional Liquidators (one of the reasons why many of us voted - unsuccessfully - for their replacement at the first creditors' meeting).

In saying that £346,000 represents only a fraction of the assets of KSFIOM, we are in no way trying to defend the result which, I repeat, is not what DAG sought, but simply trying to put things into perspective. As a poor second best, surely sharing the burden among all the creditors of the bank (which, by the way, includes not only depositors and bondholders but also other creditors and notably IOMT via the DCS) is better than that the whole burden falls on the few (and they were sadly relatively few) who contributed to DAG's legal fund or possibly to the 3 depositors (Diver & co) who took the risk of leading the fight)?

The legal fund has allowed DAG's other legal expenses (those not covered by the costs order) to be paid, so the question of anyone paying twice does not really arise.

PS. You may find it helpful and interesting to re-read the comments of the Manx Herald, press releases issued by DAG and comments of depositors:
immediately following the hearing, here: http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/549.html
and following the judgement, here: http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/553.html


Anrigaut, thanks for the link

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/07/2010 - 16:55

Anrigaut, thanks for the link