DAVID LOVETT AFFIDAVIT 26/1/09

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 27/01/2009 - 10:56

I have very quickly examined this document and note that Item 12 listed under Key Elements Of Scheme of Arrangement states that if the SOA takes place creditors would be prevented from beginning proceedings against KSFIOM (for their actions prior to 9/10/08). This obviously lets KSFIOM's directors off the hook and I believe this conflicts with Diver's recent posting (i.e. under the SOA we would not expect to give up our right to claim against all the various parties involved in the banks collapse. I would therefore welcome Diver's reaction to this particular condition.

As for the rest of the document, quite frankly I do not understand the examples given that compare SOA with DCS but I am not an accountant. Given time I suspect that there will be many postings concerning these comparisons.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (8 votes)

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

Lateral Thinking

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 01:06

I just feel that I should toss this into the pot for consideration:

Could it not be that the 'leak' of the affidavit and the figures contained therein is a tactic that is being used by the IOMG to get us all into the mindset of us receiving a maximum return of circa 65%? At sometime in the future this will then be raised to say 75% as a 'final offer' with the idea that we're so relieved to have an additional 10% that we'll 'gratefully' opt for settlement?

Just one to ponder on!


soa is not 100%

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 10:29

The SoA will not return 100%. Our group's aim is return of 100%. The SoA should not ever been a topic of discussion!

The DAG should be pressuring the IOM for 100%. Even as a sub50k-er, this is becoming irritating.


Virtical thnking is better...

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 01:29

Kipper,- with respect these figures are irrelevant. Better to ponder on achieving DAG's Mission to get 100% back, and the tactics we are pursuing to do it. I do hope you have voted to support the Motion (:


LJ

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 01:34

Whilst I agree 100% with our aims I think that it is relevant to highlight tactics which might be in use by the IOMG and others.

Forewarned is forearmed!


What am I missing ????

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:52

Am I missing something here, the SOA for higher depositors the target is a 65% return over a 6 year period.

Full value of loan book £440m -- max loan term 6 years --

Recovered to date £140m -- available for payout under the SOA.

Additional top ups from Banks ?

Total default £880m

Therefore :-

under a fully managed loan book 100% should be returned (or as close as) which equals 50% of the default,

Recovered to date £140m which equals 15.9% of the total default.

Additional top ups from banks ?? equals ? % of the total default

Total 65.9% --- SOA target 65% -- (0.9% - £8.8m adrift -- bad loans / fees // ???)

Thus no assumption of return is made for the return of funds from KSF UK 39.7% of total (after offset), or any possible return from Khf under either the parental guarantee or the 0.011% (after offset) of the deposited funds.

As for item 12 --- definite no, no - has to be removed, the directors and the FSA have to explain themselves and be open to scrutiny - possible legal actions - far too big to sweep away.


soa

  • domicile1
  • 27/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 21:29

All the propsed S O A achieves is to allow the IOM Govt to get away with paying nothing. Instead of the fsc paying out under the empty compensation scheme money raised from the assets of the bank pays it for them. According to alix n partners a liquidation will raise as much as the soa so in my view better to liquidate and keep our rights intact than to give them away under this ill founded scheme. Everybody will get a fair share and those in the compensation band will eventually get their balance from the govt.
The iom Govt wants to satisfy the small depositors without invoking the compensation scheme, no IOM bank is liquidated and after 2 years the rest of us will be left chasing shadows as the scheme is left to drift along and closed long before we get anywhere near 60%.
Alan Bell a hairdresser from Ramsey and Tony Brown an electrician from Castletown are too small minded to realise that the Isle of man is on the brink of disaster if they do not ensure all depositors are paid in full. Why give up the right to hold people reponsible? We will if we agree to this scheme.


Missing something?

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 15:18

Skintagain

I am not defending the SoA here just trying to clarify your query.

The loan book is not as good as many thought it was back in October. I believe they are working on somewhere in the region of 15% - 20% bad debt.

Also I believe in the figures used in the SoA they have used a minimal return from London (I believe it was just 10%, but I really can't remember, but it was a very low figure)


Couple of examples - How IoMG value depositors

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:25

Assume 0% interest on loan book for all examples and no return from Khf.

Worst case - 20% default on loan book - 10% return from UK

Loan book £440m // 20% default £88m

Recovery from UK assume 10% (after offset) £35m

loan book % of total default = 40%

recovered % of total default = 15.9%

from UK % of total default = 3.9%

loans from IMOG and 3rd party payments = 5% (£44m over 6 Years)

Slightly better - 15% default loan book - 15% return from UK

Loan book = 42.5%

recovered = 15.9%

UK = 5.9%

Loans from IMOG & 3rd party = 2.7% (23.76m over 6 years)

Keep 15% default, return from Uk 25%

Loan book = 42.5%

recovered = 15.9%

UK = 7.9%

Loans from IMOG & 3rd party = 0.7% (£6.16m over 6 Years)

Once we get above 25% return from UK - IoMG puts in 0 -- mayabe a couple of small top up loans to effect the payment structure on time.


Thx Ally

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 15:32

It demonstrates we need access albeit limited to the loan book figures - I did ask in the PWC questions but PWC refused as individual loans may be identified ?????

So basically they have assumed the low return from UK will cover the bad dept.

I really don't know what to make of the proposal, to sweeten the pill they have to stick their necks out and go for a higher payment structure if they want depositors to take this on... only advantage I see in it is the reduction of fees.

The figures still indicate they are not prepared to put any funding in - other than as a minimal loan to be repaid.


New Consultants-Skintagain

  • Hampnew
  • 22/01/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 15:48

Precisely why I mentioned alternative consultants. Should try and make this point to elgee or whoever is leading the group and request from IOMGov to be taken seriously on behalf of investors.

Can not understand why IOMG employed Alix to consult on this very complicated issue as Mr Bell has told us.
In my research, I can see no evidence to suggest that Alix have any experience in dealing with such a matter.
My research does tell me that the only firm with a successful track record in these matters is Slaughter and May, a magic circle law firm, one of the top ten in the world. Maybe worth DAG approaching them for their opinion on the Alix solution, or even better IOMG should take a second opinion?


reply to Hampnew

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:32

Hampnew: "Precisely why I mentioned alternative consultants. Should try and make this point to elgee or whoever is leading the group and request from IOMGov to be taken seriously on behalf of investors."

Hampnew, thanks but for the record I most certainly am not "leading the group", nor am I a member of the "team", "IOM team", "London team", "legal team", or "informal committee". I was a member of the "core", but it now exists in name only.


New Consultants-Skintagain

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:19

For the record, I am most certainly not "leading the group", nor in the "team", nor in the "informal committee", not part of the "London team", not part of the "IOM team", not part of the "lgeal team" and, while I was once in the "core", it no longer exists.


New Consultants?

  • Hampnew
  • 22/01/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:30

Ok, sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone, merely trying to be helpfull. Maybe you (elgee) would direct me to whoever I should be making any value adding suggestions to?

Just airing them on a website seems to me to be totally unproductive.


New Consultants?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:40

Hampnew: no offence taken by me at all. I was just trying to pre-empt your giving offence to other posters.

I wish I could help you by directing you elsewhere, but in truth the best place for suggestions is probably this forum. I can see the merit in your suggestion of new consultants, but I think I can promise you that that is not going to happen. The costs are very considerable, and I believe that Alix are doing what the IOMG has instructed them to do. If there are objections to their proposed scheme and its presentation, then I think it is safe to assume that the responsibiity for that lies with IOMG rather than Alix.


I'm aware of that Elgee -- core team no longer exists??

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:23

Wasn't aware the "core" ream had dissolved??


I'm aware of that Elgee -- core team no longer exists??

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:27

It continues to exist in name only.

My reply referred to posting above from Hampnew, under the same title.


@elgee

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:28

No sarcasm is implied when I ask you politely to clarify what you mean?


It really is that simple

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:35

At the risk of repeating myself which I am....

Until either T. Brown or A. Bell start saying in public that "We are working on a solution to return nothing less than 100% back to all depositors". Then we know they are NOT.

It really is that simple.


Mr. Bell, the time for procrastination is over

  • bdsa
  • 10/10/08 02/06/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 19:38

Mr. Bell, yesterday's affidavits show no intention whatsoever on the part of IOMG to guarantee the 100 percent return of KSFIOM depositors' money.

You have been given many practical suggestions from this forum and elsewhere on how to bridge the financing gap. Every other government has stepped up to the plate and done the honorable thing. Now it's your turn. You know what you have to do, and we are expecting action very soon.


David Lovatt -SOA Proposal under Affadavit. 26th Jan 09

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:14

This proposal,lodged with the High Court,in preparation for the hearing on the 29th,all in coordination with the IOM-Government,is not,in my opinion,even worth the paper its written on,and is equivelent to a scud missile,rapidly approaching the goodship,DAG.Its objective,in my opinion,is solely for the benefit of the IOM-Gov,and the legal vultures,to feed off for as long as they can.A project can never be achieved,progressed,or completed on time or on budget,without detailed forward planning,and definative interim guaranteed payments,this SOA,as seen,does not definatively embody these features,from start to finish its based on assumptions,which may,or may not happen,is cavalier in its time management,is without milestone penaltys for non-delivery,is without contingency measures,is not even proportionally balanced for all creditor payouts,these deficiencys,in my opinion,go on,and on,and certainly require much more scutiny,and amendment,to be anywhere near acceptance by the DAG.Finally,and as posted,already,it doesnt even address 100% recovery of creditors monies,which should be project completion stage,and which should be EVERYBODYS ultimate target,from day one,to project completion.This SOA is burnt out half way through,manages to crawl along until 60% is completed,and is completley extinguished if and when it achieves 65%,meaning,with project only two thirds completed,the IOM-Gov,the vultures,all the boys and girls,bank directors,hangers on,will all just wave bye,bye,we have took enough money off you now,you lot all agreed to this project,were now looking for the next bunch of suckers who want their driveway tarmacing.Sorry collegues,I cant agree to the read SOA,the question is,what is the High Court going to do with it,are they interested in 100% recovery,or not,on the 29th,its appears all one sided to me,which you would expect,if you won the contract to sow the lawn seed,then followed up and won the contract to cut the grass.my message to our core teams,in London and IOM,we need strong LEGAL representation in court on 29th,to counter these unnaceptable proposals,and stop those seeds even germinating. I rest my case for now.


DAG is an angry, fiery dragon with a nasty sting in its tail

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:19

Why should we surrender ANY rights ? DAG has RIGHT on its side and any SoA should not have any preconditions that effectively dumbs down its POWER to defend the right to see that justice is served in any way WE choose.

They might just as well say: "you can have some of your money back but you must first sign away your rights under the European Charter of Human Rights"

NO WAY !

Take note! Bell & Co --- DAG is an angry, fiery dragon with a nasty sting in it's tail


its self ,self ,self all the way..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:35

oh,was that the delay how they can protect themselves even more, stuff us anyway, . Nice sympathy letters, load of rubbish, hope over christmas and new year.with a restructure . Sacrificed us., sending our funds over to the uk,here you are help yourself arent we lovely. I think we should consider something with a large percentage of our funds back if not everything before we sign.


LOVETT AFFIDAVIT

  • Bill
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:00

Why wouldn't the IoM want to see justice done concerning the bank's directors? I am sure it could not be that Directors are ex IoMG and FSC - no conflicts there are there!?


would we take action anyway? bill

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:06

would we take action anyway? also if we did and we win will our deposits be reimbursed.? also how come our london dag lawyer hasnt picked up on it,


"also how come our london dag

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:33

"also how come our london dag lawyer hasnt picked up on it,"

Easy, he hasn't made enough money yet.


Action

  • Bill
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:10

Who can say - but when someone feels the need to put in a clause like that, I get suspicious and I think it shows that IoMG is interested in protecting particular parties. Unfortunately we are not one of them.


The fact that it has been put

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:50

The fact that it has been put in there serves as a flag to show that they have been up to no good (The directors).

Quite how they thought that they would get that one past us is a mystery.


It doesn't prevent them from

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:36

It doesn't prevent them from being investigated for breach of regulations or indeed any other criminal complaint though.
Think about that for a minute.


CHANGE CONSULTANTS

  • Hampnew
  • 22/01/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:25

Can not understand why IOMG employed Alix to consult on this very complicated issue as Mr Bell has told us.

In my research, I can see no evidence to suggest that Alix have any experience in dealing with such a matter.

My research does tell me that the only firm with a successful track record in these matters is Slaughter and May, a magic circle law firm, one of the top ten in the world. Maybe worth DAG approaching them for their opinion on the Alix solution, or even better IOMG should take a second opinion?


DAVID LOVETT AFFIDAVIT 26/1/09

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:40

Quite right. Another condition in the proposed SoA that is quite obviously of no possible benefit to depositors.


DAVID LOVETT AFFIDAVIT

  • cande
  • 15/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 11:43

Where is a copy of the affidavit lodged?


On the public site. facts -

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 11:54

On the public site. facts - court documents.
Hey ng can we have the drop down menu back on the welcome page please.


Home Page

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 15:43

Pls just go to "All content".. just one more click for the sake of a clean, visitor friendly home page :-)


Here they are: Bell and Lovett affidavits

  • mr plod
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Thank You

  • cande
  • 15/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:35

Thank You


IOMG Proposed SOA

  • timeout
  • 22/10/08 22/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 09:24

It is becoming clear, as days go by, why some individuals in IOMG decided to be generous and use Public money to bring in Alix Partners, who are not really getting the LP to endorse or check anything.

1..It seems to me this was done in order to come up with a document that will protect further KSFIOM directors, some of whom are also FSC officials, from being sued and taken to court. This can be done by the LP or the Creditors (us). (Please note: The LP and PWC will have legal responsibilities under insolvency laws not to do anything to compromise their fundamental duty of care to us.)
2. They had the cheek to do this using their own government's money.
3. I guess they are afraid that their careers will get ruined if they go to prison, since both their own people on the IOM and other corporations will hound them if they are found guilty.

I have said before, in my unfortunate experience, the only time people like these do the right thing is when faced with the threat of going to prison themselves and having their careers and employability threatened for what they have really done.

None of us would normally want to see any innocent person go to prison. But under the circumstances, in my humble opinion, after months of seeing no action from this lot, it seems to me we have to seriously start considering what we need to do to bring legal charges in the IOM against individuals who:

  1. Have potentially breached their fiduciary duties.
  2. May have participated in actions leading to serious conflicts of interest, and god only knows what else beyond conflicts ....
  3. Have not visibly fulfilled their duties by providing documentary evidence that, for e.g., has IOMG made a FORMAL PETITION to the Queen to allow IOM be incur DEBT to repay depositors, most of whom are British Citizens.
  4. Continue to abuse their office by using IOMG money for personal initiatives to protect their own backsides, like this pathetic SOA and Alix Partners being employed to tell me to waive my right to sue someone.