Dealing with PWC

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 29/11/2008 - 15:58

I simpathise to some extent with PwC's Mike Simpson as he does get deluged by requests for information - mostly having to repeat the same thing and spend time in correcting erroneous 'facts'.

Why don't we have ONE entity (one or more people) who would agree to act as the interface between PwC and us. Potentially on a conference call weekly. The DAG entity could field questions during the normal course of the day and provide a concise set of questions at the weekly call. Others of course could listen in, but the DAG entity would be the only one to speak.

I would see him agreeing to this because it would allow him to budget his time, and allow for a meaningful progressive dialogue to occur rather than having to go back a lot of times and have to deal with inaccurate and (to him) irrelevant issues.

The big problem would be to get the DAG entity together speaking for the majority of members of this forum, and those that do, pledging to work through the DAG entity rather than phoning or emailing with any random point or question. It is in our interest though to do this.

0
Your rating: None

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

New Simpson update

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:16

I have just come across this Simpson update, dated Dec 5.....?!

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4035

Is this new? I've never seen this before. Reading though it, it seems like out position is getting steadily weaker by second, or am I getting this wrong? .

Frog, Lucky Jim or someone, please can you translate this into easily understandable Engllish? Where do we stand, really?


I am not a solcitor so....

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 19:02

Lostinspace - I am not a solicitor so I am not qualified to translate the legal gobbledegook in Simpson's update statement dated 5/12 (which only appeared today, 9/12) AND the statement of John Wright, the Notary acting for Diver & those depositors who subscribed to Diver's legal fund.

I do not know if there is another solicitor member of DAG who could help us. Though not himself a qualified solicitor perhaps elgee might offer a comment from a purely personal point of view.


LP updated back-dated 5 Dec

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 18:06

Although dated 5 Dec, this appeared on their website only today, 9 Dec. An interesting back-dating technique! So he can now say he is respecting the 7 day interval?


Unfortunately, this is not

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 17:39

Unfortunately, this is not new news to us - we aren't represented on the creditors' committee - even though we have substantial claim amounts. This was clearly a stitchup by government to minimise PWC's protection of our interests. You could argue that the creditors are all in the same boat as us, and so who cares, but there are key items that we would have liked to defend. One I'm thinking of is the £200M of sub-participation loans from KSFUK to KSFIOM where we would like a set-off (£550M-£200M) but the others may argue that this wouldn't be in their best interest to allow it (it lowers our exposure to KSFUK and raises theirs) - and there certainly are others.

The question of the £1Bn 'other' item was discussed and this - along with a clearer idea of the company's finances is being worked on. E&Y expect substantial changes to this.

Also with Khf being a net debtor to KSFUK, it means that KSFUK will have to try to get cash out of the Icelandic bank - bad news as the bank is in limbo and the Icelandics are not likely to be very helpful. This could reduce to some effect the overall % recovered from KSFUK - thing is, it isn't clear by how much.


Helloooooooo??

  • laserblues2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:06

Hi Frog, I have sent you a couple of private messages - not sure if you have received them?? Do you use Skype? If so.... lets chat later on - if not and would like to send me your landline I'll give you a call....

Either way let me know

Thanks

Nick


No, I haven't received them -

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 12:41

No, I haven't received them - I think I had the option switched off. I've now switched it on for PM (I think). If you resend with contact details, we'll chat

I don't use Skype btw. but happy to join forces on this one.

I do wonder about PWC's future in this process though as the IOM seem to be shifting to Alix - and if they come up with a good idea, then they may decide against liquidation - and then no need for PWC...


After 1 week waiting for PWC

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 19:01

I called them and they said that they had forwarded my note to Mike Simpson directly. I'll give him a couple of days then I'll go through PWC in London to find him.

Not a good start.....


PWC - contact

  • laserblues2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:05

Hi Frog,

I have also been in contact with the other partners at PWC - I have also sent them across a letter - why dont we join forces??

I have skype which I find very useful - do you use it as well?? Maybe we could speak later today??

Thanks

Nick


Conference Call with control

  • alandob
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 20:52

We use conference calls a lot and they are very useful. One idea would be for the administrator to be "key speaker" and allow a few other callers to be able to converse - all other callers to only listern. This would allow 100's of us to listern to the conference call whilst still having a level of control. Read the following link (I have no connection with the company). http://www.powwownow.co.uk/event-conference-calls/


Quite - that will be the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 22:08

Quite - that will be the plan. Thanks for the link - I'll search to find the lowest cost option if PWC agree.


Dealing with PMC

  • grandmaparis
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 20:31

Frog, I absolutely support you in this initiative and think your draft letter to PMC is excellent. A poll will be too time-consuming so I suggest you go ahead and send it.


OK, I'll do that.

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 20:42

Soon as I get a response, I'll inform everyone and ask for participants in the group.


Dealing with PwC

  • dodot
  • 10/10/08 01/06/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 21:08

I think the small group talking to the liquidator provisionally on a regular basis via conference call is a very good idea. I am sure trying to work with him is better than just make him an outlet for our understandable frustrations. I remain of the view that he is an professional trying to do a tough job to the best of his ability. Hopefully he would respond favourably to the idea.

He must be feeling the strain of all the adverse comments made about PwC, but probably feels a bit between a rock and a hard place because he does need some clock of confidentiality to do his job, which seems to get more complex daily. Reading all the cross litigation mentioned in the avidavits makes me realise how complex this is. We need to avoid making it unnecessarily more so, whilst still looking after ourselves.


Dealing with PWC

  • Bill
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 16:17

You have my support - that would much more effective. Even if everybody did not want to go for that even a large number agreeing would cut down on enqiries and probably increase the quality of information. Let me know if I can help.


Well how do we do this?

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 16:48

Another poll? :)

The credibility of a few members of this group would be needed to pull this together as they have engendered trust with most of us through their efforts to date. I suggest that Diver picks this up as an action to present back to the DAG.

@Diver, Do you agree? would you be willing?


Meeting Mike Simpson

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 17:11

There are already people on the IoM who have met with Mike Simpson.

Mike Simpson did say at that time that he would meet again if that is wanted.


What about John Wright

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 17:08

How about John Wright?


IN the process....

  • laserblues2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 17:01

HI Frog,

I've spoken with a few people at PWC in the IOM and am currently putting together a letter with some suggestions for them as to how we handle this and also numerous comments from this site so they can get a feel for the general feeling for their reputation on here at the moment.

I tried to contact Diver but am unsure of how to do this?? Do you have any contact information for him?? I also emailed NG about this but have not had a reply yet.

All the best

Nick

PS. also please see the other thread I have started with regards to this.


It's different

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/11/2008 - 17:46

What I'm suggesting is that we make a small group as the interface to PWC (and Alix) and agree that we will only converse through that group and set up a regular weekly conference call for an hour or so with them to air questions and gain latest information.

The group would field questions (and answer them if it has the information already) and present them on the conference call. This will filter out the things that are upsetting (and driving the costs up) PWC.

The DAG members would need to abide by the process and not call PWC in an ad-hoc way.

This is different to having individual meetings with PWC as is happening now.


PWC interface

  • Cawdor
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 30/11/2008 - 01:32

A good suggestion which has my support. An individual/small team if this does not overlap with those already on the ground there.
What about similar with the PWC bigboy in London? Should queries and weekly progress reports be channelled through PWC IoM ?


One would assume that PWC are

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 30/11/2008 - 12:28

One would assume that PWC are sharing information, so only one interface would be needed.

Look, we need to get this kicked off - there haven't been any objections (and OK, only a few agreements)

MODERATOR, can we have poll to see if there is broad support for this idea?


good idea frog

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 30/11/2008 - 13:38

You have my support on that one. Win win solution. We gain as we get a commitment for weekly dialogue. PWC gain as they don't get loads of letters from us lot (many of which ask similar questions)


Great - more of us agree

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 10:53

But how to kick this off?

I have had no response from the administrators who could perhaps set up some type of voting arrangement, and due to the nature of the relationship with PWC (We'll field the general questions on this website) we need to have broad agreement that we would work this way as a group.

I'm puzzled that this idea, which would gain some useful and timely dialogue with PWC is getting less airtime than a mobile sign idea on this site!


centralised PWC

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 14:57

you have my support on this


PWC contact group

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 11:40

The obvious route to kick it off would be a letter sent by and on behalf of the DAG to Mike Simpson cc his new assistant. Maybe if you could draft such a letter Frog and post it here we could get general consensus. Moderator - could you arrange a vote? I guess in order to have any kudos it would need to garner >50% of registered users' consent. If you want to email me I'd be happy to help.


Here we go

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 15:02

Rippedoff:

Here is the suggested letter. I wonder if just sending it to PWC, establish the call and then inform everyone as a fait-accompli would be best! I know it isn't democratic, but we seem to be in limbo and it may take weeks waiting for a poll etc.

Dear Mr. Simpson,

I understand that you are suffering from a lot of correspondence and calls from the large number of KSF IOM depositors wanting information as to the progress of the administration you are undertaking. I appreciate that the sheer volume of requests are diverting from your primary work and potentially slowing things down for all.
There is a group of retail depositors who congregate on the chat.ksfiomdepositors.org site who would agree to funnel their questions through one or two people establishing a single point of contact between yourselves and a large amount of retail depositors. The result of this is that questions that have already been asked and answered by you and your staff would be filtered by this point of contact group. I would also suggest that nominally, the contact be established as a weekly conference call, so that your staff are not inundated with calls on a random basis. Of course if something material happens and you wish to communicate this to the group, then it would not need to wait for the call. I would suggest a call on Friday afternoons would be a good time for all.
Please advise me on your thoughts on this proposal.


PWC contact group

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 20:43

Frog,

Not sure how much help this is but I cannot email you directly as your contact details are not available on this site. I've taken your proposed letter and bastardised it somewhat. The problem here is that if you ask 10 people for their opinions on a draft document you'll get 10 different letters. I think we shoudl be rather direct saying "if you give us xyz we'll give you abc" - its a deal which we both want something from... anyway here's my proposed letter for what its worth.....

Dear Mr. Simpson,
I understand that you are experiencing a lot of correspondence from the large number of KSF IOM depositors wanting information as to the progress of the administration you are undertaking. I appreciate that the sheer volume of requests are diverting from your primary work and potentially slowing things down for all. You may also be aware that many depositors are unhappy with the frequency of your reports and the lack of response to individual ad hoc questions; this perceived “information vacuum” has now manifested itself in a lack of confidence in your performance by many DAG members. Between our members we constitute a major share of KSF IOM’s individual creditors and you may be aware that we have now legal representation in IOM.
The Depositors Action Group (DAG) would agree to funnel their questions through a small group of people thereby establishing a single point of contact between yourself and a large amount of retail depositors. The result of this proposal would be that we may ensure our questions would be co ordinated and concise and you would notice a significant reduce in their volume of course. We believe this would make communication much more effective and agreeable to both PWC and DAG. In return we would need a general commitment from you to hold a conference call on a regular basis with an agreed frequency and duration and with the agreed small group of DAG members
It is our belief that this proposal would represent a major improvement in communication and serve to provide clarity and ultimately more trust. Please give this your urgent consideration and respond to……….

end

Of course PWC are reading these posts so maybe we, as a group, should try to progress this off line somehow. Have any of the CORE members taken this issue up yet?


Email sent already

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:36

It's already gone - but nonetheless, it contains all you have put in yours although it is more specific as to a weekly call on Friday afternoons.

I suspect it'll take them about a week to respond as it will need to float up the hierarchy!


PWC contact

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 10:29

Frog, any response from Simpson yet?

In particular I would like to know
1. What is PWC's current understanding of 550m on deposit in London - any thing come out of E&Y meeting for him? Why are we not on Cred Commt?
2. Progress of Mr Spratt
3. Is he still talking to prospective purchasers (yes/no answer would suffice)
4. Any update on parental guarantee discussions? (imf/Iceland...)

I will also email him to ask if he has thus far given it consideration.


No, no response yet -

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 11:33

No, no response yet - although I expected to take a week or so.

I'll certainly start with these questions IF they accept.

Regards

Nigel


I am now in contact with some

  • laserblues2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 11:09

I am now in contact with some of the other partners within PWC IOM and have written a document regarding some suggestions and also comments and views from this website.

I think we do need a central point of contact either one person or a team that can compile DAG questions for PWC / KSF IOM and also get updates as to what is happening.

I have tried contacting a few people through the message service on this website but I don't know if its working or not as I have had no response from anyone!!

I'm going to contact PWC and if people want their names added to the list please feel free to reply either on this thread, the other thread regarding PWC & Mike Simpson or email me on laserblues2(?)hotmail [dot] com

Thanks

Nick


DAG centralised communication with PWC-Ldn/IOM groups ok w/this?

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 11:23

laserblues2

I fully support your initiative. Should improve info flow & go towards reducing PWC costs also. Perhaps the London & IOM group leaders would confirm their support. If we can then have a thread set up to capture queries / requests for questions to be put to PWC during the weekly meetings - responses / feedback from the meetings can then be posted.


Thanks....

  • laserblues2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 13:53

Thanks for the support - there are now quite a few people supporting me in this - but I have no clue who to speak to on the website with regards to a poll / action. I emailed NG but didn't receive an answer yet - not sure where the messages go.....

If anyone in the IOM or London teams are reading this then please contact me!

Thanks

Nick


PWC Comms initiative

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 13:59

Nick,

Not too sure either, but suggest:
1) Use shout box?
2) You should be able to send messages to members as long as they have enabled their emails. Click on their names & check.

Cheers,