• everhopeful
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 08/04/2009 - 14:46


Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (16 votes)

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

UK Government could give us the £552Million overnight

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 20:32

In the Banking Bill that the UK used to shut down Kaupthing UK is a clause (27) that gives the UK Treasury the power to order the return of the £552Million. If the UK did that that then it would be a completely different story. However even with this money available, under the DCS or SoA, it would still take years for us to get all our money back as much of it is tied up in long-term loans.

The only solution that would give us all our money in the short term is a Political one whereby the UK or IoM Government take over KSF IoM, pay us our monies and then over time recover the assets to claw back the money given to us.

Ideally, the IoM Court would delay yet again allowing us to apply the political pressure to make that happen. After six months I cannot see that happening as it is pushing the patience of the Courts far too much. So, assuming the Courts will not delay further it is Liquidation and the DCS or non-Liquidation & the SoA - neither very appealing and neither will get us 100% of our money quickly.

The SoA makes provision for us to sign over our rights to a third party. If that third party gave me 100% of my money now then I would be happy to sign over that right. Therefore I am going for SoA and will continue to try and get the UK Government to step in as they have done for the UKs cats, Dave Whelan and Stockcube. The UK Government have been using the £552Million to (shamefully in my view) try and blackmail the IoM into being part of the UK; we have been - inadvertantly, and understandably - helping the UK Government bully the IoM Government. However, with the OECD now ranking IoM alongside the UK with regards to tax status the UK Government have no reason to continue with its stance - they would not lose face in helping helping us; in fact they could say that now the IoM have cleaned up their act they will help and win political points all round.

Going against the SoA, the courts will (in my view) lose patience and just put KSF IoM into liquidation triggering the DCS. That may work. It may galvanise the IoM to kowtow to London and do whatever London wants before it steps in to help; but that is a real and everything-to-lose (although everything to gain)gamble.

So I shall (yes, reluctantly) support the SoA and continue to shout and scream for the IoM and UK to step in. I will also maintain my letter/fax/email onslaught to UK MPs (and now to the G20 leaders who I feel Gordon Brown lied through his teeth to) and urge everyone else to do to.


  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 17:39

Everhopeful - you are being too optimistic!
EY will tell you at the end of April that he cannot be clear about the final outcome from KSF UK and will not give any precise idea of when and how much will be paid out.
And even if he could what difference would that make? Whatever comes out of KSF UK to IOM will be paid out to us when it arrives, whether we are in SOA or Liquidation/DCS.
This is make up your mind time. We should never have allowed the IOM Govt to string us along for 6 months, to achieve nothing.The Liquidator Provisional is holding more than £140 million of our money. That represents 16% of our money- so all of us could by now have received at least 10% of our funds under the DCS/Liquidation and the IOM would have had to be very precise about what they are doing to fund the DCS, and give some timetable of payouts. By allowing them to procrastinate we have no idea how they will tackle DCS - but we do know they are legally obliged to do so.Why do you think they are shying away from DCS?
I believe you and others are being led by the nose by the IOM and I said so after the first Court postponement. The longer you put off the inevitable the greater will be the costs of LP and others - and we pay all those costs.
Is it not absolutely clear that we shall get back ONLY what is recovered by LP in IOM and by EY in London? Nobody else has put any money on the table except as a temporary measure to fund either the DCS or the SOA.
The only faint hope of getting more is to move quickly to Liquidation/DCS and then decide legally how we attack the guilty parties.
Short of getting somebody to return all the money from London, or persuade HMG to make a loan to IOM - and I put odds of 10 to 1 against either - I am planning my own financial future on getting £500m out of IOM in 5 years and £200m out of UK in 6 years. So we'll see 80% of our money back in 6 years.I'll be delighted if we do better or quicker - but in the meantime I want to see us put together a coherent plan to attack all those who put us in this position. And we will never reach that position as long as you go on temporising.

NO to further postponement

  • Colpep
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 19:06

Banna, you make sense to me. The sooner we get our money back the better - remember the old adage half a loaf ... The LP should have been given the go ahead immediately and the longer he tarries, the higher his costs, and liquidation is where the big money is made in accountancy businesses.

By the sounds of it, the British Govt has no intention of lending the IOM any money. It would be nice to sue the KSF directors but I bet they have their assets out of reach.

I really appreciate all the work that the active members in DAG have been doing and anything I can do to help, please shout. I am back working but could do tasks at night or over the weekend. I apologise for not being more active.

UK has to be asked for a loan.

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/04/2009 - 01:42

HMG have not asked for a loan by the IOM. The request must first come from the IOM first but they are too proud. When Darling stated that they have not received a request, at that time I thought that that moment would have been the ideal opportunity for the IOM to go straight back and ask - but they did not. It was almost as if Darling was opening a door for them. Until the IOM ask we really can not know if they would get help or not. My thoughts on this is that the although the freezing of the money in the UK by HMG was the catalyst that caused the KSF IOM to go into administration the major problem was the manner in which IOM FSC put the money there in the first place. I think the IOM will not ask the UK for help as they are aware that it would give Darling/Brown ammunition for their fight against Crown Dependency tax havens.

IOM asking for loan

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/04/2009 - 09:15

I'm not sure its a question of being too proud.

To some extent, I sympathise with the IOMG in this - they, like all depositors, have no idea yet what monies might come out of KSF UK.

These are the monies that IOMG would use to repay any UK loan, therefore they would need to have an idea how much of the loan they would cover.

The shortfall would then have to be met by the IOM taxpayer, otherwise they would be in default to a UK government that has already shown itself to be a) no friend of the IOM, b) quite happy to blow entire economies out of the water to suit its purposes (cf Iceland).

Faced with the lack of info from KSF UK, IOMG seem to be thinking that shafting depositors is a better option.

Can someone please explain

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

Can someone please explain how whatever is returned from the UK would make a difference to whether you vote for the SoA or not.

Surely, in either case, whatever is returned will be distributed to depositors or am I missing something.

Unfortunatly not many are as

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 17:03

Unfortunatly not many are as clear as you mikeinfrance1, there are many distressed indivuals who find this very hard to grasp. There are letters flying around accusing IoM etc of lack of clarity, lack of openness, there are questions even now being asked of IoM. I tend to agree wIth a point you made earliEr that for the sake of a bit of detail why stop the principle that can be reversed anyway if necessary. However, for the sake of the majority I have asked for a delay until E&Y issue so there can be no more guesswork and uninformned recriminations either way. I've had a lot of emails saying, 'I've waited this long, whats a few days or weeks now". To some extent I see this aS a way to try to build the trust all around that is so obviously lacking from all sides at present. If we have fact we can cut the crap eh!

I don't think it will take long anyway!!

What is good is that people are trying to decide for themselves and reading the document, rather than just being led. That is good in my view.


  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 16:56

As I understand it, whatever is returned from KSF UK or a loan from HMG or money as such from any other source, will either go into the KSFIOM pot for payment or make KSFIOM more attractive for someone to buy. A HMG loan maybe in the form that HMG becomes a creditor to KSF UK in our place - just for information.
One of the questions that needs answering if the potential costs of running either scheme. These costs will be paid out first from whatever is in the pot and before we as depositors are paid. According to the latest SoA we as depositors will not be allowed to know how much is in there, only IOMT and the LP.

@tricky Dicky

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 19:00

Where did you get this information from?
Any monies recovered from the UK must be given out to the creditors asap surely?

THat is true TD and the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 17:05

THat is true TD and the question is being posed as we type!!!!

For yout info I did that

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 15:09

For yout info I did that last week. With that info we can all get a far clearer view oif what can be achieved.


  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 15:50

Dear Expat,

Agreed.... having waited 6 months, I would much rather wait a little longer for KSF UK / E&Y probable recoveries, than be forced into an immediate SOA / DSC / Liquidation vote/decision.

Kind regards,


Couldn't agree more

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 17:19

Absolutely - why be forced into a decision - I also understand that what will be returned will be returned to either pot - but our decision will be based on informed choice - however I have to say that I am only in favour of any scheme that gives us all 100% return - 60% is NO GOOD to me.
I feel we need to really be pushing for this strongly - those that are working so hard on our behalf may be doing just that & not getting the response they want from HMG or IOMG which would be understandable given that we can come up with ways to achieve it but the politicians on both sides seem to have another agenda !!!

I also Agree we should make a vote on an informed Choice!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 16:38

We are being pressured into something we know very little about at this moment in time, this has divided the Group because of individual criteria.

I agree I think we should ask for a POSTPONEMENT from the Court until the BEST POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD FOR the Depositor to return OURMoney in one piece.
How can this be put into ACTION at this late STAGE..?

What does everyone Else Think??


KSF UK and the SOA

  • sandman
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/04/2009 - 16:09

Do you know how the approx 160m GBP owing to KSF UK is going to be treated under the SOA? Are they going to be treated as creditors and get payouts as well as normal depositors or have PWC and EY come to an agreement to reduce the total owed by KSF UK by the same amount? Just wondering as I haven't seen a mention of this for a while.

Also, I noticed yesterday that virtually all of the collection of documents connected to KSF IOM that have been on the IOM FSC web site has conveniently disappeared some time over the last couple of days. If you look in the archives there are still a few for Oct and Nov but everything since then has gone. I wonder why...?