Discussion of Conference Call with Mike Simpson 9th March 2009

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 09/03/2009 - 20:01

Dear all,

Please find here my summary of the call with Mike Simpson today. The audio recording of the call will be on the bank site later.

Regards

Frog.

General Questions

  1. What is the current cash balance for the bank?
    A: £147M
  2. How much interest has been earned so far?
    £560K
  3. Any news about the KSFUK deposit from E&Y?
    Not yet – E&Y have indicated that they will not have anything before Easter
  4. What is the latest status on the sale of the loan book and any other interest in the purchase of the bank?
    A: No change – awaiting clarification on the likely return from KSFUK

Open Questions

  1. Can we have a breakdown of the type and quantity of individual depositors/entities?
    A: Will be done in the next few days on the site

  2. Can we have a breakdown of the balance sheet in multicurrency (£, $ and Euro)
    A: This is taking some time and is a low priority compared to preparation around the SoA. It may take more than a couple of weeks.

This Week’s Questions
1. Could you ask if MS will please put the list of web addresses he put in the Jan 30th update in a more prominent place: perhaps here http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/3989? Failing that, could he put them on every update from now on?
A: Yes, this will be done.
2. Also, if he would be kind enough to put a DAG contact email address, which we could supply?
A: Yes – awaiting address
3. When will the LP's costs become available?
A: The costs will be put to the court very shortly – likely before the next court hearing.

  1. How many bank employees are still on the payroll. As the accounts are now all reconciled and the bank is not functional will this number be drastically reduced this month?
    A: There are 30 employees on payroll including the MD, but the Finance Director has left. The number will not be reduced until clarity on the direction of the bank is clearer.
  2. During the UK Treasury Committee Hearing, when John Aspden was asked about the status of the £550 million transferred from KSF Isle of Man to the UK branch, he mentioned he had received a 2 page email the previous Friday from, I believe, the FSA. 
 Since the UK Treasury Committee Hearing was nearly 3 weeks ago, has Mike Simpson discussed the details of the email and now has a better understanding of situation regarding funds in the UK?
    A: Mike Simpson had discussed this email with the FSC and they said that it was confidential – nonetheless, the contents of the email had nothing to do with the discussion about whether the funds should be upstreamed to the UK bank or not – rather it was more to do with the KSFUK situation prior to the freezing of the bank.
  3. Can we ask for exact amount of in-flight funds, which were in the UK before being returned
? Can we get sight of the in-flight legal opinion he obtained some months back?
    A: The amount that was in-flight (the transfer request had been passed to KSFUK or their bankers) was about £70M. The amount including requests that hadn’t been actioned by KSFIOM is higher but Mike Simpson did not have that information.
  4. SI-1674 gives E&Y 6 months (the “transitional period”) in which to complete two transfers comprising the “Overriding Objectives” [ORO – SI Art 21(2)]. The two transfers were to result in ING becoming banker for former UK “Edge” depositors. On Feb 9th 2009 ING announced that the relevant transfers were complete [http://www.ingdirect.co.uk/kaupthingedge.asp].
    Does this imply that the KFSUK Administrator (E&Y) is now at liberty to perform its other duties in administration, and thereby enable KFSIOM to make application for transfer of Depositor funds?
    A: PWC have made application to E&Y for the return of the deposits, but as noted earlier, E&Y have said that they will not be making a statement as to the likely return until after Easter.
  5. Is there an update on the Kaupthing UK’s statement of account?
    A: No. E&Y are only obliged to provide one 6 months after administration, nonetheless, PWC do not have a seat on the creditors’ committee, and the meeting minutes are not available to Mike Simpson.
  6. Mr. Simpson in his Affidavits has several times mentioned that it may be necessary to obtain UK Court Sanction of proceedings in the UK related to recovery of KSFIOM Assets. Is he concerned that this may NOT be forthcoming in a Scheme of Arrangement, whereas given the full powers of a liquidator there should be no problem?
    A: The SoA is not clearly defined yet, but this will be an important point in his evaluation of the merits of the scheme over a liquidation. There is a clear process for liquidations from an IOM company recovering assets from a UK one, but the SoA is untested.
  7. Given the apparent fulfillment of the SI-1674-stated “Overriding Objectives” on February 9th (according to ING), is the UK Administrator now at liberty to consider dealing with the KFSIOM Depositor Funds? OR does E&Y have to apply to the Treasury for permission to continue normal administration of KFSUK and the payment of creditors now that the ING -transactions appear complete? Or must they wait for the lapse of 6 months willy-nilly?
    A: As above
  8. Can Mr. Simpson, as Liq Prov KFSIOM get a response from KFSUK to the effect of what is the likely time-line to completion now that the ING ORO appears complete?
    A: As above – probably after Easter
  9. Assuming E&Y are at liberty to proceed with the ordinary administration of KFSUK, could the shareholders of Kaupthing HF-Holdings UK claim priority over KFSIOM depositors?
    A: No – unsecured creditors have priority over shareholders.
  10. The IOM Government has said that they will pay for all costs involved in arranging the SoA. Can MS inform us of the costs incurred to date by KSFIOM/PWC in providing information to IOMG/Alix Partners? Can he also as an officer of the Court, ascertain what the ruling is on repayment of these costs to KSFIOM from IOMG? Can he also inform us when this repayment will be made?
    A: Mike Simpson said that there were costs involved in providing support to the IOM treasury in preparing the SoA. He was concerned about a certain conflict of interest in billing the IOM Government for the work as they also are a creditor. I suggested that he bill them prior to the vote on the SoA to remove that concern and he will evaluate this as an option.
  11. Regarding the four eyes is MS holding information back for a specific reason as to the whereabouts of the four eyes at critical times of KSFIOM. If so what are the reasons. It should not be difficult to ascertain where they were at ‘critical’ times. There are also rumors that that certain Directors are trying to change minutes of meetings regarding there presence at critical times, can he confirm these rumours are true or false.
    A: The times the ‘four eyes’ were out of the office did not coincide with any important event in the bank’s running during 2008. Mike Simpson got copies of the banks notes etc. very soon after the bank was frozen and is confident that the records are an accurate representation of the running of the bank.
  12. Has MS researched the legal aspects of offsetting the Kaupthing hf Parental Guarantee against the debt owed to KSFIOM by Kaupthing hf, as discussed in the last Q&A “A: The legal aspects of this haven’t been researched yet but if it is legally possible, then this would be done.
    A: This is being evaluated; if it is legally possible, then it will be persued.
  13. In light of: 
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/evidence-bells-browns-and-g...
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb33.html#1
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb31.html
    A: Mike Simpson saw no relevance of these cases to the current situation with KSFIOM, although he did agree that some of the people were involved in both.
    Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. October 2008, and now showing on KSFIOM’s statements, is truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK, RBS or any other bank. Does the LP now consider liquidation to be in the safest interests of the depositors, whom he represents?
    A: The money was held in KSFUK.
  14. PwC stated about 2 months ago that the directors were to make a statement regarding their deposits and withdrawals. Strangely that has never happened. Can he say why the directors have not made any public statement following the demise of the bank?
    A: Mike Simpson clarified the position of the Directors’ deposits and withdrawals in the last call. He was not aware that the Directors were going to make any other statement regarding the bank other than their deposits.
  15. Have any of the directors claimed a bonus for the last financial year, & if so how much?
    A: No
  16. Can Mr. Simpson confirm that there are no voidable preferences to creditors, or related parties, including KSFUK, showing up on the accounts? If there are any such, how much value is involved?
    A: He is not aware of any
  17. In some jurisdictions the Liquidator/Scheme Manager in a Scheme of Arrangement cannot pursue void (-able) preferences through the courts within a Scheme, whereas he/she can as a fully empowered liquidator. If a Scheme of Arrangement is selected on 9 April or thereafter, what will be his powers under IOM Jurisdiction and is he sure that all such assets will be traceable and recoverable, if necessary through the courts?
    A: This factor will be taken into account when the scheme of arrangement is clarified. There is not enough information about the scheme to be able to answer this question.
  18. On the issue of Creditor Voting is it true that BOTH: 
(a) A majority of all creditors in number AND
(b) 75% by total value is required; 
to ensure the Scheme passes muster.
    A: Yes. There was some discussion about the position of the IOM Government’s share of the vote once the early payment scheme has gone through, but again, there is not enough information in the current SoA documents. This will need to be clarified.
  19. The UK FSCS Consumer site now shows that as at 27/2/2009 2200 UK Depositors have received compensation, but that there are still more. Does Mr. Simpson know how many UK Depositors there were?
    A: Yes, but I don’t recall what that was from the call – it’ll be on the recording.
4.68421
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (19 votes)

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

New Question for LP

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 15:19

So far PWC have been reluctant to talk about how much their work is costing us. Can you please ask Mr Simpson the following:

  • how many staff have the 2 LP's got working on the KSFIOM issue and what the hourly rates are for each level of staff member. Who negotiated these rates and are the fees capped in any way?

  • what hourly rates he has negotiated with the outside consultants he has employed (lawyers and any other advisors) and are their fees are capped in any way?

  • Are any of the KSFIOM Directors are still being paid?

  • How many KSFIOM staff members remain employed? When do their contracts expire? What exactly are they now doing on a day to day basis?

  • Further to a question asked last time, I believe we cannot accept the stance that PWC are reluctant to invoice the IOMG directly for all of the work required to assist Alix partners formualte the SOA. How many hours have been spent to date on this task, what £ amount does this represent, and when will this invoice be issued to the IOMG?


Would you mind putting new

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:36

Would you mind putting new questions in the thread for 6th April - there is a danger I'll not spot them (or forget them when I collate them) if they are put here.

Nonetheless, there have been similar questions asked to your ones;

  1. There are a core group of PWC people but he also has access to general PWC staff. He has not submitted his costs, but on the last call he said it would be very soon.

  2. OK - I'll ask, but I know it'll be swerved (varies depending on role etc.)

  3. The Managing Director is still there - the Financial Director has left (as per the last call)

  4. There are 30 staff, covering the loan book, answering depositor calls and admin (probably also helping out the IOMG on the SoA too). I recall him saying that if either the SoA or liquidation goes ahead, he'll need the staff to administer the proof of accounts etc afterward.

  5. Yes, I asked him to consider putting in the bill before the 9th April - he may have an answer by the 6th one way or another.


@Frog

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 21:35

1 & 2 I expect him to try and swerve 1 and 2 however he has an obligation to answer these questions and there should be full transparency. I know he has not answered questions re amounts spent to date hence the very simple questions re the hourly rates of each level of PWC staff member and outside consultant. Why would he not give the simple facts here? Were they negotiated and are they capped? I think I know the answer but want it on record - all professional fees in this environment are up for negotiation so they should not be allowed to "help themselves" to our cash

3 Are the non executive Directors still receiving fees?

4 See my revised question in the below post

5 In his answer he seemed to swerve this hence the restated question

Thanks for your efforts. I will put anything else in the other thread (which I couldn't find earlier) - sorry about that.


Kiwi, I don't think he does

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 22:53

Kiwi,

I don't think he does have an obligation to answer ANY questions as the bank isn't in liquidation (apart from his submissions on expenses to the court) - maybe someone with knowledge of Manx law can confirm this and the rather odd provisional liquidation we find the bank in (I'm sure it was originally only designed to be for a week or two while the liquidators were chosen). Also in general liquidations, the information can not be demanded - a liquidator can provide a level of information that is adequate for disclosure.

What are you trying to get from this questioning? I find a more direct approach generally gets better answers. If you are worrying about the odd £10,000 here or there, then is that really worthwhile as opposed to maybe a more worrying angle?


@frog

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 23:10

Who is the LP accountable to then? We need clarity on this. I concur that this LP appointment for 6 months and counting seems highly irregular but have no experience of IOM laws so cannot make an informed comment or judgement.

DAG - can you refer this issue to EC and respond?

I think my suggested questions are all self explanatory and direct, i.e. Why are the staff all still employed, are any of the non-exec directors still on the payroll and how much are PWC charging per hour for each level of employee (and how many staff do they have working on the project)? I have seen liquidation costs in more straight forward cases than this rapidly amount to £10M+ so I am not searching for peanuts.

Thanks


Amended question for LP

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 18:32

An amendment to Q4 above.

Over the past six months we have seen many liquidations take place across the UK and Ireland. Today Principals in Ireland went into provisional liquidation and all staff were immediately made redundant with only a couple out of over 200 remaining to assist the LP. You have said yourself that it is unlikely that the Bank will be sold as a going concern so the argument of retaining staff for that eventuality is redundant. Why after six months do all KSFIOM staff remain employed? What specifically are they doing on a day to day basis? What is the monthly payroll cost of the KSFIOM staff?


Supplementary Question for LP

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 12/03/2009 - 16:26

In addition to kiwi38 question above

  • How much has he spent on outside consultants i.e. lawyers and other advisors in total, and is it possible to have a split by area e.g. In flight advice, Certificate of Deposit advice, advice in relation to KSFUK freezing order, or whatever subject headings he feels are most appropriate.

Question 15 re Inflight Transfers

  • algarvian
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 13:25

Frog

Many thanks for your summary.

The LP´s answer to this question states that the money WAS held in KSFUK. But, that was not the question. Can I ask you, therefore, to check the exact wording of his response as it is vitally important ?

Also, the question I raised sems to have been merged and thereby confused with a question about Mevannin and Brown´s and Bell´s evidence !


Algarvian

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 18:02

I'm not sure then what your question is. I assumed you were asking where the (as we now know) £70M of in-flight funds were residing, and Mike Simpson's response was that the payment would have come out of the UK bank - that is the funds form part of the £550M stuck in KSFUK. If you are asking another question, let me know on the 6th April question list.

With regard to the merging of the questions - don't worry, they were posed separately. You can hear the recording of the call on the bank site (although it isn't up yet, should be tomorrow I hope)


Frog, re In-Flight Transfers

  • algarvian
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 19:21

Frog

Here is my original question to the LP:

Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. October 2008, and NOW showing on KSFIOM’s statements, IS truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK, RBS or any other bank.

The question refers to the time that the statements, issued by the LP, were issued, and, logically, to the present time. The key word is 'IS', not WAS, or WERE. i,e, are the inflight funds NOW in KSFIoM, or some other bank?


Ah yes - that was asked. The

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 20:03

Ah yes - that was asked. The funds are in KSFUK - they are NOT in KSFIOM - and they form part of the £550K owed by KSFUK to KSFIOM.

Mike Simpson agreed that depending on the recovery from KSFUK, it may have been better to let the transfers complete, but his advice at the time was to stop them.


In-Flight Transfers

  • algarvian
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 08:49

Frog

Thanks for the clarification.

The situation now appears to be :

  1. The LP says the In-flight money IS in KSFUK

  2. The statements issued by the LP and dated 9th. October 2008, show that the money was credited back to KSFIoM.

Is the above a true reflection of the situation?


Yes The money is still in

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 12:03
  1. Yes

  2. The money is still in the UK, but the statements show that the amount is credited back to your account. The money was not moved back to KSFIOM.


Not an auspicious start by Homer

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 20:35

Doesn't fill you with confidence that he is working for our best interests..... Is this really being run the HMG or IOMG to our detriment.......


Is anyone on our side?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 03:34

This is an enormous cover up.
Is anyone on our side?


Is anyone on our side?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 03:33

This is an enormous cover up.
Is anyone on our side?


IOMG misinformatiom again.

  • sleepless uk
  • 16/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 12:50

Tried to post this earlier,but it did not seem to work. After reading Spellman's telecon with Chairman2,he did state that a position from KSFUK would be available March 09,however,according to Mike Simpson this will now be available after Easter,which takes us past the vote on the 9th. At the risk of sounding cynical,could it be in the interest of the IOMG to withold this info until after they have pushed through the soa as we may be paid out faster from UK funds under liquidation,which is just about the last thing they want.


Sleepless, the decision on

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 11:55

Sleepless,
the decision on the 9th is whether we have a vote or not. The vote will probably take at least a month to oganise and then give people a couple of weeks to get their result in. that takes us to late may. By then E&Y will have reported and we will know what they have said and can vote accordingly.


The E&Y report will be

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 18:04

The E&Y report will be completely separate from the IOM court case - in fact there is some merit in postponing (yes.. I know!) for a couple of weeks so that the UK position is clearer.


Thanks to frog

  • Wombat761
  • 30/01/09 20/03/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 10:42

Thank you very much for creating this concise summary of the Q& A on 9/3/09 and all the significant preparation you have done on behalf of all of us on so many occasions in relation to the Q&A sessions..


Questions arising

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 02:42

Many thanks frog for your continued efforts.

Some questions do not appear to have been properly answered by MS/PWS therefore would you please ask the following in two weeks:

Q2. MS has stated '.....nonetheless, the contents of the email had nothing to do with the discussion about whether the funds should be upstreamed to the UK bank or not.'
New Q. Has MS actually had sight of the email or is he relying on what he has been told by the FSC?

Q3. MS ignored the part of the question which referred to the Legal Opinion.
New Q. Is there anything in law which prevents PWC allowing the DAG to have sight of the legal opinion it received on in-flight transfers. If there is not will you please release the opinion?

Q13. The question related to where the in-flight monies are currently lodged. MS stated 'The money was held in KSFUK.'
New Q. Have the funds from the in-fight transfers been repatriated to KSFIOM and if not where are the funds currently held?


Regarding Q2. If I recall

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 18:12

Regarding Q2. If I recall well, he said he didn't see the email - he was just told what they wanted to tell him about what it contained. They would not release the email to him and he doesn't have the powers to ask just yet.

Q3: He was pretty sure that he will not release the opinion. It doesn't matter much really - we can also get an opinion of our own (actually, didn't that happen? As there isn't a challenge, then surely that advice was not positive either)

Q13: No, my summary isn't the best on this point, but what he said was that the money is in KSFUK (and still is).

In general regarding discovery of information, he made this point; as LP, his job is to safeguard the money but when liquidation comes, he will then have the job to investigate and demand more information in order to recover more assets, so this may be a future option if necessary.


Open question 2

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 21:44

Thanks Frog, as ever

I'm surprised at the lack of response to the question of currency balances. Surely it is important, given the possibility of a shift in conversion dates, that the assets in various currencies match the liabilities in various currencies. Given the large movements in rates that have taken place since October, if they were underweight in dollars and/or euros at that time the sterling balances are going to take a large hit.


I agree - but then it is what

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/03/2009 - 18:19

I agree - but then it is what it is, and reporting it won't change any exposure. He was pretty clear that I shouldn't expect anything soon either. Maybe seeing if the UK balance and the loans were multicurrency would give us some idea although I didn't think to ask at the time of the call.


question not asked

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 12:31

Frog

Thanks for the continued work.

I have a questions that i keep meaning to ask but never got round to it. I have written to Simpson several times but never received a response. This is therefore for next time but I have also asked the DAG team to investigate Doherty's powers as this is important to how he acted

  1. I had a 10 day notice deposit. I formally asked for waiver in the days leading upto the 8th October and was verbally told that he would not action depsite me stating that I would pay any penalties etc due.
  2. I requested the policies on the 10 day notice determining what powers he had to act on this ie if they were discretionary or not. Never to date received replies
  3. I know of a person on this site (no names due to confidentality) who kindly confirmed to me that they had the same situation and around the same time but HE UNILATERALLY ALLOWED THE TRANSACTION BUT REJECTED MINE.
  4. This person is now one of the inflighers I believe

Would appreciate any help on getting to the bottom of this and/or obtaining the policies and rules of the KSFIOM.


Amar, This information should

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 20:20

Amar,

This information should be with your policy booklet (or signon info). Probably the best thing to do if you cant find the contract they sent you is to start a thread and ask if anyone has the documentation - almost certainly you'll get it that way.


Frog thanks but

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 21:11

there is also a very important issue here also about Docherty's conduct that Simpson needs to address and answer. Please add to the list for the next session


Well firstly, this isn't a

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/03/2009 - 21:28

Well firstly, this isn't a current issue for the LP. How the bank handled requests for transfers prior to freezing on an individual basis is not within his brief.

Firstly, you have to be sure that the transfer was not handled correctly, and that involves getting the contract details - maybe the other person whose transfer was let through had a different contract? I suggest that you contact the bank again directly as I know that I'll not get any useful answer for you this way.

Anyhow, moving into an in-flight status still doesn't get your cash back - and even if the court case in April is positive for in-flighters, it will only be clear (i expect) for those whose transfers had already started through the CHAPS system.


Inflight - Legal opinion

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 21:20

Frog as always thank you.

Regarding Q3 although PwC give a figure which is useful they seem to have ignored the 2nd part which is can we have a copy of the legal opinion regading in-flight. Given that we as creditors have paid for it if the anwser is no please can we have a reason. Can this be added again to the next call list. Of course if PWC paid for the opinion that's ok.


Legal opinion

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 23:26

BC - he did give an reason - he said that the opinion was confidential. I think though that with the case going to court in April, we'll get a definitive answer on the issue anyhow. We did discuss on the last call what would happen if the case was successful and he said that the depositors would become secured (the definition of what type of transfer would be secured though would depend on the definition of an in-flight transfer by the court)


Note new call will be on the 6th April 2009 at 4pm

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 20:03

This is due to the lack of movement likely between now and when the affidavits are published at the beginning of April.

Regards

Nigel