Do Simpsons New KSFUK Figures Make Sense ?

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:46

Concerning Simpsons statement on 5.12.2008 (from ksfiom web site), concerning the creditor committe I am confused over the numbers :

  1. Simpson states that £4.7bn of claims have been submitted for KFSUK.

  2. An estimated claim for £3.5bn from the FSCS was part of this.

  3. He states "A Committee is made up of 3 to 5 creditor members and creditors are elected by votes by value of claim"

  4. The creditors elected to the committee :

Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Cats Protection
Transport for London
Trustees for the Singer & Friedlander Pension Scheme
Peterborough City Council

... Ok, so if you exclude the FSCS there's £1.2bn of claims. If KSFIOM claimed £550m then they MUST have been at least the 3rd largest creditor by far, otherwise the numbers are wrong. If the numbers are correct then KSFIOM must be on the creditor committee. Or is Simpson claiming less than £550m ? Surely Transport For London and Peterborough City Council aren't in for more than £550m ?

Can someone fill me in if I've missed something or misunderstood the text.

0
Your rating: None

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

KSFUK Creditors Meeting

  • Tank
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 15:52

I note that Mike Simpson has now posted E&Y's formal report on the creditors meeting.


Creditors' Committee voting

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 18:26

The Summary of the voting in this report (Appendix A) speaks volumes for the spoiling tactics of FSCS. Around 19% of the votes for each of the 5 elected, 3.4% for KSFIOM (the next largest creditor), and 0.3% or less for each of the other 40 other candidates.

The whole thing is a (legal) travesty - a total fix from the start. FSCS - with an enormous majority of votes to cast - decided in advance who they would have with them on the committee. They then spilt their vote equally between the 5 agreed candidates, leaving no chance whatsoever for any other creditor. Voila - it's done!

I can just imagine the top brass of the FSCS and maybe the Teasury as well sitting around a table looking through the list of candidates and deciding who they accept.
'Well - first and foremost - we certainly don't want that other Icelandic bank in that tax haven sitting in the Irish Sea (even tho' they are by far the next largest creditor). So, who shall we have. London Transport is an obvious one. Then there's the KSF pension scheme - sounds good and caring. OK, then who else? Well we should have one local authority and one charity - and that will be it. Yes, but which? For the first, looks like either South Oxfordshire DC or Peterborough CC. Why not split the vote between them. NO - can't do that - might let in that dreadful IOM bank. Better stick a pin in it. Bad luck South Oxfordshire - Peterborough it is. OK - and finally a charity. Camelia Botnar Childrens Centre? Or Highland Hospice? Or Sarum Hall School Trust? Difficult (don't know much about them anyway). Aah - hang on - there's a Cat's home. That'll go down well with the public. OK done : Cats Protection has it. Thanks lads - anyone for the pub?'

Sorry - couldn't resist it.


FSCS controlled the voting

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 21:29

anrigaut..Fully agree with your analysis,not sure about the splitting their vote bit. It looks to me as though each party had a number of votes corresponding to the amount owed ; ie FSCS owed £3.5Bn = 3.5Bn votes. if they could use this number of votes up to 5 times (being the max number allowed on the committee) then it's easy to see who they voted for.Basically the FSCS had full control and could choose exactly who would be on the committee, with no competition whatsoever. I wonder who devised such a voting system? Has anyone seen a written explanation of how the voting system works? Is this normal ? What happened to the 1 person/organisation 1 vote principle, not to mention the usual principle of not being able to vote for yourself ?


Did PWC vote for KSFIOM for the Ctte?

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 18:54

3.4% - with nearly 15% of the votes how did we only get 3.4%. Am I missing something here or did PWC not use all our votes to get them on the Creditors Ctte of KSFUK. Even if they did the FCSC could have blocked them but why wouldn't they use them.

Make that my first question for PWC on a weekly conference call.


3% of votes

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 20:16

Presumably you could only vote for any given party once. i.e. PWC could not have voted for KSF(IOM) 5 times (3 billion/15% total votes). Otherwise, i''m sure they would have done and others would have done the same (London Transport with ~40million seized likewise apparently only voted for themselves.

The KSFIOM 15% (of money owed) effectively became 3% of votes since PWC could only vote for themselves once and any other votes for KSF(IOM) were of neglible value.

Probably a good tactic on PWCs part to only vote for KSF(IOM) since if the FSCS had also only voted for themselves and any other parties that PWC voted for collected sufficient votes from elswhere then KSF(IOM) could have ended up in 6th spot without HMG's influence.

Best I can tell, reviewing various news articles on what various parties have had seized, the FSCS (read Treasurey) voted for the # 3,4,5 and 6 creditors as well as themselves(#1); KSF(IOM) being the #2 ranked creditor. So apparently not a random voting pattern on the FSCSs part when it came to selecting the other creditor commitee members and as we had already concluded a deliberate exclusion of KSF(IOM).


Could it be that they had to

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 19:28

Could it be that they had to vote for 5 (including KSFIOM), so that meant that only 3% of the PWC vote could have gone to KSFIOM - and we were lucky to get the extra 0.4%!


KSFUK Creditor Ctte Voting

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 23:01

I now understand that each creditor had 5 votes for each GBP of their claim. Which explains the result but it is to my mind a ridiculous system of voting. Can someone confirm that this is standard pratice. In any insolvency any party with 50.1% of the claims has 100% of the say in the members of the creditor committee.

Again something that the TSC should be questioning the FSCS/Treasury about at the next meeting.


Nice to know that E&Y wont be

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 16:05

Nice to know that E&Y wont be reporting back until April.

This is going to drag on and on. I hope they all sleep well at night and have a lovely Christmas!


Creditors Committee

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:51

Each memebr of the creditors committe was elected by all other creditors.

As the FSCS is 75% of total creditors unless they voted for someone that person would not be elected to the committee.

I think we can assume the FSCS did not vote for KSFIoM to be elected to the committee and therefore KSFIoM failed to get elected.


Government contrilled the election

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 18:19

It is very clear that the FSCS controlled by the treasury decided who would and who would not get on the committee

Any claims to the contrary do not stack up, any sense of fairness or justice was far from the mind of whoever made this decision.


FSCS Voting

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 16:40

Ally,

I assume you could vote for yourself no? KSFIOM with 600 had 12-15% so it would require the FSCS to vote for 4 different creditors in order to block KSFIOM from voting for itself.

So as someone else has said. We are blocked from the Creditor Ctte, also subject to a special restriction on our money that no other creditor has (cl 27 of the SI) and expected to pay 12-15% of the costs of the adminstration process. This needs parlimentary questions or at very least discussion in the next TSC.


HMT Select Committee Meetings

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 16:56

The only 2 meetings that appear in the HMT Select Committee diary for December and the first part of January that seem to relate to us are1. 10/12/08 10:30 Crown Dependancies with Lord Bach and 2. 15/12/08 15:00 The Work of the FSA 2007-08 as per the link: http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm


Understand

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:58

Ok Ally, thanks.

Still it stinks: 'Peterborough Council', 'Transport for London' ... UK government bodies - KSFIOM as second or third largest creditor is squeezed out. Doesn't seem right to me.


UK Government preplanned

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 16:22

Do not be surprised by any of this, the more I see of it the more it appears the UK gov planned to use it to put pressure on the IOM to give the Revenue and Customs more info about depositors hence the much heralded "review" of IOM status.