Elgee Out

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 02/12/2008 - 14:34

I am a small depositor. Since inception of DAG I was until a couple of weeks ago involved principally as a core member in issues concerning legal representation in IoM and London. I located and initially negotiated with the 2 firms that I recommended and that were subsequently engaged by the former London team to represent DAG members (together with many other prospective legal representatives). I attended the meeting with the London solicitors chosen to represent DAG and Ziggy's legal fund was set up at my suggestion. I have also been speaking during the past 2 months to several journalists and politicians about the matters in question (since I have some background in freelance newspaper writing), but only by way of tipping them off rather than on behalf of DAG.

However, as a result of objections by certain members to my involvement, I have had to step far back from these activities during the past 2 or 3 weeks. In view of further objections to my presence in the core, and indeed in the DAG forum at all, I have decided that the best course of action for all concerned would be for me to continue my involvement on behalf of depositors completely outside of the DAG. Accordingly, I invite anyone who wants to contact me for or with relevant information to do so at the following e-mail address: laurence[usual symbol]thux.net

Laurence

0
Your rating: None

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

Elgee - Take a Break, but Stick With It !

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 16:37

We are all under a lot of pressure considering how complex this situation is and considering the fact that we are attempting to fight the UK Government. We are all so fragmented because so many people are not based in the UK, but it is surprising what can be done with a little determination.

I feel that we are starting to make some headway - the number of bloggs on the BBC R4 Website and people's efforts to get our voices heard on other media websites is very encouraging.

We need to stick together - the UK government would like nothing better than for us to dispand and get off their case - don't let it happen. I can't spell it out any clearer, the more we stand together and fight, the more likely we will get a higher percentage of our deposits returned to us.

I have spent the whole day on the internet campaigning and researching. It's tiring for all of us, but if we all make a concerted effort to send a letter, a message, or post a blogg, great things can happen.

Let's keep that British Bulldog spirit that we've been blessed with, 100% focussed and fighting, even if you don't feel proud to be British (which I certainly don't).

Elgee - don't give up ! Just take a back seat for a while and let the dust settle. We need to stand together, particularly now that our stories are gathering momentum (well over 200 comments on BBC R4 PM blogg now). I know that it might seem that your efforts aren't appreciated, but that might be because many of us are busy doing our own campaigning and research into the truth behind what's happened. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who has lobbied their MP, sent emails to the press or done anything to try to increase our exposure deserves a darn big pat on the back for making a positive effort instead of just leaving it to someone else.

We need to be gathering more members if anything. Hang on in there Elgee.

Regards, Colin

PS. I hope my reply regarding you thoughs about a separate group for small or hard-up depositors wasn't taken as being negative - I just couldn't see a practical way of defining it.


elgee break over

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 18:36

I took a break. It appears that I am no longer under threat of expulsion from the core or exclusion from membership of this website, and the person who called for those measures has not been successful. As for the PG fracas, that matter was resolved for me in a very timely manner by the intervention of a third party.

I have found myself emerging from all this on the side of some small depositors, those in real hardship and others that are disgruntled about the way things are going, and with my views that the IoM government cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of depositors (except by pure chance) reinforced.

Bitter experience in the past has taught me not to trust the UK or IoM governments further than a prostatitis sufferer can pee, but in the case of the latter its trustworthiness appears to be impaired by gross incompetence as well as a strong inclination towards terminological inexactitude. I await developments in the near-term with great interest, especially the Tynwald's proposals for interim payments and the outcome of the Treasury's latest machinations to avoid winding up the bank.


Welcome Back Elgee :-)

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 22:59

So pleased you are back Elgee. We need all the help we can to fight our corrupt UK Government.

I spent hours this afternoon viewing the DAG's video clips on utube - it was a real eye-opener - watching Alistair Darling deride depositors for investing in IoM and accusing us all of attempting to tax dodge has really got my goat. He also had the gall to question the authority of and justification for offshore financial centres. The UK Government's action is nothing more than a political smear against offshore jurisdictions, and we are all stuck in the middle of it all. The ridiculous thing is that they keep accusing us of tax evation, yet every single European depositor is presently paying 15% of their income derived from savings interest to their country of residence. This is set to rise to 20% in 2009, which is similar to what is deducted at source from account holders in UK banks. The UK Government have no argument. It is merely diversion tactics.

I feel even more galvanised now in my determination to stand up and fight against the UK Government. I can't believe that they were well aware of Iceland's banking crisis back in March, but failed to tell anyone and refused to offer them a paltry rescue package ( a fraction of what it's cost them to bail out Kaupthing (UK) depositors). The Government needs their heads examining. There is no justification for spending billions of taxpayers money on rescuing UK depositors that didn't need rescuing until the UK Government brought the sodding bank down ! My suspicion is that several ministers stand to gain from this somehow - it really merits some close scrutiny. Given how many people are affected by the UK Government's actions, we should be demanding a public enquiry.


elgee ... thank you! 'Nuff

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 20:21

elgee ... thank you!

'Nuff said!


Brilliant Elgee

  • IoM-neveragain
  • 12/10/08 30/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 18:51

I feel as well as I can now, broke but elated that you are still in the fold Elgee.
You speak with sense, authority and wisdom.
We would all have been so much poorer without your input.
Thank you.


Parental Guarantee on public site

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 21:49

Go to the public site.. (LH menu button on this page now) FACTS \ KSFIoM documents.
Although this is barnd new.. there are many useful documents and sample letters etc. on the public site.. easier to find than trawling past posts and blogs..


in response to comments below

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 00:44

I have sent out the following e-mail to those who contacted me directly:

(i) I am waiting for advice on whether I can disseminate a copy of the parental guarantee;
(ii) I am very grateful to those who expressed appreciation for my work for DAG and my previous postings;
(iii) I am considering the possibility of trying to set up separate legal representation for small depositors (<50k), as has been suggested by some;
(iv) I am considering further or alternative specific and low-cost legal initiatives that could taken on behalf of small depositors;
(v) I have no interest in diluting the DAG by setting up an alternative depositors group, as has been suggested ...


parental guarantee document

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 02:28

What is the importance of this document? Are we going to look through the wording to find a needle to prick someone? Quite simply, the former Kaupthing Iceland has failed to abide by the promise made. Am I missing something?

Legal action. The people who decided to send GBP555 from KSF IoM to Kaupthing UK are surely culpable. Although these two banks were subsidiaries of the parent bank in Iceland, they were legally independent of each other (hardly surprising - since they were in different countries). Why export so much money to just one other country and to just one bank? This was negligent - even if Kaupthing UK was sound.
Even if we sued them and won, what would we actually win?
Let's be careful with lawyers and our remaining money.

Pleased you are posting, elgee. Don't desert us!


parental guarante again!

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 03:26

steenJp All I would say about your first comment is that unless you know the contents of the guarantee, and the details of any conditions attached, It's not possible to form an opinion about whether Kaupthing Hf renaged on its obligaions or not. For example it has been suggested,(not based on any known fact as far as I know) that the act of moving £557M from Iceland to the UK MIGHT just have invalidated the guarantee. ie the FSCs actions MIGHT have invalidated the guarantee. If we ever get to see it then speculation about what might, or might not, be in the guarantee could stop.


Baiting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/12/2008 - 12:26

Some people have baiting other members soon since we started up. manx-person still comes in for unpleasant comment. I've noticed the anti-elgee remarks and ignored them. I should have responded to such meanness.

Please respect other depositors. We are all struggling.
Please respect the views of non-depositors: these people have made informative comments.
If you disagree with the opinions posted, rebut them but refrain from attacking the poster. Let's all keep our manners. elgee's departure is demoralizing and weakens this site. No more name calling.


Elgee - I know that

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/12/2008 - 02:48

Elgee - I know that unwarranted comments are is very difficult to take especially when you and some others have been doing more than anyone on this forum to press our message home. I have been involved as the president of clubs and also pressure groups and this attitude seems to be the norm. It can be very disheartening and I'm certain that some rather odd individuals get some kind of perverse pleasure out of causing trouble within groups such as ours.

I would urge you to please think again as if a poll was conducted you will find that 99% of the group are fully supportive of you.

You have done an excellent job thus far make no mistake about that!


Elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:16

Sorry to learn of your departure.

Thanks for your posts.

Any idea why cold-dose, bblair no longer post ?

P.


in reply - elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:33

About the former I could hazard a guess. The latter I have no contact with.


Cold-dose

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 16:06

Please hazard a guess...he was (hopefully still is) a thoughtful contributor. Also, please reconsider your decision with regard to this forum.


bblair not posting

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 09:33

I have met Blair in person and I am still in touch with him by email, and have been for a few weeks - from what he has told me you are incorrect in assuming his reasons for not posting.


I agree - he was one of the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 16:13

I agree - he was one of the best-informed contributors. I imagine that like me he became frustrated by some of the postings in reply, which appeared to be calculated to undermine the efforts being made.


I was referring to cold-dose,

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 11:25

I was referring to cold-dose, not bblair. As to the latter, I have no idea nor indeed any concerns, about his reasons for no longer posting.


Some undermining certainly

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 18:00

Some undermining certainly seems to be going on.
I don't know whether it's from frustration, ignorance or a deliberate attempt to fragment the DA, but it's started to get on my wick.


Undermining

  • Saddest
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 18:11

Undermining should just be treated with what it deserves. Ignore it, its rubbish. Dont let it get to you. Yes it could be with the aim of diluting the strength of DAG, but we cant let it. Silly comments will always be made, its just inevitable.


Ignore it

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 18:24

I agree with you, Saddest: words that are sent to stir/upset/undermine are best ignored. By responding to them one is fulfilling the end that the messenger seeks....


Elgee, Expat, Cold-dose, BBlair

  • Saddest
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 17:37

Elgee and everyone please dont let petty stuff put you off. Its bound to happen - its human nature, group saviours vs. group sabateurs, etc. Yes it saddens me (even more !!) that many and serious contributors have gone very quiet. It worries me, but I hope they are still thinking and doing what they do best. For those of us who feel, by virtue of ( a lack of) experience or whatever, out of the main frame, we need all your insights. Please keep up your insights! Thank you! Saddest


Don't leave us Elgee, expat, bblair and cold dose

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 22:36

I cannot imagine who these twerps or possibly sinister characters are trying to discourage and see you off this site. You have all been the most informative valuable members of the DAG. You have my thanks and uttmost respect and I have alwyas looked out for your four names and posts as first priorities to read.

Rather than you four being ousted can we not oust the other threatening people who have been breathing down your neck or worse. This is a worrying tale that people like you are getting threatened....who are these bastards?


expulsion

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 22:49

No-one is threatening anyone but me with expulsion from the forum. Certainly not expat or bblair,


Elgee .... what did you mean

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 22:59

Elgee .... what did you mean when you wrote this tonight at 21.24

" I am being threatened with exclusion from membership of this forum, as well as from the core group. Do you think it would be wise for me to post the guarantee in these circumstances? You must ask an established and respectable member of the core group - I understand that there are quite a few copies circulating and I was not the first to obtain one "


reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 23:13

Is the meaning not entirely clear?

(i) I have been threatened with expulsion from the forum (as well as the core) over a matter unrelated to the guarantee. I make no comment about that other than I believe it is completely absurd.

(ii) in view of that threat, quite apart from all other considerations as to the publication of the guarantee, it seems to me to be manifestly unwise for me to take any action on the forum that might cause legal problems for the website itself.

(iii) There are, as I have said, several other copies of the guarantee in circulation amongst members of the core group and they were in circulation before I obtained my copy from a different source. I had not realised that the existence of these copies was a secret and I cannot think of any reason why it should need to be. I would remind you that the guarantee itself was referred to in an affidavit in the liquidation proceedings.


lg & the guarantee

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/12/2008 - 21:37

Elgee,
I have been off site for some time 'cos of problems posed by travelling and have just come upon this thread.
I am more than sorry to read of your decision to go. If we allow people to do this to us we shall break up as a group.
One thing worries me greatly: are you telling us that copies of the Kaupthing hf guarantee are in the hands of some members of DAG and are not being communicated to all of us?
Will you please confirm one way or the other.
Thanks and good luck.


Still no sign of

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/12/2008 - 20:29

Still no sign of PG.
Laurence,are you posting it,yes or no?
Or, have you really got it ,yes or no?


VIEW THE PARENTAL GUARANTEE

  • sleeplessnight
  • 10/10/08 30/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 19:16

go to the new site, menu option FACTS, can be found under the following subheadings: Iceland; Legislation & agreements; KSFIoM correspondence


Parent Guarantee

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 21:17

Anyone like to explain why this was being kept secret?


PG issue is a matter of trust for Depositors

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 23:15

The PG gets to the heart of why the Depositors trusted KSF IOM / FSC / IOM Govt with our money.

This trust clearly now is not worth the paper it is printed on.

It therefore follows that not only the KSF IOM let us down but by direct implication the FSC and the IOM Govt at worst let us down badly but more likely falsely let us to believe 100% of our money was safe.

This is a serious breach of trust that spreads its way around the entire finacial system of the IOM.

If we cannot rely on the FSC and IOM Govt we have no hope and the future of the IOM is at risk.

The only way out seems that under these circumstances the IOM Govt must find a way to return 100% of all our money or face serious litigation Iceland style.


why secret

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 21:30

I could guess:

  1. It might suggest that the FSC was not as rigorous as it should have been, since the guarantee appears to be less than adequate and it was required by FSC in late 2007 (almost 2 years after Kaupthing took over KSF) as a result of concerns over the Icelandic banks;

  2. It terminates upon acquisition of all or part of the subsidiary, and appears that it would not be enforecable in the event of the recapitalisation proposed by IoM gov;

  3. It cannot be applied in any event until the liabilities are asserted, which could not be until after the bank is in liquidation (therefore not at the moment;

  4. It is not entirely clear that it is even a validly executed deed (presumably in Icelandic law), but it probably is;

  5. It quite obviously does not cater for a situation like the one we find ouselves in, and perhaps that should have been foreseen in view of the concerns over Icelandic banks;

  6. The FSC, IoM gov and PWC and their various lawyers appear to regard everything in relation to this matter as being confidential or infringing DPA or otherwise undisclosable.


PG now out in the Open

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 22:58

Thank you Sleepless ..... the PG is now out in the open for all to comment on at last !!!

Go to : http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/members-page/parental-guarantee#attachments to view.

In fairness Elgee your analysis is pretty good. Well done ! But still dont understand why it took so long.

Initially I would guess that we should be looking towards FSC, IOM Govt and the Directors of KSF IOM should all be asked to explain why this fairly limp guarantee was initially accepted and not strengthened as time went by when the state of the Icelandic problems became known 12 / 6 / 3 months ago.

Any opinions ?


Parental guarantee - what a joke!

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 15:53

What a very insignificant document that looks! There are no witnesses and no legal affidavits to make it look like this was something KSF entered into with total knowledge and understanding of the implications of this guarantee!

Looks like it was cobbled together in a great rush to satisfy someone somewhere!


I have just seen a copy of

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 16:22

I have just seen a copy of the parental guarante that Landsbanki gave to Heritable Bank. Its 9 pages makes our one look very shabby.

Having said that I am not sure that either one will actually get any money out of Iceland


have to agree

  • rk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 16:14

I totally agree columbgc, that is a piss poor effort at a document that is supposed to provide protection for £800m+ of liabilities....
not even notarised / legalised. i.e could have been signed by me for all anyone knows.

It is obvious that no-one ever expected to have to claim on it.... what a shambles.. and as is rightly pointed out IoM Gov / FSC would in my mind be on very shaky ground to prove that they haven't been negligent of their duties in accepting that this "Parental Guarantee" was sufficient to ensure that the subsidiary was adequately covered/protected.

You can bet your last pound that the FSC will be frantically ensuring that all other banks under its regulation have adequate parental guarantees in place, with ringfenced funds.....


Lets go after the FSC / IOM Govt then ! Sue them !

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 18:23

I totally agree they must be responsible for allowing a worthless guarantee to be put in place.

I don't care if we bankrupt the IOM ...... I have had enough of having to suffer because of somebody else's incompetence.

Let the IOM borrow money from the IMF ... I don't care.

If I do a bad job I get sacked and loose my income ..... Have any heads rolled so far anywhere ?

Sorry ..... loosing it on a Friday night with no money to live on.


michaelB reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 18:51

MichaelB: "If I do a bad job I get sacked and loose my income ..... "

Evidently you do not work for a UK local authority, or the NHS administration, or the UK police or any UK government department, otherwise you would be more likely to find yourself being rewarded for doing a bad job.


Officials resign everyday

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 20:56

Plenty of public servants and local council get fired all the time after a gigantic screw up .... Heads rolled over the Baby P mess ..... Govt Ministers resign or get sacked all the time .... the Back Bench is full of them.

No .... I think FSC and IOM Govt heads must go over the KSF IOM PG .... after we sue them all.


confidentality of PG and the regulator's weakness

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 17:35

It is worth pointing out, I think, that the very secrecy (strictly confidentiality) that the FSC attaches to the PG document works greatly to our advantage in the event that any action is taken against them.

We all knew of the existence of the document, because it was much-referenced in KSF literature and letters sent to its customers, and we all knew that it had been lodged with the regulator because KSF told us that repeatedly, the implication being of course that the regulator was satisfied with it, but none of us were able to see a copy so we had to trust the regulator's judgment that it was sufficient to protect us. There is no doubt that we (the depositors) acted in reliance on that.

It turns out that it wasn't adequate. We could not have known that because the regulator regarded it as undisclosable and I and others have received several letters from them explaining why they believe that view is right. Therefore it mus be strongly arguable that the responsibility for the PG's inadequacy must lie with the regulator.


Parent Company Guarantee

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 22:19

Sounds like a reasonable interpretation Elgee. If they will go to such lengths to keep this from us what will they do to keep anything interesting such as the discussions with the FSA and UK Gov't from us.

I assume that the rules of discovery in Manx law will enable us to access, if necessary, all the pertinent documents, minutes etc. from the FSC, IOM Treasury and the directors of KSFIOM?


disclosure (we are supposed to call it that nowadays)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 22:35

Disclosure (discovery) - very doubtful in winding up proceedings, but I have not checked. However, in proceedings against the regulator for breach of statutory duty or other tort or against the liquidator, that is a different story.


parental guarantee

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 22:18

The late 2007 date coincides with the takeover of Derbyshire IOM


Parental Guarantee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 20:43

Thanks.


Parental guarantee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 01:09

see my posting near the top of this topic.