EPS 2 AND BONDHOLDERS

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 17/05/2009 - 16:38

I have just received a letter from Prudential stating they are voting FOR , the SOA and that they are about to distribute the EPS 2 money they have claimed ( which they have done without any consultation). In the letter is a form asking which of Prudential's other funds I would like my money invested into. Are they taking the p**s here or what? They only fund I want my money placed into is my uk bank account thank you. My bond was due to mature in January gone - do they have the right to do this? Are they wanting to take their fees from my EPS payment? Can any other bond holder advise from their own experience , cheers.

As an aside, is their no way we can call the deemster back to court to abandon this pathetic attempt at a vote for this pathetic SOA and go straight to liquidation- we have all had enough of this b**llocks. The IOMG cannot be trusted to administer this process so we would be better taking it out of their hands. It is also obvious looking back at their statements to the TSC that their only intention has ever been to look after themselves and their own resident depositors so lets get on with liquidation.

4.8
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (10 votes)

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

EPS 2 AND BONDHOLDERS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 17/05/2009 - 21:56

Suggest that you immediately notify your life co. in writing (by fax and email) that you do not agree with their voting in favour of the SoA (if that is the case, which is evident from your posting) and that you want to make it quite clear that they are doing so against your will. Obviously do this before the vote takes place on Tuesday morning.


@ elgee

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 09:26

Royal Skandia did send a letter out dated 22/4/09 outlining their stance on the SoA as follows:-

"After reviewing the proposed SoA in detail we still favour this way forward for a number of reasons:

  1. In respect of actual receipts from the company's assets the SoA should be no worse in any way, for any bondholder when compared to liquidation.

  2. The rights of creditors will not be prejudiced under the proposed SoA when compared to their rights under liquidation ( for example, creditors will retain the right to sue).

  3. There are a number of additional advantages to the SoA over liquidation, for example we believe the SoA offers a potentially faster payout, and at least up to 60 per cent return of the amount deposited with KSFIOM. (NB RSK letter dated before E&Y statement on possible 50p in £ return which IoMG acted on by changing SoA and before the missing £128 million raised yet another suspiciously dirty side to this whole sorry story).

  4. The SoA will pay distributions from the assets of KSFIOM in proportion to each creditors KSFIOM deposits (you may hear this referred to in legal terms as a "pari passu" basis) meaning life companies will be paid out of the assets of KSFIOM on an equitable basis in relation to all other depositors.

  5. Under the SoA, depositors who would have benefited from the protection of the DCS will instead be given top-up payments by the Treasury. As with a DCS claim, they will be rquired to assign claims against KSFIOM to the Treasury in order to benefit from the top-up payments. However, the Treasury has agreed that, under a SoA, it will not benefit from the distributions made from the assets of KSFIOM in respect of those asigned claims until other creditors have received 60 per cent ( now 70%) of the amounts owed to them. If, therefore, the overall recovery by creditors is less than 60 per cent, larger creditors (i.e. RSK) should reeceive more under the SoA than under a liquidation. If recoveries exceed 60 per cent then larger creditors should be no worse off, but should receive the first 60 per cent of their debt more quickly than under a liquidation.

  6. When all other creditors have received 60p (now 70p) in the £, the Isle of Man Government will then receive payments from the SoA in respect of any previous "top-up" payments made and before dividends are paid to other creditors.

  7. The Provisional Liquidation:
    > Will continue through the term of the SoA;
    > The Joint Provisional Liquidators will act as the SoA supervisor;
    > The Joint Provisional Liquidators will distribute the KSF assets to creditors; and
    > The Joint Provisional Liquidators will continue to collect and realise KSF assets."

SO WE PAY TWO PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS TO ADMINISTER THE SoA AT TWICE THE COST IN THEIR FEES ALONE- my words not RSK's

They asked for a faxed or emailed submission on my opinion to be returned to them by 13th May. ......"a brief sentence clearly stating whether you support or reject the proposed SoA"

This is what I sent them back as my rejection of soA

Proposed SoA

I have read all documentation provided online for the proposed SoA and can see absolutely no advantage in this for me as an individual. I am a £20K depositor who was told I had full IoM DCS cover which I later discovered to be not the case.
I find it unbelievable that Royal Skandia could put £63 million of other people's money at risk and have only a DCS cover of £20K. It is not only scandalous, it is totally immoral and now you support a Government scheme which is equally untrustworthy.

I see no value in any of the Insurance Companies preference for this route over that of legally supported liquidation. The IoM Government have failed us all since day one, even now they are rigging the vote by not sending out voting forms in an adequate time scale for depositors to be able to return them by the deadline. Only those people, approximately 25% of the total 10,000 who are members of the KSFIoM Depositors Action Group are aware of these shenanigans and have been able to download these forms to return them in time. There are still many around the world who are not yet even aware that the bank is in provisional liquidation, never mind the vote on SoA!

How can anyone be expected to vote for a scheme which is totally designed to give full control over our money to IoMG and which is designed primarily to assist IoM residents, many of whom are very likely in the up to £50K bracket, which is another reason why the DCS was hurriedly upped to £50K last October.

You say in your letter that "rights of creditors will not be prejudiced under the proposed SoA". Have you considered the Parental Guarantee, will the acceptance of such a scheme not negate the responsibility of the parental guarantee in that we are accepting an alternative to the recognised liquidation process? This is just one issue that worries me. No-one including yourselves are in the least bit interested if we get our money back, how much we get back, when we may get it back. We depositors have been failed by governments, not just Iceland but also IoM and HMG, by regulatory maladministrations in both FSC and FSA, by Insurance Companies who have happily taken deposits and offered bank accounts which should not have been on offer over the last 12 months, when Iceland's economy was apparently already faltering.

  1. I have suffered as a result of REGULATORY FAILURE - the Isle of Man Government needs to take responsibility for the series of events that led to the demise of KSFIOM .

  2. The focus has been diverted from a 100% return for all to a debate between two less than satisfactory alternatives in the SOA and the DCS.

  3. The demand is still 100% RECOMPENSE.

  4. The Scheme of Arrangement is a compromise agreement for depositors: I do not want to compromise on the return of MY MONEY?

  5. The IOMG proposed Scheme of Arrangement has SEPARATED me from 50% of MY MONEY for 7 MONTHS to date... and due to clause 36 the small print in the agreement COULD BE CHANGED in terms of timing at any point in the future without consultation.

  6. Despite the fact that the Scheme of Arrangement would mean I pass total control of MY money to The Isle of Man Government, they will take NO RESPONSIBILITY should the scheme fail due to clause 35.

  7. The Parental Guarantee probably CANNOT BE ENFORCED under the Scheme of Arrangement thereby removing one of the avenues to 100% RETURN

  8. The Isle of Man Government are desperate for depositors to accept the Scheme of Arrangement, they have spent nearly a million pounds of tax payers' money trying to force it through ... WHY?

  9. What I want is the rightful restoration of 100% of my money. Neither option currently on the table will enable the 100% immediate restoration which I believed Royal Skandia were seeking.

SO TO REITERATE, NO I AM NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE SoA!


EPS 2 & Bondholders

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 17/05/2009 - 18:25

Royal Skandia have made a board decision to pay out EPS in full provided the clients Cash Account is not in a negative balance.

This effectively means, "we'll take our charges first and you get anything that's left over from the £10K but not a penny more".

So if

EITHER
1. your whole bond is in suspension, ie all your eggs were in the KSFIoM basket.

OR
2. you only have enough liquid assets to cover your full redemption charges to the Insurance Company then they will refuse any further withdrawal over and above £10K.

They have also resumed management charges on the returned £10K. How dare they charge you for a bond which is fully suspended, what is there to manage?

As usual they are in a win win and bondholders are in a lose lose situation!


Bonds and Charges

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 09:09

HANSARD...the life company I am locked into charge mwe full charges on 350K I lost ...and their answer to me was basically....tough , thats our right...and it lasts for three years ...yes Hansard will take off me almost £ 30 K pounds to manage...nothing...
I advised them that I want liquidation and they said they will carry out the wishes of the majority...followed by a very biased explanation as to why the SOA is better...and even suggested I get an IFA...what a cheek....


cypheath

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 17/05/2009 - 21:15

This does sound like yet another kick in the balls to me, I am sure you are and have done all you can on this. Does the voting on Tuesday make any difference to you whichever scheme gets the go ahead to your funds?


Latest email from Royal Skandia

  • mortobri
  • 20/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 15:10

Just got this in.
Feeling stitched up? You will be...

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited – Update

In our most recent communications regarding Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (KSFIOM) we set out Royal Skandia’s right, as a KSFIOM creditor, to vote on behalf of it’s affected policyholders regarding the choice between liquidation of KSFIOM or, alternatively, the implementation of a Scheme of Arrangement (SoA) as proposed by the Isle of Man Government.

As part of this process we have actively encouraged our affected policyholders to contact us and express their opinion regarding their choice between liquidation or the SoA.

We can now confirm that over 50% of our affected policyholders have contacted us and that approaching 90% supported the SoA.

We can therefore confirm that, unless there are fundamental changes made to the SoA that is currently proposed by the Government, Royal Skandia will follow its policyholders wishes and vote in favour of the SoA, at the creditors meeting scheduled for 19 May.

We would like to thank all those policyholders who have contacted us for taking the time to express their opinions and for helping to make sure our response to this situation accurately and fairly reflects the wishes of the majority of our policyholders.

Finally, when the final result of the creditors vote is published we will issue a further update.

In the meantime, if you have any questions on this or any other KSFIOM matter we would recommend that in the first instance they first refer to the Isle of Man Government’s website www.gov.im/cso/faq_gfs.xml or contact our dedicated customer helpdesk at RSKFMCustomerHelpdesk(?)RoyalSkandia [dot] com or by telephone +44 1624 655465


Skandia vote

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 16:33

600 bondholders via RS. 50 per cent of them voted. 10 per cent of them opposed. I wonder who the other 29 that voted like me were...?


Stitched up

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 15:39

Yes I do feel totally stitched up by the whole blinking shower. I've posted a new forum topic on this as soon as I got it and don't post often.

Of course we'll never know if only 50% of bondholders responded or if 90% of those responding did say they were in favour of SoA. We can't prove anything one way or another, it's just another "going through the motions exercise" to make us feel they gave us the chance to have some input, so if it all goes pear shaped it's our fault, we wanted it.

Whatever we replied the decision would always have been the same because as I've said before they are all in cahoots, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours and they don't give a flying **** (rhymes with duck) about bondholders, only their money which becomes RSK's money until it is lost then it suddenly becomes the bondholders who have lost out, not them. The same applies to all the IFA's who recommended the deals in the first place, I've already had one rant today I'm on number 2 so I'd better shut up before I say something obscene and unbecoming of a nearly 60 year old grandma.


@giveus backourfunds

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 18/05/2009 - 13:52

No, it won't make a scrap of difference either way but I'm still totally against SoA see my other posting and my reply to Skandia. As EPS 1 & 2 has returned 50% of my deposit I now have to wait for the over 50% distribution point before I'll get another penny, as IoMT will get their £10K back first, so I'm looking at 3-4 years plus whichever route we go.

Unfortunately my due dilligence in depositing in line with original DCS combined with belief in IFA's and Insurance Cos who both IMHO mis-sold by first suggesting and then allowing deposits in this shambolic bank have left me £10K plus interest out of pocket. Maybe not much in the bigger picture but my partner is in the same boat too, I'd rather have given it to our 4 kids and 2 grand kids than to some rich "real fat cats", probably tax evaders to buy yachts or maybe MP's. After all Darling had to swell his coffers somehow ......£128 million?????????

Beggars belief that we've all been writing letters for months and months to MP's who are reaping the benefits from Joe Public and smugly telling us to **** xxx (go forth and multiply, it's none of their concern, too busy feathering their own nests).

Well that's my rant over with for today.
Many, many thanks to all who work so tirelessly on DAG Team and on this board and who are seeking justice for us all. Let's hope their efforts are ultimately rewarded and justice eventually prevails.

Good Luck to us all.