Ernst & Young Statement on KSF UK

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 21/11/2008 - 19:26

Statement of Administrators Proposals

As filed at Companies House on 19th November 2008

AttachmentSize
E&Y Statement.pdf783.66 KB
0
Your rating: None

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

HC debate on Naomi House charity

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 16:10

Have just posted as a News item the report of this (adjournment?) debate in the Commons yesterday.

This children's charity has £5.7m with KSFUK and is regarded - like us - as an unsecured creditor. Unlike us however they are represented on the creditors committee.

In the course of this debate, the Parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Angela Eagle said:

"Naomi House has played a central role in the creation of a new charity action group, formed to represent charities that have deposits at risk with KSF. More than 25 charities are members of the group, which is campaigning to secure the return of the funds invested with the bank. I am also pleased to report to the House—again, the hon. Lady mentioned this—that a representative from the group speaking for Naomi House and other charities has secured a place on the creditors committee of KSF, which met the administrators for the first time on Monday. That representation on the creditors committee will give charities a stronger voice during the administration process."

While feeling sympathy for this children's charity, I wonder where this leaves us? If their voice is "stronger", is our's weaker? Or was Ms Eagle simple trying to get off the hook?


Isn't this comittee an

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 17:33

Isn't this comittee an informal creditors' meeting? As such, I would assume that PWC are working through a more direct route with E&Y. Doesn't explain though if this is the case why the FSCS (FSA) is on the comittee though as I would have thought that they also would have more direct routes (hmmm - argued myself into a circle here!)


Attendance at E&Y meeting yesterday 01/12

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:27

I've attended the meeting of E&Y yesterday as a proxy. E&Y will provide all parties with a report on what was discussed during the meeting and with detailed results on the voting.

A summary:
- Mrs Mills and Mr Brazzill attended as representatives of the E&Y administrators, and were accompanied by two of their lawyers (didn't get their names). The meeting lasted for two hours.
- Mills and Brazzill basically (nearly literally) read out loud the 'Administrators' statement of proposals', pages 1 to 16 (see document for which you can find link in the original posting). No real additional information was provided.
- During this reading they briefly addressed the KSF IOM situation (as stated on page 10). The only thing they added to this statement was that the hearing of 27 Nov was adjourned and that there was on ongoing dialogue with LP Mike Simpson.
- Regarding the Financial Information (page 14): Brazzill said they are expecting a Statement of Affairs later this week. However, they sought a court order to limit disclosure of the Statement of Affairs to creditors and were granted this order by Court on 13 Nov.

Q&A session (relevant info):
- A dividend will be payable to unsecured creditors as soon as funds are available. When asked whether this would take weeks, months or years, Mills said she couldn't provide a realistic estimate, but said it would not be weeks, but rather months before the 1st dividend would be paid.
- There are no preferential rankings for unsecured creditors. Only exception are the employees (wages and pension).
- KSF IOM is an unsecured creditor as stated by Mills and will be treated equally.
- Brazzill gave an overview of the largest claims that were made. In total there is an estimated claim of £4.722bn.
-> FSCS: £3.5bn (largest claim)
-> KSF IOM: £600m
-> pension fund trustees: £60m
-> charities: £47m
-> local authorities: £10's of millions

Overall they remained very vague with regards to details and exact timings and amounts...

  • Voting was held on the proposal: accepted.

  • Another voting was held on the formation of a creditors' committee. According to the first results, the 5 creditors that will form this committee were appointed (a detailed report will be made available). No more than 5 parties are allowed. The creditors' committee will be formed by:
    -> FSCS
    Transport for London
    The trustees of the KSF Ltd Pension Fund
    Save our Savings
    Peterborough City Council

Even though KSF IOM is one of the largest creditors and they were on the list of potential candidates for the creditors' committee, they were not elected... I don't know whether PWC was represented at the meeting. Anybody has any idea about that?

Note: The numbers above are as stated (and heard by me) during the meeting, so may be different from the actual report. Sorry if any mistakes were made.


Voting at KSFUK Meeting

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 16:35

Restless since you were at the meeting on monday do you have details of the voting for the Creditors Committee? If not can you get it since PWC don't seem keen to communicate on this issue.


Voting: no details yet

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/12/2008 - 17:15

BC, sorry no details yet. I will post them as soon as I get the documents.


please see this blog:

  • sleeplessnight
  • 10/10/08 30/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline

Why quick Landsbanki payout, but not us?

  • Honest Citizen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 09:13

Restless asked when we could hope to get a payout and was told that it would be months rather than weeks.

I found Restless's summary of this meeting extremely depressing reading. I'm no financial guru so can somebody please explain, how come the Landsbanki crowd (a bank that appears to have been genuinely bankrupt) could receive a pay out of 33 p in the £ within something like two months while the Kaupthing crowd (a bank whose bankruptcy is questionable) have to wait an aeon for what promises to be a diminishing payout?

Ice mentioned elsewhere that attendance on this site is falling. The site has been, is and will continue (I hope) to be the only raft in a fairly stormy sea, but the lack of information and in particular, the increasingly gloomy tone from those that seem to know anything makes me dread coming to the site. This is nobody's fault. I think we're all just so tired of feeling miserable and terrified for the future in the face of the utter indifference from the people who are in a position to help (govt and media) that we want to move to the next phase of the grieving process e.g. making the cardboard box that we live in under some bridge more comfortable.

If colddose, icecrusher, diver...anybody at the centre has ANY (genuine) hope that they can inject into the situation, please do it - even if it's to say, "yes, there's hope but details are confidential at the moment". We're all desperate...desperate...desperate.


Landsbanki Guernsey was not

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 13:56

Landsbanki Guernsey was not bankrupt. It was much in the same position as KSF IOM in that it had transfered a proportion of its money to Heritable in UK which was then put into administration.

The sums involved are much smaller than KSF IOM, I think total deposits amounted to only around 120million.

The 30p in the pound was paid out if liquid assets that were still in Guernsey. I suppose the Administrator there has a different approach. But do not forget that because of the inaction of the Guernsey authorities it is quite possible that this is all that will be returned.


Don't be disheartened - keep up the pressure

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 09:48

I think it's best to remember that throughout this saga there will continue to be positive moments and negative ones. I have felt like you do.

The fact that the web site isn't getting so many visitors is nothing to be concerned about - it doesn't mean that people are walking away and forgetting their savings. Instead I think there are other things going on, such as the legal representation in IOM and London, and the web site is no longer the only thing we have.

Also, work is being done by others, including the IOM government, whereas all we had in October and November was our web site. Quite simply we had little else to keep us informed. But now we've moved on and as a group we have other things happening.

I think there will be one of two things that could happen now. Firstly I think it could come to a swift and successful conclusion for everyone, and will take a similar time to that which has passed already. Secondly without a such as successful political solution I think the matter will take a long time, extending into years, but eventually we would see the return of our deposits. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure that the former is the case!

I should also stress that we each need to explore ALL avenues that are specific to our own circumstances. For instance if there is an IFA's involvement then consider the option of a claim against him or her, or if the account originated from Derbyshire, then put pressure on IOM FSC for that responsibility. And don't stop putting pressure on Iceland's regulator or government. An e-mail or a ferocious letter costs next to nothing. Please keep doing it.

I believe we must keep e-mailing MPs and other notable contacts and letting everyone know that we are not going away.


UK charities. Nowt to do with us.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 01:45

Transport for London, Save our Savings, and other bodies are UK groups who have lost money with a UK bank. Remote from our situation.

I am hoping that despite KSF IoM being an unsecured creditor, that the money deposited in Kaupthing UK will be returned to KSF IoM because the IoM FSC (the financial advisors) are striving to remedy their stupid act of putting so much money into one bank in a foreign country (the UK), because the UK government recognizes that allowing the administrators to act only in accordance with the law will result in injustice, and other reasons.

But just how important is this GBP555? I don't know what else is going on. I request the people who used to provide us with overviews to once again contribute to this forum.


Who are Save our Savings

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:39

Who are they and are they likely to have similar aims to us? Assuming we are confirmed as unsecured creditors.


BC, Save our Savings is an

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 16:04

BC,

Save our Savings is an action group formed by charities, led by Cats Protection and Naomi House Children's Hospice. They are seeking a return of £47m as a group.

Maggie Mills confirmed KSF IOM as an unsecured creditor.


BC. They are a group of

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:56

BC. They are a group of charities numbering about 22, headed by Naomi hse childrens homes and Cats Protection league. Together they are owed circa £50m. They are unsecured and like us will want all their money back. The good thing is we now have the pressure of some well known charities agitating for their money back and sad as it may seem the cats are more likely to get air time and sympathy than we are. Whats is good for this group is good for KSF IoM.


Save our Savings aligned with us?

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 19:31

After reading the charityfinance.co.uk link I'm really not convinced that SoS are aligned with us at all. Their main strategy seems to be that they are charities and so should not be treated as an unsecured wholesale depositor. Whilst they will undoubtable be good for raising the general problems of KSFUK administration we need to be careful that they don't out flank us using this route.

Also just because E&Y confirm KSFIOM is unsecured does not mean this is the final word, but we do need more/some information from the KSFIOM directors, FSC and IOM Treasury rather than just obsure hints.

Back to the Creditor Ctte of KSFUK we have either been let down by PWC or Shafted by the Treasury as the second laregest creditor with 12% of the debt we may not have had sufficient votes to ensure our place but if the treasury voted its 60% in 5 different tranches to ensure we were out voted this is a blatant attempt to keep KSFIOM out of the details of the KSFUK administration.

PWC a clear statement of what happened regarding this vote is necessary.


Save our Savings aligned??

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 19:47

BC
Thanks for this; I agree we must receive official notice from an unambiguous source as to the exact status of the KSFIoM asset. The supposed reason for using a power of the Anti Terrorism Act and the other actions taken on Oct 8th were to protect retail depositors and the UK economy. I would have thought that the very intent to protect retail depositors by placing the asset in the UK bank following advice of the regulators was reason enough to support our status. There was never any intent to provide for councils, police and charities etc. These institutions are supposed to recieve professional advice on placing their assets, but not so for retail depositors - that's why retail depositors are protected by DCS schemes isn't it?


which creditors of KSFUK are the most needy?

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:34

having read this very helpful report one solution would be for the FSCS to go the back of the queue

they have bailed out all the edge retail depositors using uk taxpayers money...there is no urgent need for them to be repaid..they may never be repaid..does that matter?

charities, local authorities, pension funds and of course KSFIOM should have first call on the funds so far recovered

if that were the case those who are most deserving/needy will be helped first

this is the moral solution but probably not the legal solution

how can the FSCS/treasury have the same claim on these funds as charities and KSFIOM?


Because they have used

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:58

Because they have used taxpayers money to buy out the deposits and they themselves have to borrow the money to do so. The more they borrow the more interest they have to pay and higher the taxes are to pay for it.


restless, attendance at E&Y meeting

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:53

Well done restless for getting this information out to us. My first reaction is 'gutted' so I'm not going to offer an opinion, just to thank you so much for being there.
Ice


Where was Homer?

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:53

Disgusted that Simpson failed to get on the committee - sleeping on the job again?


where is the 2nd liquidator prov?

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 00:05

What about the second PWC liquidator prov. whose appointment was approved on 27th Nov. and who was supposed to be based in London, facilitating the return of our money? Where is he and why wasn't he at the E & Y meeting? Anybody know?


mikeinfrance-PWC, 2nd liquidator, absence or conspiracy?

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 01:27

Mike - I am another one that would like to know if there was or was not any attendance at the E&Y meeting by PWC on our behalf and if not why not. It beggars belief that we, as 2nd largest creditors (by a tenfold margin!) are not on the committee. To be unrepresented on the committee and effectively without a voice and behind the likes of London Transport and the KSF UK pension fund beggars belief. I would find it both staggering and a derogation of duty by PWC if they did not attend.

So we need to know:
a.) If the liquidators (1 or 2) attended?
b.) If they attended did they vote?
c.) If they attended and did not vote, why not?
c.) If they did not attend, why not?

However, without knowing all the facts about attendance (yet) and assuming that PWC might have attended this then raises another question. If they attended and voted for a seat for themselves as KSFIoM, it should have meant an almost automatic granting of a seat on the committee. This is because (as was discussed on this thread the other day) the weight of PWC's vote could have been great enough due to the size of the credit involved, guarantee a seat. As was discussed before, it is possible therefore that the FSCS (The Treasury) being the majority "player", could have kept us off the committee deliberately.

It would seem therefore we must get an answer out of PWC about their attendance status and whether they voted or not. After we have that information then we can go on to make our conclusions.


E & Y KSF helpline

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 01:52

I'm not sure if this is any help but the E&Y KSF helpline is +44 (0)203 205 6800.
I don't know how much info they can give or even if you can get through....i tried lots of times, left messages etc but heard nothing!


steevejeb..meeting

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 01:45

steevejeb...I'm going by restless's report above.He makes no mention of either liquidator being there and confirms the members of the creditors committee, not including PWC / us !


mikeinfrance-meeting

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 02:01

mikeinfrance- from restless's report I quote from the last paragraph:

"Even though KSF IOM is one of the largest creditors and they were on the list of potential candidates for the creditors' committee, they were not elected... I don't know whether PWC was represented at the meeting. Anybody has any idea about that?"

So I just assumed it was an unknown re their attendance? Whatever, I still feel that PWC are at least duty bound to tell us of their attendance or not at the meeting and if attended, their actions at and comments about the meeting?


Sensitive

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 02:37

It is possible that PWC did not attend as I believe E&Y sta4ed that discussions are going on with PWC. As E&Y has stated that the KSF IOM money was unsecured they have no more to say publicly. However it suggests that as they are still talking this is not set in concrete. It still possible that a "political manipulation" could perhaps unlock the 557M. If this did occur and the full money was returned it would mean that there would be no need for PWC to represent KSF IOM on the committee and indeed it would be an embarrassment for all concerned. I would like to think they were "warned off" because of the current discussions with E&Y and perhaps other authorities are looking positive than we think.
Just a thought or perhaps a dream!!!!


committee not so important

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

dclf1947 I was a little surprised that E& Y apparently said that we are unsecured creditors because their "statement of administrators proposals" of 14th Nov says, on page 10; quote " KSFIOM held funds at KSF on deposit. At present investigations and discussions are underway to determine and agree the exact nature of the transactional exposures
between the two entities."
So unless something has changed this suggests to me that they haven't yet determined (after 7 weeks) whether those deposits are protected in some way.

Actually, having read Appendix D of the above E & Y document, membership of the committee doesn't appear, to me, to be particularly important. In fact it wasn't even necessary to appoint a committee. Max number of members is 5 anyway. "For a committee to be validly formed it must consist of at least 3 and not more than 5 creditors elected at the meeting."


PWC Did Attend

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 09:13

Just for the record. MIke Simpson did attend the E&Y meeting on Monday.

The IoM govt also sent representatives but I am not sure these were allowed in as they were not directly a creditor of KSF UK.


E&Y Meeting - PWC

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 12:20

Thanks Ally for confirming this. The next thing would be to know how the voting went. Did PWC (KSFIOM) vote for themselves on the Creditor Ctte and if not why not. If they did then clearly the FSCS must have used their votes to block PWC.

Can we get this information from PWC. Things like this help us the have more faith in them so it is in their interests to communicate with us.


re: PWC did attend

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 04/12/2008 - 10:14

Ally, thanks for informing us! Now at least we know he was there indeed.


fabbergasted

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/12/2008 - 23:42

I am flabbergasted that someone representing KSFIOM interests is not on this committee unless someone somewhere knows something that is past all my understanding.


He most probably got the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:23

He most probably got the dates mixed up!!


Restless, Thankyou for the

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:48

Restless,
Thankyou for the update.
I think your figures (hearing) are probably out on the FSCS issue as apparently they only bailed out edge accounts for £2.5b. If not the sums do not add up as your figures are nearer £5.7b then £4.7b.
However I recall seeing a balance sheet some time ago which suggested that KSF UK had a good asset base which more than covered this. Of course depreciation, falls in the stock exchange and other things may mean the value has fallen in the interim but still the lower the amount of creditors the better.
Although not on the committee the main purpose of that committee is to get the full amount back and lets face it having charities push for the money is likely to get more press than KSF IoM depositors!


Restless, Thankyou for the

  • manksman
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 14:25

The UK FSCS have or will bail out both the Edge and the personal non edge deposits of KSF UK. I have not checked the figures but would guess that these make up the total.
As regards the committee of inspection, I am not convinced it would be a good use of KSFIOM depositors money to pay an accountant to sit in a meeting when as has been said the charities will do the job. The real work on getting money back will be going on behind the scenes. In any event not quite sure how the voting worked, some type of Single Transferable vote perhaps, anyway the FSCS would have had most say in who was on the committee.


FSCS

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 17:29

If the FSCS had most say in the committee then it would again appear that the UK Government are trying to put us at arms length and keep us quiet.


KSF (UK) Depositors meeting - Today 1 December

  • LifeSavingsGone
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 08:11

Does anyone know where this meeting is to be held? Can we attend? Unfortunately I am out of the country, but it would be very useful to get feedback from the KSF UK meeting. This is where we stand to lose the most money.

I would like to know whether KSF(IOM) could get a distribution "In-Specie" of KSF(UK) property loans of 550m instead of the cash proceeds from a fire-sale liquidation into a very weak market. This would allow KSF(IOM) depositors to run down the book efficiently - and prospectively receive more over time than a fire-sale situation.

Representation at this meeting is important. If anyone is on top of this, or is able to attend, please reply, and mail me.

knd rgrds LSG


KSF uk

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 08:23

i know it's at 11.00, i tried to find out where and according to newspaper reports ( can't remember which ones) it is either at the 'cafe royal' or the 'piccadilly venue' Are these the same place? ......mind you, you can't always rely on the press to be accurate!


meeting today

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 09:22

the E&Y KSF creditors meeting is at the cafe royal, 68 regent st. in the napoleon suite, it starts at 11.00 and they have the room booked 'til 3.00pm!!


E&Y Meeting Dec 1

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 19:37

Has anybody managed to get anything on what was discussed / said?


E and Y Meeting Dec 1

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 23:22

I have a friend who has a client who is a large creditor of KSF UK and attended the meeting today
I will be receiving an update as to proceeding shortly and will post what I
find out soon as ... waiting for the grapevine to report back


EY meeting update - Podather / others

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:22

Hi Podather

Any update from yesterdays meeting yet?


Charities won place on Creditors Committee!

  • Caroline
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 22:59

I note with interest today that a number of charities including Naomi House and Cats Protection league have formed a group called 'Save our Savings' and have won a place on the Creditors Committee with a collective loss of around £50m, they will now be able to address their specific questions directly to the administrators - E&Y!
Link: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=243892.


BBC re: Charities at Creditors meeting today

  • DJO Gutted
  • 12/10/08 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/12/2008 - 23:41

Was it morally correct for

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:16

Was it morally correct for Charities to deposit offshore, when they could have deposited in UK? When it was apparently not correct for private individuals [British Citizens], who had no option?

The hypocricy of the UK Govt is boundless, isn't it!


Misread the UK/IOM aspect ...

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:40

Misread the UK/IOM aspect ... sorry.


The charities did not deposit

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:12

The charities did not deposit offshore. They put their money in KSF UK.

Although why they get a place on the Creditors Commitee whilst KSF IOM, with much more on deposit, does not amazes me.

Must be down to the incompetance of PWC again.


Go mann I believe these posts

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:53

Go mann I believe these posts relate to the creditors meeting for KSF UK and not the IoM so they were not depositors in offshore accounts.


No Place on Creditors Committee for us???

  • rk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:48

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=2422&pg=15&cat=58

apologies if posted elsewhere.

If this article is correct, then this is a disaster! Why on earth are KSFIOM not on the creditors committee of KSFUK when we represent the 2nd largest creditor??? (2nd largest by some distance)

What the hell is PWC playing at? why are we not represented?

Also this article shows there is no magic pot of money available.... the assets that EY have actually recovered total approx £402m and the claims tops £4.7bn

They've not even got 10% of the total claims secured!

This is not good at all IMHO.... :(


Actually less than 10%

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:31

The Pensions/wages will get paid 100%. Then there will be 342/4700 = 7.3% to all the unsecured creditors.

Minus fees and fall in asset values.

Thats terrible.


Someone might be able to

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:49

Someone might be able to confirm this but I would imagine that the 'less than 10%' recovered is just what liquid assets that have been identifed and would not include property, loan book and other non liquid assets.

Hopefully these can be sold at not too much of a discount and will provide substantially more.

Heres wishing!


Re: Someone might be able to

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/12/2008 - 14:43

Yes it is just cash recovered to date.

The figures I have seen is that they have recovered the following amounts in cash

GB£270m
EUR€55m
US$130m

Depending on exchange rates somewhere in the region of £400m.

They still have the loan books etc etc.

Much the same as PWC said last week that they had recoverd

GB£60m
US$40m

They still have the loan book.