IN FLIGHT TRANSFERS

  • Robbed
  • 06/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 06/11/2008 - 11:00

Spoke to KSF IOM Bank Staff this morning. They confirmed that letters went out last night and that the remainder will be going out today to all those with 'in flight.' withdrawl instructions. They sated that the letter will say that EVERYONE who had a withdrawl transaction that has not credited to the reciving bank will have the funds (even if they had previosuly shown as having debited the IOM account) credited back to their KSF IOM account.

I am currently in 'HOPPER's Legal Action' so do not know how that is effected.

(See Liquidator's statement of 6/11 on the KSF IOM website:
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4015 -- moderator)

0
Your rating: None

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

IN FLIGHT TRANSFERS

  • namsak
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 14:37

Am I stating the obvious but surely the solution is to replace the liquidator.


in flights

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 15:05

Namsak, its the advice given by PWC's lawyers which has caused huge disappointment amongst us. Changing the liquidator would not change anything regarding in flights. He always said he would ensure the in flights would go where they legally should.

I hate this as much as anyone as I have a large in flight which has probably been returned today. I only hope Hopper's team may be able to overturn the PWC legal advice.


Great News

  • Mekong
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 14:25

At least the System is working, anyone who has ever done an international currency transfer from KSFIoM will tell you that you have to bid the transfer rate at least 2 banking days after the day that the request is subnitted. It was mentioned in a previous thread about how "In Transit" depositors may have a conflict of intrest with the majotiry of depositors.

As a thought how many of Hoopers party are UK Tax Dodgers who give the reat of us depositots a bad name?


I find that assertion highly offensive

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 15:04

Why would you think that? Why would taking legal action to get your money back make you more likely to be a tax dodger? Where is the logic in that? And for your information, no I am not a tax dodger.

Please keep thoughts like that to yourself, the news is bad enough.


I wonder whether they are

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 13:18

I wonder whether they are still accepting deposits?

I have just discovered that one of my banks failed to action a telephone instruction of 7 Oct, changing my "nominated account" for receiving interest. Accordingly my interest payment of 31 Oct 08 has been sent to .... KSF IOM.

Well done, Bank of Scotland (International) ... since I opened my account with you I have only given you 2 instructions, and you have got BOTH of them wrong.


See the PWC update of 4th Nov

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 15:05

See the PWC update of 4th Nov - as the banking licence was suspended on 9th Oct no monies could be accepted after that date, and they will be returned


In means yours and ALL in-flight transfers ARE credited back!

  • Jas III
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 12:36

Read this article from oney marketing: Money Marketing
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=175994

The liquidator of the company, Mike Simpson, of PricewaterhouseCoopers, said ..... he was seeking to identify transfers out of the Isle of Man business. Some of these were frozen in the banking system and he was hopeful that they could be repatriated to the Isle of Man to form repayment to accountholders.

Well here it is!

KSF (ioM) has just confirmed they have been sucessful in re-crediting all accounts with all in-flight transfers that were debited and not accounted for. All these funds are now showing back in the KSF(IoM) accounts. Statements are being sent out now.

The Provisonal Liquidator, now claims and can show the money never left the bank. His job is complete. Any transfers are now subject to your £50,000 claim, and whats over that you get in the queue for as unsecured creditor. Hmmmm we've been done! KSF(IoM) has not released any information about the transfers until now and leading people to believe there as possibility paymens could be released, when M. Simpson knew full well he just needed time to get these credited back, without interference from lawyers going after the records of transfers caught up in the payments system, that he did have access to.

I written about this before and mentioned this would happen last Thursday. It was not matter clawing funds back, because the money does not leave the bank until payment instruction actually reach the receiving bank, unless the clearing bank, risks paying it on a credit they want to be responsible for if the sending bank does not pay. In other words the electonic cheque bounces. This is why most banks had sanctions prograned into their systems from midday 6 Oct to stop or 'quarantine' all Icelandic Bank payments. In the case of the UK transfers. KSF London did not forward payment instructions, and if they did they were recalled as above. But there was bever any actual transfer of funds, even though the banks wer solvent on the Oct 6. The UK bank was experiencing a run, so the FSA stepped in and shut down the payments system while accounts were transfered to ING. The transfers now that banks are insolvent are nothing mroe than computer messages with payment instructions, like cheques written on an account that has been closed or bank that does not exist anymore. There is no way of paying them.

I dropped out of Hoppers case because in all my conversations it was clear to me, that there was not an understanding of how the payments system worked. This left me without confidence. I am not lawyer but was quickly able to figure this out. What they called CAT A was not evidence payment left the bank, and that £45,300.00 for a claim letter divided amongst 24 people in this Cat A, (not including those who stumped up for CAT B) seemed a game they spent more time calcuating fees in billing a class action suit as individul clients then working actually working on the case, 10 days of which was spent just on getting as many to join as possible only to pay more for an adapted accessment 'form' letter that was not entirely accurrate.

There is some legal argument left however, but as far as I understand it is not through the means adopted so far by Hopper's Team. I need to take more legal advice now after a ragging call just now with James at KSF(IOM). They also read all these posts!

I'm quite pissed off about this sorry mess, and for all of us caught up in it.

Regretfully-


IN FLIGHTS AND HOPPER's LEGAL ACTION

  • Robbed
  • 06/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 15:54

It would appear that the money to pay out on these transfers was never in the IOM anyway. Would it not be the case that the action taken by HOPPER's legal team was then correctly rtageted at EY at KSF UK?

Extract from PWC statement 5 Nov 08:

c) In respect of the majority of sterling transactions, the Bank used its own account with its sister company, Kaupthing UK to process payment requests from its customers. We understand that although the Bank included a number of transactions in batches of entries sent to Kaupthing UK for processing by them out of the Bank’s account with them, these had in turn:-

i) either not been processed by Kaupthing UK through its own clearing facilities with RBS at the time that company entered into administration,
ii) or had been processed but not cleared before the administration appointment had the impact of freezing the Bank’s account with Kaupthing UK


Sobering news

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 11:56

I am also in the Hopper legal group and this is not great news. However, it is not only a matter of whether the in-flight funds are deemed to be held in trust, though our legal team clearly thinks they are. The other question is whether all the parties to the transaction acted within the law by not completing the transactions. If not they will have to compensate us regardless of where the funds are. This one ain't over yet.


iINSOLVENT

  • Jas III
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 13:02

I can assure you that based on the legal quistslose trust and claim arguements already presented. Not to mention that I believe the legal team focused their claim efforts on E&Y where they assumed the money was on held account with KSFIoM or RBS. I believe the Liquidator was just copied. Besides the demand putting anyone on notice to keep funds i'n trust' was received after the horses already left the barn, ....what funds?

KSF(IoM) answers now saying the funds were not availible at the time of transfer bank because of the run they had on it, and they could not guaratee payment of transfers. The UK issue however is that the payment messages were disregarded while they safeguarded their own UK funds and moved deposits to ING. Their funds are theirs and LKSFIOM is only an unsecured creditor at this point unless there is a polical solution. KSF Hf is also sueing the HMG and KSFltd. now.

I have full traced transfer records however of 3 transfers that did clear and made outside the UK, after instructions were sent for two payments sent to the UK went were never received. Where did that money come from for payments I had clear on 7th and 8 Oct outside the UK? Those records cannot be hidden or lost. This is where to fights it will need to go to court to prove they were solvent at the time. Ha wait until you see those fees! I hesitate to say more here now. It seems likely to give too much up for prepartion on the other end, as has already been done.


Sobering news

  • Robbed
  • 06/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 12:10

Let's keep our fingers crossed!


Letter from KSF - Inflight Payments

  • Manxman
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 11:28

I have received my letter this morning which states that the payments will be credited back to my KSF account as they were never processed by the bank. I find this astonishing that despite processing the payment online via Kaupthing Edge on 7 October, the transaction was "never completed". You would expect that the process happened automatically behind the scenes. Clearly the bank knew something well before the problems late on 8 October if they had made the decision on 7 October to stop all online transactions going through.

So we have all been under the impression that the payments we "in-flight" and held with RBS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that book entries were applied to our KSF accounts but no actual instructions left the bank.

Despite that, a work colleague of mine went into the bank personally on 7 October to withdraw his funds via CHAPS and he received payment later that day. This was after I processed mine online earlier that morning.

Despite getting comfortable that the issues lay entirely outside KSF IoM I am now increasingly coming to the conclusion that there was a degree of incompetence within the operation. How can some payments get processed and others don't. From reading this site I know if some people who processed payments in the early days of October and their payments are also "in-flight", or so we were led to believe. A phone call to the bank this morning has confirmed that if these payments have never been received then they are all being returned to KSF IoM.

This should not be viewed as positive as it means we all now have higher balances caught up in the liquidation and are subject to whatever that may eventually pay out.


Transfers processed .... but not cleared!

  • Jas III
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 14:26

Hi, I think ou may find the payment was processed, but they were not cleared. This means that it the MT103 payment message was sent, but that it was not forwarded to the receiving bank. This was due to action with KSF at the time, and also with most banks regarding handling Icelandic Bank payments for their own security.

I have no idea where anyone ever got the idea that funds were with RBS. It was hopreful pipe dream, because that is not how the BACS or CHAPS payment system works, unless a seperate trust account was set up to clear and hold the payment. When Latchams told me this is where they thought the funds were, I lost all confidence in the basis of the claim. I can assure you that this has been well gone over and every angle covered by PWC & E&Y lawyers before we get the letters confirming this reality of their behind the scenes work on the status and accounting for these transfers.

If your colleague received a payment on 7th. It proves the ban was solvent when at least many transfers went out, as do the affidavits on file from the Bank Directors.

KSF(IOM) says there are 4 categories of the returned transfers. The strongest are the messages that were sent, but not forwarded. But none have money travel with message until they actually clear once funds arrive into the receiving account. Hence uncleared funds never left actually left the bank no matter where the transfer message is. Its like a cheque lost in the post, no money leaves the account until it presented for payment. In the case of transfers however the money is deducted from the account on paper, but the accounting system at the bank holds it until the payment clears. Now ere toild they did not have the funds to clear payments.

This where we need a strong joint conceed effort for evidence. It is very very clear that any chance of getting this money is slim and will not happen without a long court process, that where by should be actioned before 27 Nov. Get legal advice advise.