In Flight Transfers Isle of Man court case

  • legal begal
  • 11/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 14/11/2008 - 22:45

I understand that there will be a hearing in the Isle of Man court in January 2009 to determine whether in flight transfers can go to their intended destination or whether they will go back to customers and will be used to pay the bank's debts. Should we join this action? Should Hoppers legal team be involved? This could be a quick way to get our money back.

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 Court Case

  • TCA
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 03:50

Where and when did you hear this and who is bringing this action?


There was a letter on this

  • KA
  • 14/10/08 29/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 05:57

There was a letter on this site somewhere about a company called Habana ( might be wrong spelling ) whose case is being heard this January. I am part of Hopper's case and I have let Richard Gore our solicitor know.


Inflight transfers Habana case

  • legal begal
  • 11/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 19:46

I heard it was Habana represented by Gough & Co. - solicitors in the IOM. Gough have apparently agreed a timetable with the liquidator and the case will be argued by London QCs apparently. Does anyone have any info on this??


In flight transfers

  • Kenman
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 09:00

I have already posted the information that I received a statement from KSFIOM on 13.11.08.showing my balance BEFORE my in flight transfer, with no reference to my chaps dated 7.10.08.
I have had two letters from Mr Simpson, explaining in detail the proceedures being followed in this case, pointing out that he has no jurisdiction as yet being only the provisional liquidator, the first letter ran to two pages and set out to my satisfaction that he and his company were working to resolve the situation and to return as much as possible to the depositors.
Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, but isn't it the job of the liquidator and PWC his employer to legally represent us, the creditors, and to get back as much as possible from wherever they can.
The offices of KSFIOM are at present filled with PWC employees, ( I have attended the offices recently and can vouch for this) the local papers have large adverts for staff at PWC. The firm has, I believe, offices in the U.K. and as such should be privy to any developments at HMG or KSFUK, much sooner than any outside firms.
One paragraph of his last letter dated 6 Nov.
"During the intervening period my key responsibility is to protect and preserve the company's assets. A key action currently being undertaken is the reconciliation of customer accounts".
This I firmly believe they are doing!


Get back as much as possible...

  • TCA
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 09:17

Yes, it is the job of the liquidator to get back as much as possible from wherever he can but if he can't get back all that went AWOL, we're all looking at a proportionate slice of the much smaller pie. If inflight transfers are allowed to continue to their destination then those people will receive 100% of that money. If the cash is returned to KSFIOM then those monies will be divided up amongst all creditors. So yes, Mike Simpson will be doing his best to restore KSFIOM assets but that may not necessarily be in everyone's best interests, depending on their own circumstances.


Get back as much as possible...

  • namsak
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 14:34

If the in flight transfers are not allowed to go to their intended detsinations then you will get back up to 50,000.

If the in flight transfers are allowed to go to their intended destinations then you will get back up to 50,000. Plus those fortunate enough to have made a transfer will get more.

The only party with a vested interest in the in flight transfers not going to their intended destination is the IOM Government since it will reduce the amount they have to pay out under the depositor compensation scheme.

By astonishing coincidence guess who appoints the liquidator.

Do the maths. The IOM Government will be bending over backwards to make it look like they have the best interests of the depositors at heart. Meanwhile they will be reminding PWC that a fat slice of their fee depends on getting the in flght transfers back and if they don't their testacles will be the only chestnuts roasting on IOM this Christmas.


Money returned

  • slloyd
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 16/11/2008 - 10:21

Has the 'in flight transfer' money actually been returned to the IOM? Or is it just that our accounts in KSF IOM been adjusted with the amount?


I'm afraid I don't know. I

  • namsak
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 16/11/2008 - 13:27

I'm afraid I don't know. I live in Asia and I have not received a statement yet let alone anything else.

I have a feeling that what has been 'acheived' by PWC is some kind of legal understanding that if they claw back the in flight funds they will not be breaking the law. Where the actual money is is anyone's guess. PWC are probably wondering themselves.

The DCS payout terms will be very interesting. Any bets they put a clause that acceptance of 50,000 means you waive any possibility of future legal claim?

It's possible that PWC's legal advice is seriously and fundamentally flawed and ill advised and the present crisis will claim PWC as one of it's biggest victims.

Even I would put up with losing 40,000 for that. Every cloud .....


PWC & IOM Govt Big Winners

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 15/11/2008 - 20:58

Agreed Namsak - they are clearly the big winners from the inflight transfers being returned. For most of us even those with no in flight money the impact would be very small and many cases zero.