General Discussions

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 10/10/2008 - 05:39

Any general chat about what is going on that doesn't fall into any other categories.

IMPORTANT: How to post links to related News on other sites

As of 21/Oct/08 we have a searchable news archive. Site editors (and anybody else who wants to help) now have the mammoth task of find and re-posting all relevant links that were posted in forums and re-posting as a news item into the archive.

It would be appreciated if you didn't make the task even bigger than it currently is.

Please post news items using the Create new News item link near top of right side-bar.

4.833335
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (6 votes)

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

Thank you

  • Bill and Beg
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 23:32

Thank you, anrigaut


Private Eye

  • steve
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 13:46

I don't know if anyone else has spotted this, but KSF and our plight are mentioned in the latest edition of Private Eye. It is on their website on the opening page, just google private eye.


Private Eye

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 14:19

I think you mean this piece, which continues beyond what appears in this link:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&


link to private eye

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 14:19

http://private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&

MANX FOR NOTHING
Depositors in the Isle of Man branch of bust Icelandic bank Kaupthing Singer Friedlander may not elicit huge public sympathy, but there are non-tax dodgers among them who have been well and truly hung out to dry by a British government that has long encouraged banking in the crown dependencies.
Just before Kaupthing went under in October, the Isle of Man branch forwarded £530m of its customer deposits to the bank’s London branch. This did not give the depositors any protection under the UK financial services compensation scheme, because their cash had been deposited on the Isle of Man; and the money is now available to pay off the banks’ UK, rather than Manx, depositors and creditors instead.
The £530m transaction followed discussions, which remain shrouded in mystery, between the British and Manx regulators. Soon afterwards, Kaupthing collapsed and the Treasury froze its assets here in the UK, insisting that none of the deposits by then over here should be returned to the Isle of Man.

When it comes to negotiating compensation from the Icelandic government, the depositors are now reliant on the British government, a task that the Whitehall department responsible, the Ministry of Justice, has palmed off to a Treasury notoriously dismissive of the depositors’ plight.

Last month MoJ minister Lord Bach nonetheless insisted everything was fine. Asked at a parliamentary committee hearing whether he was sure “those [Isle of Man] depositors’ interests are now safeguarded, insofar as any depositors’ interests are safeguarded in the UK?” he replied categorically: “Yes I am.” But a swift bollocking from the Treasury must have followed, for by the time the transcript of the hearing appeared a footnote had been added: “Note by witness: I am satisfied by the steps taken by the UK government in the interests of the people whose deposits the UK regulatory authorities are responsible for.” In other words, not those in the Isle of Man. For IoM depositors who might have got their hopes up, this translates as: you’re still shafted.


It helps, although in the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 14:25

It helps, although in the final paragraph the words "not those in the Isle of Man" should have read (I think) "not those who deposited money in the Isle of Man".


were still in the news..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 14:12

must have a look if we are still in the news.....


Private Eye

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 13:49

Good, because I have been promised this for some time.


The Foot Report

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 20/01/2009 - 16:15

Can someone please explain to me what and when the 'Foot Report' is that Alan Bell referred to this afternoon at Tynwald. Many thanks ........


The Foot Report ...

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 18:21

.. is the Independent Review into British Offshore Financial Centres

link:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_130_08.htm


JJB Sports - How do PWC as prov liq of KSFIOM come to be owners?

  • C_south_africa
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:00

I read this article (below).

Could someone explain what it means please? I don't understand how the shares held by KSF IOM - Mr Ronnie's Bank - are now transferred to PWC, and how PWC could now be capable of offloading the shares. Surely those shares belong to us? Or is this article just badly worded?

Mystery of JJB share transfer

By Elizabeth Rigby and Anousha Sakoui

Published: January 14 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 14 2009 02:00

Sir David Jones's tenure as executive chairman of JJB Sports suffered an early blow yesterday after it emerged that a 27.5 per cent shareholding controlled by Chris Ronnie, the retailer's chief executive, had been transferred to the administrators of Mr Ronnie's backers.

JJB was told that Guro Leisure, an investment firm owned equally by Mr Ronnie and Exista, an Icelandic investment company, had disposed of the holding.

The shares had been held as security against loans to Guro Leisure from Mr Ronnie's financial backer Kaupthing Bank, the failed Icelandic lender.

Of the 68.9m shares previously held by Guro Leisure, some 58m were transferred to PwC, administrators of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander's Isle of Man arm. Another 7m went to Ernst & Young, administrators of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander's UK unit.

It was unclear where the remaining 3.2m shares were.

The share transfers came to light only after Sir David asked his advisers to investigate the ownership of the company when he took over as executive chairman this month.

Sir David has instructed lawyers Herbert Smith to investigate the background to the share transfer.

One person close to the company said that Mr Ronnie appeared as shocked by the news as his executive chairman.

In a statement released after the market had closed last night, Mr Ronnie said he did not know when the shares were disposed of or at what price.

The revelation is likely to weigh heavily on the retailer's shares, which rose at the beginning of the year after a management reshuffle in which Sir David was promoted from deputy to executive chairman.

Shares in JJB Sports have fallen more than 96 per cent since September amid declining sales and a heavy debt burden.

In October the retailer received a cash injection from Mike Ashley's rival Sports Direct chain, which now owns approximately 11 per cent of JJB.

PwC sought to reassure the market yesterday that it was in no rush to offload the shares.

Michael Simpson, provisional joint liquidator and partner with the Isle of Man firm of PwC, said he would take a careful and considered approach in respect of the shares.

"I would stress there is no requirement for me to dispose of these positions within a set timeframe," Mr Simpson said.

www.ft.com/ukdailyview
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009


They were used as part of a

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:16

They were used as part of a guarantee by Kaupthing for an advance given.

Mr Simpson DOES have a duty to the creditors of KSFIoM and not to a third party entity. He has a duty to dispose of these at best price for the benefit of the bank.

If there are clear indications that the share price will not improve, then he should (after consideration of any dividend) be offloading them.


I'm no expert but...

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:10

as far as I can make out, it goes something like this:

Mr Ronnie and Exista took out a loan from Kaupthing, presumably using these shares as collateral. At some time in 2008, the writer of another article I read presumed that the terms of the loan had been broken, and the shares had passed into the ownership of Kaupthing, 58M of which were passed to KSFIOM.

Since KSFIOM now owns the shares, Mike Simpson, as the provisional liquidator of KSFIOM, has control over them. His job is to gather together as many of the KSFIOM assets as he can, and these shares form part of those assets. But, they have lost so much value since September that if he sells them now, he will only get a paltry amount for them. At the moment, KSFIOM is not in liquidation, so there is no hurry to sell the shares, meaning that he can hold on to them in the hope of their value increasing. If KSFIOM does go into liquidation without an SOA, he might have to sell them for whatever price he can get. But I'm not sure about this, maybe one of our experts can advise?


Affidavits

  • Stunned Mullet
  • 17/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 23:53

I note the absence of any reference to the 550MM GBP held by KSF UK in Alix's affidavit. Although reading of the affidavit is grim, the real ability to sell the bank/return creditors' money surely lies in securing whatever liquidated monies can be recovered from that source. As E&Y have not provided details of their liquidation, perhaps the additional 60 days makes some provision for a resolution of that front.


Stunned Mullet - Afidavits

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 20:19

May I refer you to the forum topic I have just started - SI2674 - on one aspect of the £550m deposited with KSF(UK).


Affidavits

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 00:00

I do not think that 60 days is anywhere near long enough to get an answer as to the likely recovery from the UK liquidation. It is another reason why the SoA cannot be made certain within a reasonable period of time and therefore the DCS + liquidation appears to be the only practical option, uncertainties in likely recovery from the liquidation in the IOM and under the guarantee being irrelevant to the operation of the DCS.


The funds available to the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:31

The funds available to the operators of the SoA are similar to the thos available to those available to the DCS - in fact they are probably more and more liquid. No one can force Simpson to make a distribution in the event of liquidation and thus the DCS may be waiting for bank and IoM government contributions whereas the SoA may well be able to force Simpson to hand over all cash in hand (about 110M if I am not mistaken), which together with the 150M available from the IoM may yield as much as 32P in the pound. Simpson is under no obligation to release his cash in the event of liquidation, he can hold it if he believes it is for the benefit of the creditors - and his actions are extremely difficult to challenge.


affidavits: which forum?

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:03

we have split affidavit discussions between two fora

also BTW in his phone call earlier this week Mike Simpson said he now controlled 140m (up from 107m)

regds


That's nice, (140+150)/850 =

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:13

That's nice, (140+150)/850 = 34/100 possible initial dividend.


32p in the pound..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:43

hello captain is that all we can expect realistically? as I understand it there are funds that can be retreived from ksfuk and if thats not to be acheived Icleand said they are the last resort, with the parental guarantee. what is going on exactly? I am sure the core team will fill as in in this .


32P

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:01

You really do have to read the post from beginning to end, notwithstanding that it may well be rubbish in its entirety.

Simpson has 110M ready cash, IoM has 150M that they may sling in the pot and the bank has creditors owed around 800M ish. That is what could be available for distribution almost directly if an SoA was adopted and Simpson was forced to follow the direction of the SoA.

This would be a first dividend, and I know it would certainly make me feel happier to receive this sort of initial dividend.


SoA but not as a 'remedy'

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:30

I'm probably very naive about all of this, so please advise, but what I fear is that once the DCS or whatever other pay-out scheme is triggered, the matter is effectively closed for HMG and Iceland, and we in the meantime have assigned our rights to the scheme's agent. Hiipychickrobbed says that we have been very lame over this, which is true, but where is our potential to be anything other than lame?

Would it be possible to reach an agreement over the scheme of arrangement, whereby we sign up for it, receiving a percentage to the pound, but only by legal agreement that this is not in itself the 'remedy', as such (see Alan Bell's affidavit), and that other options will continue to be pursued, especially the parental guarantee, which then may eventually be the 'remedy of last resort'. We don't want a situation where the parental guarantee is voided by a 'remedy' that is highly unsatisfactory.


DSC triggered does not close he issue

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 09:40

If the DSC is triggered this does not close the issue at all.
If the court decided on Liquidation DCS follows it does not stop the liquidator continuing his work of trying to recover as much as possible.


DCS triggered DOES close the issue

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 11:05

It definitely closes the possibility of reactivating the bank, or selling it as a going concern, or taking it over by IoMG, ie nationalising it.

And these happen to be the most desirable options for all concerned.


DCS triggered DOES close the issue

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 11:49

None of those are going to happen. Have you not read the latest affidavits?


DCS triggered DOES close the issue!

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:18

Yes, I have. Have you?

"AlixPartners believe that such a scheme of arrangements would provide simplicity and certainty, no doubt sought by depositors, together with liquidity for KSFIOM, that may in due course, result in its sale as a going concern."


DCS triggered DOES close the issue!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:24

I am sorry, but that is a throwaway comment. It is clear now from the remainder of the affidavit evidence that that is not going to happen.


DSC triggered does not close he issue

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 09:56

bellyup: quite right


SIB all over again

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:43

Can not believe anyone is not looking at history. This is precisely what happened with SIB and they are going down the same route again, why, because they dont have the accumen to try anything different. Alix are not helpful, who recommended them, likely Spellman. Suggest that everyone align expectations now. 29p over 25 years. Readjust your lives guys.


Thank you Ramsey. I already

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:10

Thank you Ramsey.
I already have. But better you lot on the IoM had also better get used to the fact that the IoM is going to be like Anthrax Island by the time we have finished with it. This doesn't go unchallenged, and in case you haven't noticed there is a fairly major recession just about to start. Again, in case you haven't noticed, your rock survives off the back of banking and the odd herring, and if the banking sector gets the hit that is predicted - even old elgee says that the banks will pull out if faced with having to pay DCS contributions, so it is to be hoped that you guys like herrings.

At least I can go out an earn a living and recover.


IoM is in trouble

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 19:16

Some very relevant info here. Little chance of the return of the £550M, for instance

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=axJDLSVx5h34&refer=home

I posted this in news, does anyone read it??


Dawes, Agree that the IOM is

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 19:37

Dawes,

Agree that the IOM is in trouble given the current economic climate but if they don't sort this out quickly to our satisfaction it will be alot worse.

The Bloomberg article to my reading doesn't say there is little chance of the return of the 550m GBP. It say little chance of the UK Gov't returning it. It will most likely be returned or a % of it by E&Y as administrators.


It's not cricket.

  • arny
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 09:23

If part of our £550M deposit is to be used to pay off Ksfuk creditors surely this will be seen as unfair by the average Brit. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Paul is an old cricketer won't he feel guilty at the thought of us losing part of our savings to recompense him. Can we get some mileage out of this probable scenario?


but E&Y can't return it.....

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 19:46

....without the permission of the UK Treasury..........due to clause s27 (I think)


clause 27 - True

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 20:17

But once they give permission it would be E&Y who return it to KSFIOM as creditor. I think Bell is referring to the UK Gov't intervening over and above the normal rules of administration.

Alternatively they could repeal/remove or amend cl.27.


section 27 - ?True?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 20:23

May I please refer you to my recent forum topic on the subject of section 27 (not clause, incidentally)?

I am not sure that there is anything in s.27 of relevance to recovery ofthe £550m deposit.


we were too lame..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 07:45

we have been too lame over this , just sitting here waiting to get stuffed..


out of the frying pan?

  • ajrj
  • 09/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 12:54

i havent commented recently as ive been away. truth is your so right. just read that there is some saving to the kaupthing luxembourg situation , with belgium putting up x million euros to help out kaupthing savers in luxembourg. could it be because the creditors actually got off their respective asses and protested?.
this website has been a wonderful source of couch comfort, but unless we get in the face of brown and his thick sidekick we will not achieve anything more.
From the very start I distrusted the approach of the isle of man government and I believe that they are leading us up the garden path. They seem to be able to spout hot air in order to pretend that they are actually trying to help us, but in fact they are only acting for self preservation.
I am not a financier but it seems to me that there should be a relatively straight forward resolution to this problem. Unless I am mistaken we should have approx 140 m in liquid assets. Also there is a loan book valued at approx 350million with a redemption maximum term of six years according to the LP. Disregarding the 550million currently held in UK coffers this leaves the bank of present assets of approx 500million. If the isle of man were serious about helping us they could introduce, or induce another party with loan guarantees' to put in a further 300million. At this point all savers would be given a five year fixed term bond for their respective savings at an annual aer. of 3.5% to 4% gross with a proviso that no encashment of reserves is permissable. This would at least give us a small return presently and also allow adequate time for us to see the 555million or some part of it returned to ksf iom.
If and when this deposit is returned we would then be in a position to repay all creditors in full and any extra monies obtained would be given to the iom government or respective bank as a profit. The loan book would be maintained and any loans probably being charged at a rate of 5.5% or higher would also contribute to the profits of the iomg or bank.
Through this scenario we would all receive our full refunds, the iom government would receive a great deal of praise including earning a tidy sum and we would all come out of it with a much better return than has been proposed on this site.
If, as seems likely, there is no investment and little hope of anything being resolved soon I suggest we use whatever means is available to us to totally discredit the banking system of the Isle of Man. We can all blame Brown and co. for this charade, but at the end of the day it is and has always been the responsibility of the iom government to see this through to a reasonable conclusion. What I have read recently they are trying to wriggle their way out of responsibilities and they must not be allowed to get away with it. Finally I feel that we all have been trying to deal with this behind the scenes and on the intenet. We need to be SEEN and HEARD physically, whether it be an organised protest at Downing street or something like that. We need to be in their face!


What news of today's affidavit

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:06

Have just logged in and can't find any details of today's affidavit. Has it been filed yet ?


What news of today's affidavit

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:25

Not filed at 3:45 but maybe has been by now.

I have asked for a copy to be made available tomorrow. I imagine that the DAG team will be doing the same, since a copy should have been served on its IOM advocate.


Why is it necessary to ask

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:52

Why is it necessary to ask for two copies? such requests indicate division.

Do you remember old Flashman, and how about that little poem for Taffy Barlow?

I knew we had a common interest.


News re affidavit ?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 10:28

Does anyone know when we will hear any details of the affidavit due to be filed today ?


affidavits in

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 21:02

The affidavits are in and published by the DAG team - see the relevant forum topic heading


Can someone please explain?

  • Ohdear
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 21:14

Can someone please (and clearly) explain what is SoA, what is its advantages / disadvantages over DCS? Iam totally confused. Please use simple language as I am very simple. I am nopw totally confused about all these options.


No they can't !

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/01/2009 - 08:28

this is the problem; there really are very few answers to key questions that make any comparison meaningful

so a further 60 days delay ... but i think we knew that would happen.
what about a further "hardship" payment, say 5k and a further 5k for every month's delay after that ..... this would focus the minds and not let the interested parties drag this out longer than necessary ?

should we not push for this !?


Can someone please explain?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 21:31

Big Question !
A scheme of arrangement is an arrangement between the creditors [depositors] and the Company[bank].
It is required to be approved by the creditors of a Company and the court, and if approved is binding on all creditors and the Company.
It is an alternative to liquidation.
What is in essence is proposed in the affidavit is that the money which IOMG and the Banks would instead of being used for operating the DCS scheme are used to fund the SoA.
The stated objectives are to provide a more certain and defined, contractual return which would not be less advantageous compared to the DCS and would hopefully result in better payouts to all depositors.

Whether this actually works, achieves the stated objectives depends on many factors. At this stage there is insufficient information to evaluate whether it would.

Just my idea of a brief objective explanation.


Can someone please explain?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 21:38

Manx-person, should you not point out in offering your explanation that you are not a depositor at all (I think that is the case) and that you have professional connections with the IOM regulator (that is what you have stated in the forum in the past) and presumably other persons in the IOM administration?


Can someone please explain?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 21:51

I am not a depositor - I have stated this on my profile.
I have had dealings with the regulator as a person regulated by them, but only in that capacity.
As an IoM resident I have had dealings with people in the IOM administration, obviously.

I am sure that there are other contributors to this form whose motives and modus operandi, if openly disclosed should be of more concern to depositors.


manx person

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 11:24

So what IS your interest in posting on this site?
I have asked you this before but you have not responded.


Can someone please explain?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 23:33

I do think it is important that those who post opinions in this most contentious of areas make any interests that they may have in the subject matter quite clear.


THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 23:17

If anyone has the time, access the documents lodged at the companies registry by the group, particularly those by KSF and their holding company in mid September. These can be accessed and bought from the FSC website. A Holdings director (Morley) who is quoted in an international article as saying that KSF were safe for 2008 resigned. KSF make some very unusual changes to their memorandum and articles.
Is it possible that they knew about this immanent situation as early as mid September? Has the failure been controlled and planned?
I think back to my last deposit Monday 20th. Everyone was scurrying around, mysupicion was aroused, when I asked the question, what is happening here, I was told they were changing their filling system, I remember feeling uncomfortable as the receptionist, usually a very pleasant lady took the cheque out of my hand and wouldnt look me in the eye, I wrote it off as my/her mood.
If this wind down was planned then the outcome is planned. If this is the case then the regulator should have known about it, maybe they did. If this is the case then the only people who know the outcome are the directors and the regulator.