• Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 29/04/2009 - 19:19

I have obtained independent legal opinion (not DAG's legal team) suggesting that it would be absurd to reject the orderly scheme of arrangement as proposed by the IOMG and supported by the provisional liquidator in favour of liquidation which is a process notorious for unforeseen pitfalls, costly litigation, lower than expected distributions over long periods of time (>10 years) and eventually resulting in significant losses by disappointed creditors.

Surely it is obvious to all that the IoMG (like it or not) will go all out to ensure the success of the SoA?

DAG is supposed to represent all depositors including those with less than 100k at stake. The SoA is superior to liquidation for this group which I imagine is in the largest group. So vote SoA for your own good.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (49 votes)

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


  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 23:39

Good call linsco,

Our DAG Strategy team are trying to bully people with their non stop propaganda at the top of each page you open and Adrienne and Gavin of HNWDepositors don't care about anyone else - up to them. But I am a HNWBondholder and I think we have far more safety getting up to the 70% through SoA than through liquidation. And because of the 'top ups' we will get our cash back faster. We will then worry re last 30% if we get that far - nothing so far - nearly 8 months in.

So time for DAG and Adriene and Gavin to stop saying we can't tell you what's happening behind the scenes because it's secret - and we don't want others to know etc etc well time is far too short now for can't tell you. Get everything out in the open so we can all make our minds up quite clearly and stop blaming IOMG/T when you are doing exactly the same yourselves.

No more games just straight facts so we can vote if we have a vote.

Gordon 45

I, too am voting against SoA

  • romasanta
  • 16/10/08 02/10/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 11:56

I am with you helvetica bold.

I am giving my proxy vote to the DAG Legal Team.

See my blog for more comment:

I've come to my sense

  • Helvetica Bold
  • 09/02/09 24/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 11:37

linsco, I have come to my sense and 'voted for my own good'.........AGAINST

Agreed - please support the SoA (lesser of two evils)

  • allyourbase
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 17:35

I agree with linsco. The SoA is not great, but rightly or wrongly, it's the best option at the minute. (Note I am a below 50k depositor, but I'll present arguments for above 50k depositors too.) Here's my response to some of the concerns I've heard about the SoA:

It's expensive: yes, it will be expensive. I'm sure PriceWaterhouseCoopers will have just as eye-watering a bill - 19,500 GBP on airfares - as Ernst & Young have so far (see their progress report) but the liquidation will also be very expensive, as PWC will almost certainly manage that too.

Liquidation could offer a better return: maybe I'm missing something but I haven't seen a single person substantiate this claim. Ernst & Young's estimate of a 50p in the pound payout is dependent on market conditions not worsening. Would you bet against that? If you vote against SoA, that's what you're doing. But if you vote for the SoA, the risk about what return we get from KSF UK is taken by the Isle of Man treasury.

Court-imposed moratorium to prevent KSF, PWC and Isle of Man treasury being sued: agreed, I don't like this. But again, think about it. Even if you wanted to sue them, where would you get the money from? From looking at reports on how the generously-donated DAG legal fund has been spent, it's clear to anyone that legal bills rack up very quickly.

It might block the "whole bank solution" (i.e. the bank being sold as a going concern): this is possible, but I'd imagine that if a serious purchaser emerged, the SoA could be stopped. After all, selling the bank would be a major boost to the Isle of Man government, in propaganda terms if nothing else. However, I think the chance of the "whole bank solution" happening is extremely slim. Ernst & Young have committed to a 10p in the pound repayment in July, though KSF IOM haven't even finalised the claim to KSF UK. And the 50p in the pound estimated total recovery figure is based on a lot of assumption. None of this is attractive to a prospective purchaser.

Preferential creditors: I don't know why this is even mentioned in the DAG "Summary of Qualitative Issues" document. As the document itself points out, preferential creditors will get paid out earlier whatever happens. Sure, I'd like to know an amount but if it's anything like KSF UK, it's very low. (For KSF UK, the only preferential creditor is the government agency that pays statuatory redundancy pay.)

The other main advantage of the SoA is that it has set times for making payments. Ok, it's going to take longer than everyone wants to get money, but at least we're talking about dates now. Unless I've missed something, no one has given even indicative dates for repayments under liquidation / DCS.

There are loads of things in the SoA I don't like, for example fixing of exchange rates which affects me badly. But please think about it. If the SoA is approved, come September you could have 35,000 GBP. If the SoA is not approved, you have no idea what you'll get, or when you'll get it. That's the fundamental issue.

Correcting misinformation

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:42

One of your points really stuck out (I only skimmed the rest):

"Liquidation could offer a better return: maybe I'm missing something but I haven't seen a single person substantiate this claim. Ernst & Young's estimate of a 50p in the pound payout is dependent on market conditions not worsening. Would you bet against that? If you vote against SoA, that's what you're doing. But if you vote for the SoA, the risk about what return we get from KSF UK is taken by the Isle of Man treasury."

Neither the SoA or liquidation produce any different returns above £50K. Betting against market conditions worsening HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHOICE OF SOA OR LIQUIDATION.

I've seen so many mails from the pro-SoA posters saying it is a gamble with Liquidation but safe with SoA, and this is completely false. The return from the loan book or from KSFUK is at risk whichever option is chosen. The extra legal options available from liquidation COULD produce a better return under liquidation but then if the returns did not hit 70% (which is VERY unlikely) then the amount via the SoA would be better for the £50K+ depositors - that is all.

65% - 70% - 75% - 100% who knows?

  • dd
  • 24/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 07:58

hi frog,
thank you for your post it helps me to put some order in my confusion.
but :) i honestly fail to see why do you think that not hitting the 70% is very unlikely.
the liquidation and DCS are not going to fail, of course, they will just take for ever!!!
in this time scale what will happen to the expenses? what will be the value of our money in 10 year maybe 20 years time? for example, does anyone know how higher/ lower level of inflation is going to effect our returns?
the SOA is far from perfect but at least it gives depositors some/ all of their money within a year. that is something worth considering, in my opinion, for all the depositors under 250,000.

In support of the DCS

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 10:43

Well someone has to!

The DCS is a safety net for all depositors on the IOM. There will be significant pressure from the banks and politicians to ensure that the DCS is paid out quickly so as not to tarnish any reputations as a banking centre.

In fact, in the explanatory statement on page 30, the FCS asked for the following to be included:

"The outcome shown for payments under the DCS Regulations is based on
the minimum funding contribution estimated under the DCS Regulations
calculated on the assumptions for the claims profile set out by the proposed
Scheme Supervisor and assumes no loan funding is available to the
compensation scheme under the DCS Regulation. The outcome does not
represent a prediction of the actual claims or payment profile under the DCS
Regulations in the event that it is triggered. In addition to the range of
funding examples arising from realisation of the Assets, the DCS Scheme
Manager has the powers under section 6 (3)(b) of the DCS Regulations "to
disburse money borrowed by the scheme manager for the purposes of the
[DCS] scheme". In the event that the DCS Regulations were triggered, the
DCS Scheme Manager would consider exercising its power to borrow, which
could further affect the possible outcome."

To me, that tells me that if there isn't enough cash, they will borrow it - they are committed to have the cash for the SoA anyhow, and it is the same amount, so I can't understand why there is a concern that it will pay out later. I actually believe that the DCS will pay out sooner - and in one go - otherwise there will be a lot of flack coming from all directions.

With regard to your point about timing - the LP has said that dividend distributions will happen at the same time on either scheme - so payout times will be the same.

With regard to expenses, the SoA can only be more expensive because the SoA follows the liquidation rules exactly (including to the point about the amount of interest credited to October 9th) but there is one extra negotiating partner - being the treasury. The liquidation only has the Creditors' Committee. This can only add cost by including the treasury in the SoA negotiations.

With regard to the payout. PWC have admitted that their balance sheet of Oct 9th is incorrect, but I calculate that there are assets of £890M (After £185M has been removed due to the 50% payout from KSFUK) with liabilities of around £930 - before the parental guarantee (which we can hope for about £20m from based on a 25% recovery from Khf). That gives a return of 98%. Note that book value of the bank is £198M as assets - the bank has £200M almost in credits - this is why the UK payout loss is offset by this and 98% is available. This is why I think that recoveries below 70% are very unlikely - even the explanatory statement has the lower figure at 74%!

I've said before that the whole issue should be cleared up within 6 years - the things will take time are the loan books of the UK and IOM banks, but the IOM bank's loan book lasts no longer than 6 years and the bulk of the money comes back in 2011. It is expected by me that the UK bank's loans profile will be similar. Regardless, as payments will be at the same time under liquidation or SoA, inflation will have the same effect on both approaches.

So in summary - just because the SoA £50K payment is assured, don't be certain it will pay back faster than a DCS due to political and commercial pressures causing the DCS to be paid back quickly (it's just we don't know yet)
Secondly, the bank is almost £200M in credit - a recovery below 70% is extremely unlikely
Thirdly, the liquidation/SoA should all be complete (except for a few dregs) by 2014/2015. Both schemes will take the same time.

In my opinion, there are possible benefits for depositors below £50K, but it diminishes for depositors above this.

Hope this helps.

thank you

  • dd
  • 24/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 18:29

thank you

65% - 70% - 75% - 100% who knows?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 09:25

If you look carefully at Simpson's graphs in his explanatory statement, it is clear that DSC/liquidation is not going to take "forever" at all (notwithstanding that what appears to be a timeline is actually a distributions axis). The two schemes always come together after a few dividend payments and the dividends under DSC/liquidation should in fact be paid ahead of those under SoA.

@frog: that is all...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 19:00

Hey Frog,

I'm a £50K plus saver and might give consideration to being better off by the £100M or so left in the pot under the SoA if returns fail to make 70% "...that is all, indeed! :-)

I've not decided yet, but may proxy my vote.

Ice, I've decided to proxy

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 19:12


I've decided to proxy my vote as I won't be there at the meeting - I think there is still some way to go in negotiations and I really don't believe that the world would deteriorate enough to drop the payout to the point that 70% is not reached. That's my opinion though, and I believe that PWC and others also think this (why else would they put low-return case at 74%).

An awful lot could happen

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 04:15

An awful lot could happen over the next 5 or 6 years to change today's predictions...

@IceCrusher: I'm a perma_bear....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 06:06

I take it you are referring to the Spellman's "10p in the pound benefit" if the dividend doesn't now reach 70%.

Fair enough, that is a real consideration, I might have an issue with 10p but there is some insurance. It is noteworthy that it's difficult/impossible to quantify independently because of the way the SoA is presented.

But let's be more precise.

I have no reason to think that E&Y are being anything other than cautious or accurate with their estimates. Believe me I loathe these mega_operators but I'm rational. I would follow Roubini rather than Bootle. But the powers that be are going to muddle through this financial crisis, whether it goes deflationary or they manage incredibly to blow yet another bubble. Whether or not there is a gilt strike or the IMF is needed. The GBP has already been devalued, another sterling crisis? Possibly. A dollar devaluation? A euro dislocation? Yes there is more damage to come, it's very difficult to read, but how will it affect us?
The Kaupthing Loan book is not monoline/derivative bombshell loaded, it's stupid pathetically opportunistic interest only loans at the height of the market, and loans to Iceland/highstreet leveraged businesses, it ought to bring shame and punishment on the directors, but these guys are constructed of reinforced teflon and seem to have bought the government. How much do these guys charge for being 'innocent'? Yes the default rate stands to be horrendous, and this dead cat bounce is going to end in tears, but I assume E&Y have taken all this into account, their statement was made after the rating agencies, or at the same time, were stressing the more than average hit in this financial crisis (and serious comment was there long ago). The mess these financial clowns have got us into is going to be expensive, but it's more or less now baked in our cake.

You have seen the cageyness of IoMG. Well they are thinking the same. They work to their fixed cost model.
And they think, arrogantly, that the punters are (stupid/)uninformed. Unfortunately they are pretty much correct on average, well it isn't really important for the majority, but the unusual characteristic of this bank is the significant presence of large accounts. This presence gives us, if the HNW's are awake, and I am not so patronising as to assume that a significant proportion are not, even if they are quiet, pretty much a unique opportunity to challenge the IoMG's complacency (for want of a better word).

Am I in the ballpark IceCrusher?

What I'm trying to say is that they (the IoMG) have taken the perspective you are hinting at here into account. I personally think qualitative issues predominate here. I can see you are wavering. In situations like this where there is no clarity I would tend to follow Thomas Jefferson.

It is a long-term wager, a

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 08:06

It is a long-term wager, a bet, a gamble on the unknowable by the unknowing...

I am over £350K, so should in theory be taken care of by liquidation, but I am seriously concerned as to whether 70% returns will actually come back over the next 5 to 6 years in this volatile economic climate. It's OK saying I have no reason to think otherwise now, but its a wager, nothing less. It's a bet we think the IoMT want to win; that they will get back 70% of their loan as soon as returns hit 70%. If for whatever reason we get to only 69%, then the remaining IoMT loan stays in the pot. It could be an extra £100M or so that we would otherwise not receive...This MAY be a way of appeasing their taxpayers, keeping them quiet now believing that 'depositor loans' given by taxpayers will eventually be returned - but with the passing of time, these things fade from memory and the money could stay in the pot. I don't know, but I'm trying to figure what's in the minds of our 'opponents' in balancing their many reference points. And I am not an agent, just someone who considers many angles to try and figure the best one - but the result may well be pre-decided anyway.

£100m is more than nothing

  • dd
  • 24/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 09:20

i tend to agree with you, although i haven't decided how to vote yet.
the fact that there is a need of 75% of the votes in each group in order to proceed with the SOA makes it unlikely. i believe that a lot of the high depositors will vote against the SOA. At least it looks like this from the polls and comments here.

One little point to remember

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/05/2009 - 13:31

One little point to remember when betting, there are about10,000 depositors and 153 have voted on this site about how they will vote. Not a very big sample is it? Given that under 50s will probably be a bit better off under the SoA, its chancing your arm to assume a huge ant SoA vote. I don't think the IoM are dumb enough to have gone this far without having a pretty reasonable idea of the outcome, or of course they don't give a damn anymore!

As to comments about the HVD group thinking only of themselves, I resent that that given that a lot of the fighting for this cause, for everyone, has been done by larger depositors; and two the idea is to get better terms for the SoA or vote it down as it is now. Not just blindly support or reject. Somebody needs to think about bigger depositors because the terms to date obviously go against us and precious little has ever been done about it, except by a few.

C'mon get real, the depositors have been riven with splits from early on, why should it change just because somebody quotes the old 'lets stick together' routine? Can't see much point in supporting a cause I think is wrong, can you? And showering piles of PR rubbish etc on the IoM has been, in my opinion, a huge mistake. I'd have thought it was easy to find targets in the Icelandic Directors/Government or HMG/FSA/HM Treasury and Downing St first.

So thats what you have a vote for, to decide on your own, using your judgment and circumstances as your guide; not to simply do as somebody else says because it might suit their agenda and you think they sound clever. I have agreed to join the HVD Committee because I happen to think that is the best way for me and my family at this point in time, its taken months and a lot of discussion before I agreed. But I keep an open mind I hope you all do before committing to the future.

@dd, I haven't decided how

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 10:48


I haven't decided how to vote either - I submitted a proxy because I think the game still has some time to play out. I would recommend the same to everyone, though I wouldn't presume to demand!

DD, votes correction

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 10:43

I believe that it is 51% of votes to a value of 75% in each class/group for the SOA to succeed, and not 75% of the votes in each class, as you stated.

SOA votes

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/05/2009 - 13:57

A majority by number and 75% by value--not too complicated is it?

Of course we dont know

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:01


Well yes it doesnt really matter to you though does it?

You will get your money back whatever way it goes.

Of course we dont know that much about the DSC.

Why do we not know?

Because the IOMG is doing everything it can for us not to know

Because they want us to take the SOA

Liquidation is at least a PROVEN legal method

Not some scheme that can be revised at the will of those in charge and we all know who will be in charge dont we?

With Liquidation there is no real reason why Mike Simpson cannot distribute the money

and he has I believe 20 % asap.

E&Y has already said they will give a MINIMUM of 50p return

And we go on fighting from there without legal constraints set by the very people who have not shown themselves to be in anybodys interest but their own.

Our lawyers Edwin Coe have advised us this is the best way to go.

Other legal sources who are also depositors have advised that SOA is NOT in our best interests.

In the face of all this legal advice anyone who goes against it would IOM be very foolish indeed.

SoA or DCS/liquidation does matter

  • allyourbase
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 21:15

bellyup: it does matter to me. Sure, my deposit is guaranteed--whatever that means. The IOM DCS is largely untested and there's not even a vague idea of how soon payouts would start. With SoA, there is a much clearer idea of when payments will start.

Ernst & Young have not committed to 50p in the pound--or at least, not without serious disclaimers: "on the basis of current forecast recoveries from the banking book, prudent estimates of realisations from other assets, and based on the maximum estimates of unsecured claims, and current market conditions not deteriorating, the Administrators currently estimate that total distributions should be a minimum of 50p in the £". That is not a firm commitment, not as far as I'm concerned anyway. The SoA promises the payment of 35,000 GBP on the first distribution date though.

According to the realised values at 31st March 2009, Mike Simpson only has enough assets to cover 17% of deposits. This doesn't take into account any of the costs of PWC's work so far.

Support the DAG

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:30

The DAG have been here since the beginning and have been working constantly to get the best possible result. Now is the time to give our full support behind the DAG. The legal advice shows the many pitfalls assocociated with the SOA. And I just have lost complete trust in the IOMG.

Where would we be without DAG and this excellent forum?


Support DAG -yes, yes

  • Sophie
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 21:50

Codpeace how right you are. The only way forward, and where we all stand a chance of getting as near as possible to 100% return for all, is via DAG. The DAG team have worked their butts off for us all. Yes mistakes have been made (maybe!!??) but this is the time to listen to them, and their lawyers, advice.

I hope you contributed towards the lawyer’s fee as well. Expensive it may be but we need good objective informed advice - and have to pay for it. So now listen to what they advise.

Support DAG

  • Sophie
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 21:35

Yes. Codpeace is right.

United we must be. Whether we are over or below 50k or a bondholder. They (the main DAG team) have been there from the beginning, with some of 'us' helping from time to time The key guys and gals of DAG (I am not one of them) have had their own lives to live but have given their spare time up to work for us all - and themselves of course, but so what. But what have you done?? I read a lot of stupid and counterproductive talk on this site - but who does the 'DO'?

I, and some of you ( not as many as should have), have paid for a lawyer to advise us. He / she /they (Coe the lawyers) are clearly against SOA. All the stupid and counterproductive input from this site has only confused the issue. But there is enough information available for all to make their own minds up on how to vote. I personally think it’s stupid to pay (as I have) for an 'expert' lawyer to represent me and then ignore his / her advice.

I am giving my discretion proxy vote to DAG.

As for the other group that intermittently interposes to represent the High Depositors, they are only falling into the trap of 'divide and conquer' - from you know who (IOMG?). Why do they not work from within DAG? We all want 100% return for all. No matter whether it’s a few thousand quid or mega bucks (by my standards). It’s our money, hard earned ‘dosh’ no matter how much, we earned it and the only ones who are going to help us our 'ourselves'. We help and support each other. I don’t understand as to why this 'high earners' group do not work within DAG. We are all on the same side. But - so be it.

I say that DAG is the one to support and they represent us all whether we are under 50k, over 50k, bondholders, and so on. We all want a 100% return and that’s what DAG is going to get for us all. It may take time - but don’t expect miracles.


Or you may well regret it. Only history will tell.
I say to all on this website who are depositors (and sod the disruptive rest of you) give your proxy vote to DAG, preferably 'at discretion' but if not against SOA. If you are a bondholder write to your insurance company to vote for liquidation.


  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 06:55

I suppose I am one of the 'disruptive rest of you' as you put it because I have a different opinion to yourself. If thats the case then thank you for your constructive comments and 'sod' you too!

@expatfrance1: Whatever she said...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 07:11

your comment is hardly constructive debate.

Your position attracts criticism. Your responsibility is to respond to the criticism constructively.
Your last sentence is hardly likely to persuade anybody.

Do you see my point?

The debate here is for our benefit. The greater the depth of the debate here the more chance we have of carrying the arguments generated here to others outside of our situation and persuading them of their correctness. If you cannot behave with decorum here how 'in the hell' are you going to behave appropriately outside?

It's a jungle out there, it makes me wonder how we keep from going under.

I think that you're right

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 17:53

I think that you're right that the SoA is a good choice for those who have less than 50k. But this is not the case for many depositors, which is why the document is extremely divisive.

The SoA will not affect my parents first divided since they are well over the 50k, therefore the first 35K is of no advantage to them. You also say that we have a timeline with the SoA. This is not really true because if you look at the SoA, the dates are "indicative" so they are not set in stone. There are only two payments set for within the year, and after that, it is anybody's guess.

I doubt that my parents are interested in the suing part either, but they hold a massive grudge against the IOMT for what it has done to them and others in the past few months, and for what it has not done to rectify their blunders. There are other responsible parties (UK and Iceland) but after learning from one of the TSC members (can't remember which one) that the IOM hasn't even asked for any help from the UK, I really wish them in hell.

I honestly think that the SoA is liquidation in disguise, and as bellyup mentioned, the IOM cannot let the DCS fail. It's their flagship.

But it's just my opinion and I respect yours.

I think that you're not right

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:39

Swiss, you have decribed the SoA above as "liquidation in disguise". The IoMT have been selling it as "liquidation PLUS". I would describe it as "liquidation minus".

Whoever is right, the fact is that the SoA is a liquidation but without the statutory controls that normally govern liquidation. Apart from that, it is merely a scheme whereby money is added by IoMT at the front end so as to replace the DCS and taken out again at the back end. It is laughable that some depositors insist on arguing that it avoids the pitfalls of liquidation, because of course that is entirely untrue since it does involve a liquidation and all its associated pitfalls, but it keeps the liquidation provisional throughout so as to avoid any statutory control or creditors' control. In fact it is liquidation with all its pitfalls but without the statutory safeguards that would otherwise apply, and with many additional pitfalls created by the scheme itself, and with the statutory compensation scheme dispensed with altogether and replaced by a far less safe contractual agreement.

Someone above has appealed to depositors to come to their senses. I do the same, but my appeal is directed at those depositors who still, having seen the documents, persist in arguing in its favour. I understand that some must be mouthpieces for the IoMG, which despite its pretence to the contrary really is desperate for depositors to vote for the scheme and has financed a very expensive PR machine in addition to its massive fees to Alix Partners, but I have to believe that others who post in its favour are real depositors who have been taken in by IoMG's misstatements. Do the same depositors also believe that certain chocolate bars "help you work, rest and play" or that certain chewing gum "doubles your pleasure and doubles your fun" or Gordon Brown's statement of a few months ago that "Britain is best placed of all countries to ride out this recession" or that there has been an improvement in the UK's education system?

My Elgee, that was well

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:44

My Elgee, that was well put!

And why can't IoMT put their money into the DCS at the front end and take it out again at the back end instead of using it to replace the DCS? It would have been so much simpler. But I think we know the answer to that.

Wake up people! If the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 09:40

Wake up people! If the SoA gets shot down you can expect more ongoing delays that will only jeopardize the return of your money even more. This is not the financial climate to be dallying in. More banks will surely be collapsing worldwide and that will only increase the risk of getting even less as time goes on.

Right now in the USA 6 of the largest banks that control 63% of the financial assets of the 19 largest US banks need to raise capital and will likely have to get another handout from the government. Friday, American Sterling which had 4.1 Billion USD in assets went belly up. This was a major correspondent bank that many smaller banks relied on and they are now in jeopardy of failing also.

It won't take much to see a dominoe effect if this global financial crisis continues to worsen, which it surely will. Time is of the essence and anyone that promotes doing anything that will in any way slow down the payout of funds, needs to be looked at with a way eye. Vote for the SoA and let's get this over and done with.

@jimg: Patronising and incorrect.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 23:01

Firstly I am awake.

Secondly, if the SoA is 'shot down' we go straight to liquidation. Tell me where is the delay?

Thirdly, if we have a global financial collapse nothing is going to make any difference. Buy your shotguns and rice here.

If you naievely think that voting for the SoA is going to avoid any repercussions of a global financial collapse then good luck to you.

You might like to bear in mind that the protection for depositor holders in the USA is 250K paid immediately (what are we looking at in the IoM?)

What a confused argument.

Things are serious, but no need to panic.

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 23:24

I would just like to comment on this post in that it does not represent the situation fully.

The KSFIOM bank and its siblings and parent have already failed - so the risk of other banks failing have little to do with the health of the Kaupthing banks. There is some risk on the loan books in Kaupthing UK and Kaupthing IOM, but this would not be linked to other bank defaults - rather to individual high-net-worth individual loans.

There could be a knock-on effect if a large amount of banks failed (or some large ones) due to the macro-economic situation worsening, as this could affect the value of the assets that the loans are secured against. Key thing here though is that the loans are generally against high-net-worth individuals, so they will have other assets to go after. Either way, the situation in a SoA or liquidation WOULD BE THE SAME for collecting the interest and capital.

The only difference would be if a bank failure happened which brought down another IOM bank before October, which would potentially dilute the DCS payments under liquidation, so would mean that it would take longer to get the full £50K back as opposed to the assured schedule under SoA - but it would come back as it is a government-backed guarantee. This means it is only meaningful for sub-£50K depositors. The LP has commented that the distribution dates for the SoA and liquidation WOULD BE THE SAME, so again, the above is not a good reason to choose the SoA over liquidation.

Now I'm not advocating liquidation over SoA myself - I really haven't decided, that's why I've chosen to work with a proxy for the vote as this would allow an extra couple of weeks for a decision with a hope for an improved offer from the IoM Government, and I think fixing a vote now would not be beneficial as opposed to providing those who are still negotiating some position of strength (by holding a lot of votes as a bloc)

You need to read Jim's blog: 'THE GAP IS CLOSING....'

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 19:20

Looks like good news

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 19:38

Let's hope 'the gap' can be closed to everyone's satisfaction and 'DAG' get the contract amended and start getting back our Protected funds and as high a % of the rest as soon as possible!

Here's to a new SOA?

Here's to no SOA.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 21:46

These guys, the IoMG, have had six months to come up with an SoA that is adequate.
And they have signally failed.

CW, you swerve about using any argument that comes to hand for your diatribes hoping against hope that the 'leopard will change his spots'. Why? How desperate are you, and why?

Decisions taken in the heat of the moment are always suspect. You seem to expect a last minute 'road to Jerusalem' moment. I can see from your posting(s) that you come close to my picture of the nightmare salesman, the one that has noted your interest and hopes he can get you to sign a contract although all you were doing was looking.

You have gone from abuse to humility. You have no shame. Your thinking is whatever might give you personally the most marginal temporary benefit is the best solution for all. Keep posting, please. I have faith that the the rest of us can see the self-defeating weakness of your arguments.

Here's to no SOA, Tao?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 12:05

You toast to "no SOA". You are 100% committed to liquidation? No compromise, no surrender?

So, if 'these guys', the IoM, come up with an adequate SOA and DAG strategy team and their legal advisors propose those on the forum support 'it', you will not?

@CW: No compromise, No surrender.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 07:37

An adequate SoA does not involve a compromise or a surrender.
In the case of an adequate SoA I would support an SoA.
You only have to survey my previous comments to realise this.

The problem lies in the the current SoA.

That's why, f_t_t

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 10:52

I was wondering why you 'toasted' to "no SOA", when it was my understanding that you would support an SOA if it was to your liking. I fully understand the current SOA, if it were not be to negotiated from now to voting time, does not have your support.

come on dag you can do it...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 19:48

I ll drink to that...

Something REALLY important that everyone should read

  • mesufish
  • 21/10/08 01/10/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 16:42

In the current forum climate of everyone thinking that their opinion is truly vital, here, in case anyone has missed it, is a link to the most important piece of information that most people have been asking for.
It is the DAG team's summary of the reasons for having serious doubts about the SOA. Whatever your leaning in the current debate, it make interesting reading. And, linsco, it is paid for (in a small part by me) and open for anyone to look at: it is not a dark secret that has to be sheltered.

Thanks to all of you hard-working folks on the DAG teams who have put so much effort into this.

SOA Qualitative Analysis

  • iak1655
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 17:31

I agree this is a good document. Has this been forwarded on to those who created the SoA ? To me it would be useful to gain their responses to this and maybe (who knows) amendments will be forthcoming if they can see the depositors viewpoints on it.

@ mesufish - page not found

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 16:46

Just tried the link - result was page not found!

Page not found

  • mesufish
  • 21/10/08 01/10/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 17:05

Sorry - don't know what happened to that one and I can't find the original place I saw it - but now it has appeared as a blog from the Strategy team:

@coldlightofday - see DAG's latest blog

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 17:04

- see DAG's latest blog "KSFIoM Scheme of Arrangement": same text and better formatted.

Please everyone READ this.

thanks anrigaut and mesufish

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 17:17

have now seen the updated blog and

I was even able to download the pdf version!

well worth reading

Voting for SoA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 03:14

I agree that it looks like the SoA is covering the depositors with 50,000 or less per person. I am not here to be loyal to the people with more than that, who have a chance of getting more back if they go for liquidation.
What worries me a bit is that I have had lots of communications from DAG, but not a single one from Kaupthing (apart from one letter I believe announcing the demise and telling us to not worry). We live abroad, and use a family member's address in the UK for correspondence plus our email address of course. Can anybody tell me if I've missed out on things here?
Also, I would like to vote in favour of the SoA, and have downloaded the form, but where do I send it? Not to DAG, they don't want my form, but where to then? The Scheme Supervisor is who and where?



  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 20:08

Zenwoman doesnt that tell you something?

You havent heard a thing you dont even know where to send the form to?

So why ask Dag why not ring up kaupthing or the IOM?

The address on the envelope provided for return of voting forms-

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 15:33

I have received the postal version of the SoA information.

The address on the envelope provided for return of the voting forms is as follows...

The Joint Liquidators Provisionally
Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
PO Box 197
Samuel Harris House
5-11 St. Georges Street
Isle of Man
IM99 1SN

zenwoman, all the voting forms and instructions are here

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 12:19

You can find all the voting forms, instructions, SOA, etc on this Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander bank website-

If you are an under £50,000 depositor you want to make sure you select the Fully Protected Depositor form. The downloaded version is black and white but will have a large number 1 in the centre.

For those that fall into the above £50,000 grouping, they will want the Partially Protected Depositors download which will have the number 2 in the centre of the form.

General Scheme Creditors will want to use form 3.

BE SURE TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS. For example, your name must be in block letters.

As scottr points out in his following posting the completed form must be returned to the liquidator provisional no later than May 15th. to the address scottr has shown.

See copy of explanatory letter (form no.1for<50k and 2 for>50k)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 05:04


PO Box 197, Samuel Harris House, 5-11 St Georges Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM99 1SN
Tel :+ 44(0) 1624 699222 Fax : + 44(0) 1624 699202
Registered in the Isle of Man No. 3519
Registered Office : Samuel Harris House, 5-11 St Georges Street, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 1QB

To all known Creditors
27 April 2009
Dear Sirs
Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (In Liquidation Provisionally)
On the 9 October 2008, the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man made an Order appointing
me as Liquidator Provisionally of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
(“KSFIOM” or “the Bank”), pending the hearing of a petition for the formal winding up of
KSFIOM. The hearing for the petition has been postponed to allow the Company’s creditors
to consider a Scheme of Arrangement (“Scheme”) at meetings of creditors on 19 May 2009 in
the Isle of Man.
The Scheme is being proposed by the Company, acting through its Joint Liquidators
Provisionally, and the Treasury and the main objectives of the proposed Scheme are set out
in the summary pages of the Explanatory Statement enclosed.
If you are a Scheme Creditor you will be entitled to attend and vote at one or more of the
meetings of Scheme Creditors to consider and, if thought fit, approve the Scheme.
The Provisional Liquidators draw to your attention that there are some changes to the
Explanatory Statement and the scheme of arrangement as considered by the High Court of
Justice of the Isle of Man at the hearing on 9th April 2009. These changes reflect the matters
set out in the affidavit of Kenneth Clive McGreal, sworn on behalf of the Treasury on 23rd
April 2009, and were considered by the Court on 23 April 2009. A copy of Mr McGreal's
affidavit is enclosed. The Scheme as enclosed is the Scheme of Arrangement of which
Scheme Creditors will be voting whether to accept or reject.
There will be three meetings held simultaneously with three votes being held by poll:
• The first meeting will be for fully Protected Scheme Creditors, being Protected Depositors
(as defined in the Scheme), with balances, in aggregate, due from the Company equal to
or below, £50,000 for an individual, or £20,000 in all other cases (if you have a claim in
this class you should use the green coloured Proxy Form).
• The second meeting will be for Protected Scheme Creditors with total Protected Deposits
above, £50,000 for an individual, and £20,000 in all other cases (if you have a claim in
this class you should use the red coloured Proxy Form).
• The third class will be for those Scheme Creditors with no Protected Deposits (for
example suppliers to the Company) (if you have a claim in this class you should use the
blue coloured Proxy Form).

A notice convening the meetings of Scheme Creditors to be held at 11am on 19 May 2009 at
the Villa Marina, Harris Promenade, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2XP for the purpose of
considering, and if thought fit, approving the Scheme, is enclosed in Appendix 2 of the
Explanatory Statement.
You will find enclosed:
• Notice of the meetings of creditors enclosed in Appendix 2 of the Explanatory Statement
• a voting pack consisting of three Voting and Proxy Forms (one green, one red and one
blue), being one for each meeting;
• Guidance Notes to the Voting and Proxy Forms;
• a copy of the Scheme Document and Explanatory Statement. Please note that you are
also able to download a copy of the Scheme Document (and all other documents) from
Company website
• a map of the location for the creditors’ meetings
You may either attend the meeting in person or you may vote by proxy. If you do intend to
vote in person or by proxy, you are requested to complete a Voting and Proxy Form for each
meeting you wish to vote at, and return it to the Liquidators Provisionally by 5pm BST on
15 May 2009. This will allow time for the Chairman of the Scheme Meetings to consider your
claim for voting purposes.
Please note that, if you intend to vote in respect of Protected Deposits you will be required to
provide evidence of the aggregate value of those Protected Deposits to ensure you are voting
in the correct meeting. Claims in currencies other than Pounds Sterling will be required to be
converted (for voting purposes only) as at the 9 April 2009 using the Rates Table in Appendix
3 of the Explanatory Statement enclosed. If you are a joint account holder, your vote should
include an amount equal to your pro-rata share of that account balance (i.e. two account
holders could vote 50% each of the account balance).
If you are an Intermediary or a Trustee, and you intend to vote the value of Protected
Deposits in accordance with the wishes of underlying beneficiaries, you will need to provide
evidence of the entitlement and ownership of the underlying funds in addition to the
information required above. For the avoidance of doubt, Intermediaries and Trustees will only
be entitled to count as one vote in each meeting in which they are entitled to vote.
All other Scheme Creditors should provide evidence of the debt due from the Company when
submitting their Voting and Proxy Forms.
Admitting a person for voting at any Scheme Meeting is not an admission by the Company,
the Liquidators Provisionally, or the Treasury, that that person is a Scheme Creditor, nor is it
agreement of the quantum of any claim used in the voting process.

It is requested you complete and return the first part of the Voting and Proxy Form
even if you do not intend to vote at a meeting, to assist the Scheme Supervisors (when
appointed) in agreeing your claim.

Action required after the Scheme becomes effective
After the Scheme becomes effective, notice of that fact shall be advertised and it will also be
posted on the website and you will also receive a Notice of Claim Form detailing the
Company’s calculation of your net Scheme Claim, identifying any element of the claim that is
a Protected Deposit. If you agree the balance shown as your Scheme Claim as shown on the
Notice of Claim Form you must sign and return the Notice of Claim Form. If you do not agree
the balance as shown on the Notice of Claim Form, you should amend the form and return it
with full supporting documentation for each change made.
All correspondence should be addressed to Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man)
Limited, for the attention of Mr Michael Simpson.
Alternatively, the Company has a telephone helpline +44(0) 1624 699 340 and fax numbers
+44(0) 1624 699 200 and +44(0) 1624 699 202. The email address for all creditor related
queries and submissions is Scheme(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im.
When sending any correspondence please quote the ID and creditor name as printed on your
Notice of Claim Form, or the account numbers, or invoice numbers associated with your claim.
Yours faithfully
For and on behalf of
Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
Michael Simpson
Joint Liquidator Provisionally