Informal Committee reports

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 14/01/2009 - 00:02

The informal committee has reported:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/update-13012009

I am reserving comment save to say that it contains nothing new or remotely unexpected and is disappointing in that IOM does not appear to have come up with anything of much (if any) potential benefit to depositors (over liquidation) and has provided very little real data to back its own preference for not triggering the DCS.

0
Your rating: None

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

Old Kaupthing far from broke

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 18:08

The notion that I have seen advanced many times on this forum, namely that Kaupthing hf (the parent bank and the guarantor) is broke, appears to be very far from correct, based on information I have obtained today. Certainly that bank is insolvent, but it has very large assets that will eventually be distributed amongst its creditors. Included amongst those creditors is KSF(IOM). Or rather it would be if KSF(IOM) [the liquidator] had brought a claim under the guarantee. So also (arguably) are we depositors individually creditors, unless and until such time as the guarantee is terminated by the parent losing its interest or any part of it in the IOM subsidiary.

The information that I have today is that old Kaupthing's assets run into billions of pounds. It came from a very reliable source.


Old Kaupthing far from broke

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 18:20

This is great news! Can you provide further information?
After all the lack of detail and partial information its good news to have this information from an authoritative source.
Have you got a balance sheet/further details that we can look at?


Old Kaupthing far from broke

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:18

I did check that before posting. The lawyer that I spoke to has seen the balance sheet. I may perhaps be able to get a copy. From his recollection it was in the region of £10billion, but obviously there are many large corporate creditors. Much of its assets are in loans it made to corporations, which will have to be repaid, so we are not talking short-term for the proceeds of the liquidation to become available (say 2 years).

Let's say there is a 30% recovery from Old Kaupthing, which is fairly pessimistic. A claim under the guarantee (leaving aside consideration of extent of liability under the guarantee) might realise around £250m.

It should be noted, although it has been said before, that New Kaupthing (controlled by Icelandic government) did not take the assets of Old Kaupthing, nor inherit its liabilities.

Separately I am informed that the JR legal costs likely to be incurred by Kaupthing hf are somewhere between 0.5 million and several million. Depositors will benefit from a favourable decision, if there is one, without having to take any action of their own, since what is sought in the application for JR is a declaration that HMG acted unlawfully in seizing the bank's assets.


Old Kaupthing far from broke

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:28

Lets just hope that in the current financial climate that the quality of the loans is good.
Clearly the balance sheet of KSFIOM shows it to be solvent, its just the slight problem of recovery/realisation.
The issue of the JR of the decision of the UK Gov't perhaps could ironically be bad news for the enforcment of the parental gauarantee though. Perhaps there would be legitimate grounds for a request for a stay on the enforcement of the guarantee pending the result of the JR?
I think that any legal recourse such as this could take a long long time.
I know from personal experience of cross jurisdictional enforcement of guarantees (and in my case it was a much simpler scenario) that the matter is very complex. Given all the factors involved here, any legal remedy could be a long time in realising any rewards.


Old Kaupthing far from broke

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 19:38

I can see no good reason for such a stay on the basis of the JR. The latter would affect the amount that could be recovered by KSF(IOM)/depositors, but would have no bearing on the liability of the parent since there is no exemption under the guarantee if the liability arises because a foreign government acted unlawfully.


Old Kaupthing

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 18:17

I hope I am right in saying that this topic is of sufficient interest to depositors and has been so widely misunderstood that it merits its own thread, so I have reposted it as such.

I think it deserves attention focussed on it, because it is in my view very germane to consideration of the present options on recovery of our deposits.


Not good news . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 00:05

The silence from any source as January 29 approaches is not encouraging. One would have expected some restrucrturing or other alternative proposals to have been brought forward by now, if any were under development or seriously under consideration. Not good news thus far. Let's keep up action and hope.


next hearing - delays

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 17:15

I am informed that the filing of the Treasury's affidavit, which was due by 3:30pm today, has been delayed (perhaps only slightly - it was not filed by then):

the order - see paragraph 5:
http://www.law-man.com/library/news-36.pdf


Next hearing - a hesitant prediction

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 01:29

Some posters have been speculating on what could happen at the next liquidation hearing.

I think there will be an application for a further adjournment while options for an SoA are explored with depositors or else an application to withdraw the petition to wind up. I think the latter is less likely to succeed. I am not sure what chances I would give to the former - if it were being heard in Chancery in the High Court in London rather than in the Isle of Man then I would give it almost zero chance and the bank would be wound up.

I hesitate to make a prediction, because it will obviously be embarrassing if I am wrong (and I hope that I am), but my guess (and this is pure speculation on my part) would be that the affidavit from the Treasury tomorrow (and perhaps a supporting affidavit from the FSC and Alix also, maybe even the p. liquidator too) will say that Alix Ptnrs have worked hard to develop a scheme (various schemes) that would avoid winding up the bank; that the Treasury readily embraced the suggestion that an informal committee of depositors meet with it; that encouraging talks have already taken place with the informal committee at which the option of an SoA was explored; that the committee indicated that it would be interested in proceeding further down the route of considering an SoA; that more time is needed for further consultation with the committee and others including Alix and a vote by depositors; but that considerable progress has already been made. Accordingly the deponent will submit that there ought to be an adjournment or an order that the petition for winding up be withdrawn with liberty to apply in respect of orders giving directions for voting and embodying an agreed SoA or in the event that an SoA cannot be agreed.

As far as I know it is open to any depositor to petition in favour of a winding up (provided there is evidence to support that application) or oppose a further adjournment.


My Thoughts

  • poppytwo
  • 06/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 10:08

My thoughts since almost day one have been that we will get delay after delay until the £50,000 payout on the DCS runs out. If we get fobbed off again on the 29th I will try and find a way to get to the IOM and camp out on the steps of the Treasury or the Bank. I have no money so it makes no difference where I lay my head. It will be interesting to see what fate awaits me.


the steps of the treasury

  • IsleofMuppets
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 20:12

I might just join you.


No More Delays !!!

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 16:06

In the face of our loss, we have all been unbelievably patient, understanding, co-operative, and creative...However, the time has come to show what we are made of.
We must make the IOM government aware that we will not countenence ANY further delays beyond the 29th January. We are some 8000 souls, who would be more than able (through our personal networks and viral marketing) to explain to the world, just what a financial dwarf the IOM truly is. We would be able to ensure that we sound the death knell on that miserable little "tax haven in the middle of the Irish Sea" as far as having any future as a leading financial centre, and let there be no mistake that we would pursue each of the directors personally up to the point of our last breath. WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE OUR FUTURES. We must therefore (probably through the IOM team) demand a face to face meeting with Mr Bell and the directors of the bank, and show them exactly where the bear shits in the woods. If this meeting could be held on the same listen-in basis as those with LP then better, but it needs to happen and it needs to happen NOW.
What about a response from Dave Braddan or an other member of the IOM team to this suggestion?


Director resigns!!

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 17:00

Please note that they are systematically letting the Directors and officers off the hook. In November, they allowed Davies to resign as a Director and Christian to resign as Company Secretary.

Were we advised of this by the IOM team?

This would have to be approved by the FSC.

Who is next to go.

The memorandum and articles of association of the bank were changed in September, probably to accomodate this scenario we are in.

Were we advised of this by the IOM team?

This has all been planned out in advance. We are being stuffed.


Sounds a bit excessive here

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 17:50

Sounds a bit excessive here mate.
Any exisiting liabiility these bods will have will remain.
Probably a good thing to get them off the pay-roll.


Director Resigns!!

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 18:13

Further assistance/clarifications, all from the publicly available information. I am not involved with KSF IOM/UK/PWC/EY/FSC etc.

A few facts, and further details:

The new FSA2008 wasn't in force at the time (save for certain provisions in respect of Money Laundering) so the references are to the Banking Act 1998 and subordinate legislation.

  1. The resignation of an officer of a Company does not affect any responsibility/liability for any failure in them discharging a fiduciary obligation

  2. The resignation of an officer does not require approval by the FSC, an officer of a Company is permitted to resign at any time. Part 1 Para 7 requires that notification of a resignation of a director be given with 10 days of the event by the licenseholder

  3. The Banking (General Practice) Regulatory Code 2005 at Part 2 Para 68 requires that inter alia
    "The bank shall notify the Commission in writing of the reason(s) for the departure from office of any manager, four-eyes, compliance officer, or money laundering reporting officer. This notification is to be given within 10 business days of the departure from office."
    so the assertion that the FSC would have needed to approve the resignation of the officer is incorrect.

  4. On the same day that Helen Christian resigned (24/10/08) the incumbent assistant secretary was appointed as Company Secretary. The appointment of the Company Secretary would require 21 days notice to the FSC pursuant to Part 1 Para 7(1)
    It is likely that as Assistant Secretary that Andrew John Davies had been previously vetted by the FSC.
    The Company Secretary is required pursuant to Part 1 para 9 to be appropriately qualified.

  5. Charles Mather undertook (maybe still undertakes) a controlled function with KSF UK (he was also a director until (1/2006), and was FSA approved in the role (an also in respect of his Isle of Man directorship which commence in 6/2006). He will also have been subject to vetting/approval by the IOM/FSC.
    Perhaps he no longer works for Kaupthing? - his resignation doesn't affect any liability during his term of office.
    If he was being paid as a director, he wont be now

I haven't looked at the Articles and compared the changes, but I would be surprised if they were consequential so far as the provisional liquidation was concerned.


gerry paul Johnson, you have said it..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 16:34

Listen gerry paul, patience that is an understatement. This is a criminal rip off what has happened to us and all of us are sitting ducks. I beleive they think we will in time eventually accept losing our life savings, pensions, house sales, losses. Another sib bankruptcy they carried on after that because who knew about it?. They though are only intrested in , the reputaution of the isle of man as a safe haven for banking thats all it is. protecting their futures , their pensions and jobs on the island. I hope to god i am wrong I really really do andyou can all turn and say hcr was wrong, but we have to get out there with the viral marketing explaining to other depositors look what has happened to us. This is the only way to shake them, talk to the directors, etc My husband who cant bear to look at this website has just looked at the cash retrieved, what is it 150 million ? come on we need the iom to save this bank and ourselves and we are still sitting here .What exactly are we waiting for everybody?


Precisely !

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 16:48

Just what are we waiting for. What will it take to instigate a plan of ACTION...(not discussion, as that is clearly not working). Any Ideas to get things moving?


contact the iom core team

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 16:59

Also are we within our rights to have a permanent website , look what happened to us? offshore banking couldnt bailus out.I was on the phone to an estate agent, well he phoned me and I mentioned that am afraid I cant buy because this and that and he said oh, its gone quiet about that . Thats exactly what they want it to go quiet, and they will be alright and we wont. Can we all just write to diver about this? at least lets set it up ready.


Maybe we shouldn't wait until

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 15:41

Maybe we shouldn't wait until after the 29th but try and be on the Island before and make a nuisance of ourselves. Any IoM resident willing to help coordinate something like this?


Other Action

  • Fred
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 22:43

We are all furstrated with how slowly this is moving. The response of the IOMG to the informal committee suggests that they either do not want to share with us what they are planning to do until the court date, or they really don't have a clue how to proceed, or have the **lls to stick out their necks and save the bank.

In light of the fact that nothing of substance was presented to the committee it would be interesting to get our advocates opinion, and our lawyers opinion, of where things stand, and get their read on what was presented to the committee.

We have written, phoned, and hounded all persons in HMG and the IOMG to the point that more of the same is futile. Perhaps we need another approach. It was suggested earlier that we mount a negative campaign to discrace the "safety" of banking on the IOM. Maybe it is time to do so, al;though this might have the opposite effect and harden them against us.

Another option might be legal action. Would it make sense to file legal action against ???? before the court date?? Does our DAG leaders feel this would be beneficial??

I would like to have our leaders thoughts on this.


Re Other Action

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 08:34

A direct Action Group?


The Rachet

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 22:06

I am not a good negotiator - in fact I am a very poor one - but I know some who are. I am told that the technique being used by the IOM on the informal committee is known as "racheting" or "salami-slicing".

The principle is, bit by bit, for the negotiator to present a series of small parts of the proposal and have them agreed in principle at each stage and as time passes gradually present the full proposal (the details of which were known all along), until finally he gets to the end of the process when he reveals the numbers. By that time the people to whom he is trying to sell the idea have accepted most of the principles and details along the way, and by the time they get to see the numbers and discover what it all means it is too late.

The way to deal with this form of negotiating is to say consistently that you want to see the whole proposal including all the numbers and all the terms and until that is fully disclosed nothing will be considered much less agreed or conceded or approved etc.


the rachet

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 23:32

First, I forgot that the correct solution includes continually while responding at each stage to tell the proponents what nice people they are. Second, I am told that salami-slicing is the converse of racheting in that the former requires going downhill towards the unacceptable proposal and the latter going uphill towards it.

I did say that I am a very poor negotiator.


IT IS A DYING CASE

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 16:49

Any body can abstract easly the conclusion and the ultimate outcome.
No light at the end of this extreemly long tunnel in IOM.
This place has destroyed our faimly lives


Brief opinion reading everything in this blog to the moment..

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 15:28

I think if you read the report a couple of times it becomes obvious that the committee are disillusioned with the IoM's efforts. The report is a very effective criticism. The legal comment is crystal clear.

The problem is exactly how to respond.

If the committee are as disappointed and disillusioned as the report indicates they have the right to take appropriate action. If the IoM isn't dealing then it isn't dealing. If as Ramsey Peel suggests 'the committee are talking to the wrong people, then it might seem appropriate to indicate that the conversation is exhausted. In the silence other conversations can start. Perhaps the 'others' won't intervene until those talking at the moment can be seen to have been ineffective.

What I really wouldn't like to see is that somehow the IoMG product so far, possibly tidied up a touch, be sufficient to achieve another postponement. Their proposal, as the committee pointed out, is simply inadequate. And it's needs to be responded to as such. A step change is required, not fine tuning.

It is the committees decision how they act, and I respect that.

I think we need as many opinions expressed here as possible. I think it might help the committee decide their best step at this point


Brief opinion from folle_the_tao

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 17:52

With some difficulty I have been trying to look at what comes next.

On the 29th. January the Court is to decide what is to be done, and although there is two weeks to go, there is no firm proposition that has either the support of the committee nor the support of the majority of depositors to table.

Can any of our legal members, or indeed our legal representatives, tell us what the Court is obliged to decide upon, and on what basis?

At present I fear yet another long delay, a process which can be repeated indefinitely, unless the Court's terms of reference are specifically aimed at making a decision. Any knowledge, anyone?


Brief opinion from folle_the_tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline

Shades of Bleak House . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/01/2009 - 00:21

One feels like the litigants in the case of Jarndyce & Jarndyce. The case was eventually resolved when the lawyers and government had depleted the estate through fees and court charges, a process that took a couple of generations, as I recall.

Donald Trump last year asked of Ms Condeleesa Rice “Where are the deals?” We might well ask, “Where are the restructuring proposals?”

Quo vadis?


I concur

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 15:56

follow-the-tao, I concur pretty much with your succinct analysis.

I would like to know just HOW (in what spirit) this pathetic and inadequate non-proposal was presented to the committee (apart from the fact that it was done with Power-point, which I have nothing against per se - it's the message that counts, not the medium).

Was there any sort of APOLOGY that they hadn't been able to do better ("sorry chaps, we really tried, but ..."; this would at least suggest a measure of good faith)?
Or was it presented as "look how clever we are" or as an exercise in PERSUASION (suggesting that they may have been stringing us along from the start)? I for one would like to know and it may affect how we respond. Only those who were present can assess this.

It seems in any case that "restructuring" is no longer considered an option?


Powerpoint ! Is a medium

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 18:33

Powerpoint !

Is a medium designed for people who are unable to understand the spoken word or who are considered to be so stupid that they can be sold any old crap.

I can still do arithmetic in my head, I can read and write to a reasonable standard - I don't need a bloody cartoon to show me the merits of somethng that I should want to accept in the first place -


I take offence!

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 18:40

I have used Powerpoint for genuine scientific presentations. I believe I can still understand the spoken and written word and do basic arithmetic. The problem is not with Powerpoint but with the way it is (or maybe) used - it doesn't have to have cartoons (mine never did).

But don't take this to heart.


I don't take offense

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 19:08

I also deal with salesmen.....

Though I would point out that I managed both O and A level maths with a slide rule as a protest against dumbing down - I make (what I have naffing well lost) my living through computers and process control, however I would point out that if you cannot achieve a result "by hand", albeit, somewhat slower, then no computer will achieve the same thing.

I bet the powerpoint presentation had a soundtrack and that laser pointers were employed to great effect.

But then I have also wondered why when police take the photo that features in "wanted" posters, they didn't just arrest the perpetrator at the same time -


I concur

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 15:55

sorry - double post


I agree with a great deal of

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 15:48

I agree with a great deal of that, you only have to read the post today to see how that all went down. And yes there needs to be a response and a change in gear. I would hazard a guess that many of the points raised here today were stated yesterday to Alix/IOM by the way.


An expensive pile of poop

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 14:57

Well having read what can only be described as a pile of horse manure, with absolutely nothing of any substance i can only say i am rather disappointed and dread to think how much it all cost. I have reservations about any decent outcome now and feel that IOM goverment is leading us around a merry dance!!!


An expensive pile of poop

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 15:38

Thank you monkeyface for summarising my own view so succinctly.


Actually I think you will

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 16:05

Actually I think you will find at 8-00am today that opinion was expressed quite "succinctly" too - just out of interest, since we are all agreed that the IoM has stitched us up with this "pile of poop", can I ask why on earth you so vehemently believe that the DCS is not the devious cunning stitch up that was devised to get everyone safely on the hook until it is too late that it really is?

I believe that there is a common denominator here, namely the IoM and the FSC.


Actually I think you will

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 17:58

I do not necessarily prefer it to an SoA of the type that I outlined recently, but no such alternative presently exists (in fact no alternative capable of quantitative evaluation presently exists). However, that suggestion of mine was to meet the demands of higher-value depositors who have allowed themselves to be persuaded by posters like you that a liquidation and the triggering the DCS would be the greatest misfortune that could befall them.

If I were to have to select an option between the DCS and an SoA purely on practical considerations, I would select the former on grounds of enforceability and certainty. There is good reason for this - its terms are embodied in statute (as opposed to contract) and that makes it easily enforceable and interpretable by the courts and essentially unbending. It may be that the DCS was passed into law in the expectation that it would never be called upon and that the Tynwald intended it to be nothing more than an inducement to deposit money in IoM banks, but that is not what they have got. They have a statutory compensation scheme which they are going to find it very, very difficult to wriggle out of, unless the depositors tell them that they are willing to let them off the hook.


When will you give your head

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 19:00

When will you give your head a shake?
Surely the fact that the IoM changed legislation after the event shows something to you?
Try asking your motor insurers to back date a cover note, it's a criminal offense yet the Fraggles can back date legislation because they know that they couldn't organize a picnic for two woodpeckers in Epping Forest?
Who is to say the dodgy bunch of clowns won't change it again when they know what the liquidator is going release? You are dealing with bloody shopkeepers and you still pray at the altar of the DCS?

Wake up - you have blown your trumpet, stirred your pot, and you were warned that the DCS was the biggest bag of kak that had ever been written - just admit that the whole lot, DCS and that insult tabled yesterday are all rubbish.

Time to cut the crap mate - these people and you if you persist in your assertion that the DCS is a work of art, are playing games with our lives, the only way forward for the benefit of all, which is what we ALL agreed to when we joined up is to squeeze these buggers until the juice comes out.

If not carry out your DCS crusade somewhere else and I am sure that the clown who told me that by deposit had compromised the lesser depositors will make comfortable bedfellows.

The DCS and the crap presented yesterday are an insult to intelligence and a display of the morality of the people we are dealing with.

No wonder Blair and that clapped out twit Brown have not yet been lynched and that Noel Bloody Edmonds can actually get away with a TV program about "making Britain good again" - we are all going/have gone wet.


When will you - more mainwaring

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 19:33

The draft "new" DCS existed months before KSF(IOM) collapse and was also scheduled to be debated in Tynwald before the collapse occured. It happens that it was not passed into law until after the collapse, but so what?

There is no point in trying to discuss anything with you, because when you ask a question and get an answer that you do not agree with then you start the written equivalent of bellowing loudly.

You were wrong this morning (and in the past, when making the same claim) about the DCS deducting admin costs from compensation payments to depositors, but having been shown you were wrong by at least two posters you then changed tack. When I am shown that I have my facts wrong I usually say something like "I stand corrected" or "I apologise for .." etc. Now, however, we are just arguing about opinions, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if they are informed opinions. There is no point in your restating your opinions in ever more aggressive prose in the hope that this will persuade dissenters to share them. Also, there is no point in your stating your opinions as if they are facts, when they are clearly not.

Accordingly I intend to return to ignoring your postings unless, as today, they are so misleading that they demand correction.


Rubbish, and what is more

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 19:51

I know just where you are coming from.

Well, I will say "in my opinion" but in truth it is the opinion of many - most of whom are too afraid of legal action to tell you to take a swim until your hat floats, that your only concern is not that of depositors but some other sordid agenda.

So, explain to me dear chap - (remembering of course that when you called me "stupid" and an "idiot" that at that time I wasn't wise to you) why you won't ever answer a question after one of your dashing and off of the cuff gems of wisdom? You won't do it, in good old politician style - silence is golden eh elgee?

Where I am in doubt I keep asking for someone to prove me wrong, because when they do I possibly stand chance of getting more money back.

If someone for exmaple can show me that the DCS will not extract fees and charges if I choose to subscribe whatever of level of deposit, then I will be happy, but the best you can do is to try a craft play on words with "compensation" and I am frankly too bored of Fraggle Rock and you to look the other up.

Dissenters eh elgee? why not post a bit of your claim to fame and let everyone be the judge of that?

The DCS will deduct costs, get it in writing from someone with half a brain that they won't - and don't come the smart alec with "compensation" vs " payments" you know very well what is meant. and you know very well that KSF IoM will pay a dividend.

Come now elgee, you are quite and important little chap in your own right, why not share?

I want to see everyone get the best - and yes we know that will be a majority verdict with things like speed vs amount and exchange rate coming into the reckoning, but at least I want to see it, and if we don't get it, i will make sure someone will pay, but you, what about you? what do your want apart from the DCS? will ou shut up and go if we get it? my guess is no, you won't, you will find some other reason to split people up.

I have half a mind to send Simpson a cheque myself by way of a Captain Mainwaring individual DCS scheme for one luck member, and I am not alone in that view.

Now shut up stiring and dismiss everything that we have been presented with as rubbish so we can sort these buggers as good as we can, or go and hawk your pearly somewhere else.


Rubbish, and what is more

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 20:08

Captain Mainwaring, I could not have asked for a better illustration of the points I made above.

Also, I have no recollection of calling you "stupid" or an "idiot" - please give links to those postings.


Rubbish, and what is more

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 21:00

I am still waiting for the links to these postings of mine in which you allege that I called you "stupid" and an "idiot".


Captain Mainwaring - SoA

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 19:58

I have sent you some emails, get in touch directly if you like.


A dose or reality

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 14:17

I am depressed and angry, but not at all surprised by the outcome of the meeting.
Until a value is put on KSFUK and our deposit, who would ever want to buy KSFIoM. Its impossible to put a price on it.

I am surprised that people think that our 550 million will be returned. Why do we expect E&Y to treat us more favourably than others who have lost money . And why do you expect the UK Govt to pay up.; other than it would be the right thing to do. They've bailed out domestic savers, ( i.e. voters) but have left everyone else, charities,businesses etc in the lurch.

The only place we'll get money is via the IoM. Giving us back our money will be expensive and unpleasant for them, but we need to convince them we have the power to make not giving it back even more unpleasant and costly.


how do we do that..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 18:14

peter I agree we need to tell them what way we are going to go with this to get our money back. I think the fsc of the iom have been negligible.


Committee response

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 13:19

elgee - reserving comment?
I thought you were reserving comment - that was a few hours ago mind you....
There is lttle that can be commented on from the announcement to be fair, very sketchy.


Committee response

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 20:39

Initially I did reserve comment (that was late on Tuesday night). On Wednesday morning I stopped reserving comment.


Informal committee report

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 11:22

The following are initial comments on the content of the report made by the informal committee on its discussions about the Scheme of Arrangement and DCS. They are not criticisms of the committee or its work, but of the input received by the committee from the ever-disappointing IoM government.

Given the relatively complex context, it is impossible to say anything concrete about the proposed scheme without seeing its terms (in writing, of course), not just an anticipatory summary.

I would instinctively distrust anybody who attempts to present something of this nature by way of a PowerPoint show without simultaneously putting forward (even in rough draft) the actual document which is the subject of discussion.

It is quite clear from the committee's report that the committee is sufficiently unhappy with what they have been told that they are carefully covering their backsides. This indicates that they are expecting either that the actuality will be disappointing or alternatively that they may never see the actuality before the next substantive court hearing.

It seems to me that any response from depositors has to be along the lines of "It is impossible to comment on this in any meaningful wayuntil one knows exactly what it is that is up for approval." If the proponents themselves do not know what they are proposing, then that itself should sound warning bells at deafening volume.

The mention of "contract" in the report is a good example of the absence of essential detail. Quite apart from the fact that the terms of the proposed contract are not know, it is not even clear who will be the parties to the proposed contract. This fundamental question is one that cannot be answered without seeing the proposed scheme. The only thing that one can say for sure is that the liquidator (perhaps provisional, perhaps not) must inevitably be one party to the scheme or, more properly, to the order authorising the scheme, but other than that one really cannot tell, because "scheme" is a term sufficiently wide to embrace a number of different possibilities.


Confused

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/01/2009 - 13:27

I thought that you mentioned that you weren't in the committee, or is the informal committee different?

With this in mind, are you posting a summary as a member of the committee, the infornal committee, or the "core"?

I am just trying to get my head around why the people who have been dealing with this directly haven't posted their views, but then again, you may have been involved and I am just a little confused.