IoM COURT DECISION

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 29/01/2009 - 15:20

We have just heard that the court has allowed a postponement of just 21 days until the 19th of February (affidavits in on 12 Feb). This is line with our request to the court and suggests depositors are finally gaining a growing voice in this fragmented process. We believe that this is a very good outcome for depositors as it will force the IoMG and Alix Partners to finally produce the level of information we have been demanding since the idea of an SoA was muted…..and thus enable everyone to make an informed decision.

The IoM must now be in no doubt that further failure to provide depositors the guarantees and security they require will result in any SoA being defeated and the bank being put into liquidation. Now we will see just how badly the IoM want to avoid the DCS…it is over to them now. Our lawyers will be issuing them with another list of questions and requirements that will need to be fulfilled if this process is to go anywhere. We expect the IoM to comply.

4.6875
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (64 votes)

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

If the bank is put in

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 11:05

If the bank is put in liquidation and it becomes obvious that for example the FSC was responsible for the banks collapse would PwC pursue them on behalf of the depositors?


IOM COURT DECISION 29/01/2009

  • stornaway
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 16:58

Well done Diver and team, including John Wright!


good work!

  • humphrey
  • 10/10/08 01/03/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:59

Well done to everyone working away on the front line, excellent job!


IOM Court Decision

  • SBS
  • 28/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 09:36

Diver,
Very many thanks for achieving this result. It is the best option open to us and should enable people to make an informed decision vis a vis SOA or DCS.

SBS


IoM Court Decision

  • TykeinSingapore
  • 12/10/08 22/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 05:31

Diver,

Well done, as you say the first sign that DAG is being heard. For all the other politics within the group can I say that it is not time for egos to takeover. It is time that we consolidated our efforts and I think the efforts of JW and Diver et al are to be applauded.


court decision of 29 jan

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 17:54

Good news Diver - the best we could have expected.
Well done.
Congratulate John Wright from all of us.


court and related

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 19:04

There are two issues emerging today that I think are of importance:

Of the Hearing: The Deputy Deemster was, I am told, unimpressed with the proposed scheme of arrangement (such as it is) and the proposed further delays, which is why he ordered as he did (a relatively short adjournment and an affidavit providing the details sought of the proposed scheme). He has certainly not ruled out winding up.

Of the Clucas letter stunt pulled off by 9 depositors: The letters, exhibited to Clucas' affidavit, enthusastically supported the proposed scheme and the 60 days or more adjournment. In short, they entirely supported the IOMG position in the proceedings. It should not be overlooked that, while the letter writers did not claim to represent other depositors, several of them claimed to know what the views of the majority were and said so quite clearly. Also, the action taken by those involved was quite obviously coordinated, covert and was not disclosed by its instigator to the London (legal) team (Diver, Sleepless, Teapot). It was taken by persons who knew or ought to have known full well that a large number of those forum members who express opinions (and I do not mean me) had strong reservations about the SoA. When, during the last several days, it became apparent that still fewer depositors supported the SoA in its present (lack of) form or the proposed 60 days adjournment, the letters were seemingly allowed to stand without correction. Finally, it appears that the letters were calculated to influence the court in these proceedings and the influence sought wholly contradicted the position that the DAG IOM lawyer was instructed to take and the advice given by both DAG lawyers.

As individuals these depositors are obviously free to do exactly as they wish and take whatever position they want, and I would argue in favour of their right to do so. However, I do not think that DAG representatives should take action that clearly prejudices the position taken by the DAG London (DAG legal) team, which (while I do not always agree with it) is widely recognised to be acting on behalf of DAG as a whole. Two of the letter writers are representatives of depositors on the DAG informal committee and I think that in the circumstances they should resign. Several of the letter writers are on the DAG IOM team and I think they too should resign.


"Of the Hearing: The Deputy

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 03:11

"Of the Hearing: The Deputy Deemster was, I am told, unimpressed with the proposed scheme of arrangement (such as it is) and the proposed further delays, which is why he ordered as he did (a relatively short adjournment and an affidavit providing the details sought of the proposed scheme). He has certainly not ruled out winding up."

Source of information please?

"When, during the last several days, it became apparent that still fewer depositors supported the SoA in its present (lack of) form or the proposed 60 days adjournment,"

Source of information please? I asked yesterday where members of DAG where actually asked to put their view to the vote, but this didn't happen, or did it?

Next time you have a chat with JW, give the the benefit of your experience, and show him how to properly format a document, to punctuate, and how to avoid the document text resembling the text of "Eastenders".


And while we are at it,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 07:09

And while we are at it, especially directed at those on their high horse about a few letters and demanding resignations, I've been told that John Wright implied or actually said that "the views of his represented those of 2,000 depositors through the committee" - is this the case?

I can't remember a poll on this subject, and since the only difference in the two camps is 21 days or 60 days, it really doesn't matter that much, but I wonder what hypocrisy has been going on.

I suppose while all this was going on, did somebody say that the principle of the SoA was sort of going in the right direction, but the money wasn't enough and not quick enough? so that it got recorded in the transcript...? No, I bet they didn't.


and while we're at it...

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:33

G'day Cap'n,
Can't remember having the pleasure (mine) of corresponding with you before.
Suggest you read JW's affidavit to learn where the claim to represent 2000 of us came from. Don't know whether the claim is right or wrong.
Surprised to see you believe the only difference between the 2 camps is 21 days.
Even so, 39 days difference is important to some of us thrown into pretty cold economic conditions by this act of piracy - perhaps in the warmer southern climes you inhabit it's less important?
But seriously, do you really believe the only difference is the 39 days? Do you not see that it is a way of muzzling any criticism of the island or its authorities - and blocking any road to exacting justice via the courts if we have to? Do you not see it is a way of window dressing the offer of compensation all the time knowing it will not cost IOM a penny? And really just letting us get realisation of our assets while taking the credit for it? And a way for the island to not upset its other financial institutions by not forcing the issue of levies upon them as required by the DCS?
And a way of placating the big 5 insurers who will no doubt be threatening to take their business away from the island ,while not giving us a penny more than we would get under DCS? And who do you think is really paying Alix?
The SoA will lead us into a legal situation not well trodden and will not give us a penny more than in liquidation - which is legally well fenced. I'm happy to take those risks if we get a sizeable real contribution from IOM, but otherwise not.
Oh, by the way please let poor old Elgee off the hook! I don't think he intends any harm and we should all be thick skinned enough to take it.


Apparently JW made a verbal

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 12:38

Apparently JW made a verbal comment that caused some gnashing of hampsteads to occur.

Re - 21/60 days, perhaps I was a little unclear, but my meaning is the same - how long are E&Y required to deal with the ING transfer in preference to other claims? I think maybe 6 months, and we are already how far into this pickle? 4 months, therefore add another 60 days, and E&Y may be able to start talking dividends?

In any case, it was illustration more than anything else and people are being just a little over the top in the response to those who exercised their right in accordance with Divers statement.

As for your comment regarding my financial situation, suffice to say that every last penny of my deposit is just as valuable as yours and the next man's, remember, I didn't opt for the SoA, your team did, and like it or not, the Diver statement says effectively that they will do whatever they see fit, and if you don't like it, do whatever you want.

From what I believe, the court hearing was rather like the theatre scene from the muppets, and a right shambles - and again, not being there, I don't rightly know, but did anyone petition for the right to address the court and say "cobblers to this, we are being treated like a bunch of errant schoolkids and we will not tolerate it - unless you come up with something concrete in 21/60 days, we will see the bank liquidated, and the IoM will pay the price, they will lose 5 fold what iy would have cost them to bail out the situation in the ensuing banking crash that hits them.

For that matter, as you mention the insurance co's, has anyone addressed any of the contributing banks and asked them to stand up and say that they won't voluntarily contribute to the SoA, and that if forced, they will move their business elsewhere? Your new mate said that many would boycott the island if so forced to pay - did we play that card at court?

As for liquidation, have you ever been owed money in a liquidation? Have you seen what Simpson will be able to get away with? I bet you he has done a million quid to date.

I was today criticised for not believing someone who said they would accept 100% back, but only if we did it nicely, well forgive my slight cynicism here, but we are at the baseball bat stage of negotiations, and if we aren't, then it's every man for himself.

Re-your last comment. If you have ever trodden on the foot of a sleeping pit-bull, and remember the noise it made, well I just made a similar noise.


Make that 2 million

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 00:28

Make that 2 million at least, he has 35 banks staff as well, in Guernsey with just 6 staff at most, they have racked up over 1.4m, so 2 million would be on the lite side I think.


The balance sheet indicates

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 00:46

The balance sheet indicates that wages, rent and other ongoing expenses were £900K as of 16th Jan.

The cost of PWC (and associated costs like legal fees etc.) is not contained in this number as it hasn't been presented to the court.


"the views of his represented those of 2,000 depositors..."

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:16

Whether he actually said that I don't know, probably not. From the DAG's affidavit ...


"I am the Advocate for the KSFIOM depositors Action Group
(“DAG”). The first three named parties whom I represent are the
Committee of DAG. DAG has 2,000 members who are creditors of
KSFIOM and the approximate value of their claims in liquidation
will be about £100m"

So, JW represented the Committee of DAG which has 2000 members. Not sure where the figure of 100m comes from, my calculations indicate its more like 200M (from our poll) but that's fact, so possibly quoting 100M was simply to err on the safe side.

I suppose there simply wasn't time to get members' agreement (via a poll or similar) to the affidavit, but there's a lesson to be learned there for next time, IMHO.


2,000 depositors

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:30

Please note this email is not to take sides in this dispute but to purely post what I saw in Court.

The exact words I cannot remember but both times I have heard JW speak in Court he does make it clear that he is speaking for 2,000+ depositors, although he is obviously only taking instruction from three named depositors. Whether this is correct or not is for other people to decide.


Thought that was the case -

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 03:55

Thought that was the case - well he overstepped the mark there. You tell people that whatever legal course is chosen by the Legal Course Choosing Sub-Committee, that for various reasons, they can either go with it or do their own thing, then in the next breath, JW uses the membership of people who haven't been consulted to add strength to his argument.

Sorry, you can't do that, either tell JW to represent the instructing parties only, or at least ask what your members think.


Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett......

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:45

In court yesterday my impression was that DD AC considered that the SOA as proposed was venturing into uncharted (legal) territory, unlike the DCS, for which there is precedent.
He requires sufficient clarity and robustness in the legal framework to ensure that the schedule of payments will be achieved, ie. accelerated payment will happen as planned, this being a selling point for SOA and unlikely to happen if there are legal complications.
Also of importance are powers of recovery ( getting hold of the money ), and powers of investigation ( finding the money and pursuing wrongdoers ) . These powers, already established in winding up procedures, must be included in the SOA proposals before DD AC will rule in favour of SOA.


Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:33

Coldlightofday

I think you are correct. The Court has yet to be convinced of the SoA, and it has to be said no one in Court gave an overwhelming case for it. The Court needs to see clearly that the SoA will be able to speed up payments.

The Court also needs to see that a SoA manager will have the same powers of recovery as a liquidator to be able to chase claims and bring legal action as needed. And while certain advocates believed this would be the case no one was able to offer a definitive answer and so this is one of the points the Court needs clarifying by 19th February.

I must admit I was struggling to understand why the Deemster was so concerned about small depositors being outvoted, as the paragraph he kept reading out stated “a majority by number and 75% by value must be in agreement). So this means agreement must be by at least 50+ of votes cast and also 75% by value of votes cast. So for example even if 3 insurance companies voted yes and carried 80% of the value but 4 smaller depositors turned up and voted no, but carried only 1% of the value, then the SoA would fail. I think he was struggling to see this, however he was bringing the Court back in 21 days so no harm in examining it if he wanted to.


Let us get organised at last

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 20:39

I would extend your recommendation for resignation to all the formal and informal bodies openly, secretly or half-secretly operating on this website. I do not think there is any need here for these Orwellian structures which are only paralysing our legitimate actions to bring us to our stated aim.

The header of our website reads: The group's primary objective is the 100% return of all KSFIoM Depositors' funds. Please make your input here consistent with that objective. Can Diver, expat, the members of the "core group", "informal committee", "moderators team" honestly say that they did not stray away from that primary objective?

We have had polls here regarding almost anything that could be asked on a public website. Why can we not have one asking questions like:

Are you satisfied with the performance of our informal leaders in bringing us to our goal of 100% return of our funds? (Yes) (No)

Would you like to see more transparency in the actions taken by our representatives on our behalf? (Yes) (No)

Should our representatives be accountable to the majority of the group members? (Yes) (No)

Should our representatives be elected by the majority of the group members? (Yes) (No)

None of the members of all those informal bodies receives any remuneration for his/her duties, so there is no reason for them to desperately cling to their positions as they do. The politics within the group have turned it into a caricature resembling more People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea with its Beloved Leader than a civilised society.

If we are the civilised people that we claim to be, why can we not have quick civilised elections to end all those actions, real or alleged, that are not in the interest of all our group members?

Ng, can you help?


If you are having a poll as

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 03:02

If you are having a poll as to who to boot out, can you ensure that everyone who has been part of any committee, sub or prime, formal or informal, core group etc is included?

That's only fair, those who want to live by the sword should have the same opportunity to die by it.


Anybody can create polls

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 23:47

jkk, anybody can create polls, and I have tried to encourage people to do so.

Here is a copy of what I posted on Jan-20 in Site News ...


There are lots of ideas being bounced around, a poll provides the easiest and fastest way for measuring level of support and/or getting opinions.

Two types:

Poll

Use the Create Poll link. This is the standard poll you have seen used on the site. You will need to ask a question and provide two or more specific answers, perhaps with "none of the above" as an additional response.

Simple poll

Use the Create Simple Poll link. This allows you to measure level of agreement/support for a proposal or idea on a one to five scale, the result is displayed as a simple "five star" chart.

In both cases, please create the poll inside the relevant group, or use the all members group if the poll needs a response from all members. You will see the Create... links in the group menu, near top-right.


Poll

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 23:02

With all due respect the poll which has now appeared to the left side of this page is not well drafted. Is a 'Yes' answer a yes to keep as is, or is it a yes to change?

Personally I support the actions of the so-called informal committee. But I think that their status and standing would be considerably enhanced if they were duly elected by a majority of the depositors registered on this site. They should have no fear of an election as they are almost the only ones actually getting out there and taking positive action.


re- poll

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 23:07

The full poll topic can be viewed

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/poll/keep-current-organisation-or-change

Yes - keep as is

No - change with elections of suitable volenteers


JKK for Leader?

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 22:07

A couple more questions, JKK

  1. The job carries no pay, takes almost all your available time, you get slagged off on the DAG site.. Would you like the job? Yes/No?

  2. A poll.. would the DAG like JKK for leader? Yes/No?

Is the 100% return of our deposits still the objective for the "London team"? YES IT IS!
You think we cling to the position? SOMEBODY stand up and show you can/will do it and I'm out of here for one!

We won something of a victory in court today.. you think that happened by accident?


Nixi The Victorious

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 01:41

Nixi,

On the one hand you declare that 100% return of funds is still your objective, and on the other you call the today's embarrasment in the court a victory?

AlixPartners received an extension of 21 days to add more precision to their current proposal, but they are not required to improve it, only to add more detail. So in 21 days we will receive the same pathetic offer of 60% - 65% only this time it will be spelled out more clearly.

How do you reconcile that with your stated primary objective of 100%? And how anybody in his right mind can call such humiliating result a victory?


AlixPartners received an extension of 21 days

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 03:35

To hopefully come up with a few formulas to put behind the figures in that nice spreadsheet.

About 20 years ago I invented this capsule that you drop in a gallon of water and it runs it into a gallon of petrol.

Still don't know what is in that damned capsule, but I invented it nonetheless.

I wish I could get paid so well for such old rope. I though I had perfected doing very little for the maximum possible return, but these people have it nailed.


AlixPartners' offer is UNACCEPTABLE

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:04

Capt'n,

There are many ways to skin a cat, but it is still the same dead old stinking cat, anyway you slice it.

The offer of 60% to 65% is no good for me and adding a few formulas to that excel sheet is not going to make it any better.

When Diver & Co were presented with a draft of that offer they should have politely declined to discuss it, explaining that our objective is 100% and anything less is unacceptable to the group they represent. Instead, they actively helped to bring that document to its present shape and now it is the only offer that remains on the table. In two weeks time AlixPartners will make it less sketchy, perhaps add some colour and their logo to the spreadsheet and that will be it; the same dead cat but skinned differently.


Absolutism.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 16:39

I would have sent you an email, but you haven't enabled "contact" in your profile.

I would like 100%.
To say I was unimpressed with the SoA would be an understatement. And I stated why in a number of posting. In fact at his point franky I want a liquidation. I do not want to find myself trapped in a non-standard legal arrangement supervised by the very people that I feel facilitated this disaster. I hear Captain Mainwaring commenting on the behaviour of liquidators, I have had experience of the consultancies, but would the IoMG actually be an improvement in the long run. They both are leveraging our dependence.
I felt the DAG affidavit was appropriate to the circumstances.
I felt the Divers posting after the court hearing let me know in few words what was really happening.
I was saddened by the 'nine letters' incident because whilst I feel they made an error, I also feel they eg expat were good tired men confused who had been manipulated by some not so good men.

I felt the eruption of emotion visible yesterday was caused by the realisation that the IoMG was not simply prevaricating until it had perfected it's 100% solution, but was not looking to do anything but manage perceptions and promote it's own interests.

Your posting is on what should be done.

There was an apocryphal story mentioned in a couple of financial blogs a few months ago. Urban myth?. It goes very briefly.. There's a knock at the door of a west London address. There aren't many knocks at the door in this location. Resident goes to the door, guy's a fund manager, of the hedge sort. Redemptions have been suspended in many funds. Man at the door simply says "I want my money". He's Russian. Resident goes back inside the house and comes back with a cheque to be drawn on his personal account. Guy leaves. End of story.


AlixPartners' offer is UNACCEPTABLE

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 12:25

JKK

At the moment there is not 100% available to distribute. Come 19th February the Court must decide whether to start distributing the available assets either via a liquidation and DCS route or via a SoA route, but it will start the distribution process, it will not wait for there to be 100% of assets.

I can never recall anyone jumping for joy at the sight of 65% (which by the way is an estimated figure and not what the payout will be) and saying what a good job the IoMG has done. The reality is within the next month or two the distribution of available assets will begin. That does not mean people should not carry on campaigning for the 100%, but they should realise that at the moment available assets amount to only around 65% (no one in Court yesterday contradicted this estimate so we can assume it is the right area, even if personally I believe it to be a bit low)). Therefore one of the tasks of the Committee was to see if distribution could be better achieved via a SoA rather than a liquidation and DCS scenario.

No one thinks 65% is a good return and should be taken.


There can be 100% available now

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 02:24

Ally, if the IOM Gov't back its retail savers, as have virtually all jurisdiction, then there could be 100% available to distribute NOW.

That is the simple message the IOM Gov't needs to heed. The consequence of failing to heed it are many times worse than the cost.


Isle of Man contribution

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 04:15

If they're prepared to guarantee us 60% return why the hell can't they come up with 100% like all other jurisdictions? Banking is their business - people will move their cash to these other "offshore" locations eg. Luxembourg (Despite it not being an island, I'm sure it is classified as offshore). The Isle of Man needs to wake up and do the proper thing or else they will hear a huge sucking sound of money leaving fraggle rock.


jkk - you know that to be true do you?

  • sleeplessnight
  • 10/10/08 30/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:53

were you a fly on the wall? Please tell me what you know of the dialogue that took place, quite clearly I must have been in the wrong meetings on each occasion!! Perhaps you would like to glance through the later press releases, you will locate these at the www site in addition to the rest of the facts, as opposed to the fiction you write!


Sleepless, please...

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:31

Sleepless, please do not contribute to more bickering on this site. Just please tell me how I can convey it to you and Our Beloved Leader Kim Jong-il/Di-vah that we are not interested in a scheme that offers 60% to 65% of our money back.

We want it all. Is it that difficult to understand?


You entirely miss the point again jkk...

  • sleeplessnight
  • 10/10/08 30/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:44

Nothing is difficult to understand other than your belief believe anybody in their right mind wants less than 100%!


Working for the Enemy

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 12:35

Well if that is what you say, then you obviously must have been not quite in your right mind when you instructed Mr John Wright, Advocate, to state in his affidavit:

"Justifiably the depositors seek the return of all of their money and need to understand why that is not possible before they are asked to compromise their claims."

In my book that is b....y treason. It is a self-defeating statement which accepts a less-than-full payoff as the inevitable outcome. All that the IoMG has to come up with now is some explanation why the full payoff is not possible and they are done. You did the whole hard work for them.


jkk et al .....

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:34

jkk - we all share your frustration but taking it out on the committee members serves no purpose. it was clear from a posting 2 weeks ago (from ally i believe) that it was clear the choice was SoA or DCS - there was no white knight looming to bail us out.

as regards the SoA or DCS choice, then clearly in the 21 days, IoMG/Alix need to convince us all the SoA is preferable - i really don't think they need longer than that.

as to the 60-65% .. well that depends on the 'pot' size. if there is no more today than 65% thats a fact, what is important is that whichever route we take (DCS or SoA) both have to allow for any further recovery of funds to the pot and for that to be distribute fairly as recovered.

to that end, i think our energies should be spent on getting this pot size increased.
there are opportunities:
- more pressure on UK govt, IoM govt, KSF uk etc
- Iceland joining the EU
- what about media rights: book/film to this saga ?
- follow up legal actions
- ... i'm sure there are other ways too ...

i think the committee are well aware of these ideas, have developed the relationships and legal understandings. i really see no point in changing at this (late) stage


Legal Actions

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:07

Yes, fine. But if the SoA caps the payoffs at 60% - 65% why do we even bother to analyse it? Let us go to straight liquidation and as soon as we get the first dividend we will have the funds to pursue the responsible for this disaster through legal channels.

If we accept the SoA we are forfeiting all legal rights we may have in this case.


SoA

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:30

Jkk

There is no "cap" on the payout from the SoA. The 65% currently used is an estimate of what is currently available. If the SoA was agreed and started paying out on a 65% recovery, but then something amazing happended in London and recovery of funds was close to say 95% these extra funds would be paid into the SoA and paid out to depositors.

Please note this posting in no way indicates support for or against a SoA but is purely to explain the mechanics


SoA

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:40

Steenjp

That is the paragraph I make reference to in my previous example.

The IoMG is in effect making loans to the SOA to enable it to make the 3 schedule payments but will not recover these loans until everyone has received 60%. Once the loans are recovered distribution of assets would continue amongst depositors.

So SoA says it will pay out 30% in 24 months but only has 20% of the assests in cash so IoMG lends the equivalent 10% of the assets.

After 2 years we are left with the postion that SOA payout of 30% made up of 20% asset recovery and 10% "loan" from IoMG.

In year 3 a further 25% of assest are converted to cash. All of this 25% is shared out to depositors, bringing their payout up to 55%.

In year 4 10% of assets are converted to cash. 5% would go to depositors, bringing them up to 60% the remaining 5% would then repay the loans to IoMG

Year 5 The remaining 10% of assets are converted to cash, again 5% would go to IoMG to repay the remaining part of the loan and the other 5% would go to depositors.

Here assets recoveries have be 65% which have all gone to depositors, the IoMG have added liquidity to the early part of the scheme which is repaid but it does not affect the overall return.

Again please note this poting in no way indicates support for or against a SoA but is purely to help explain the mechanics.


Cap on SoA

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 11:45

Well, Ally, Mr John Wright, Advocate, begs to differ:

Both Mr Lovett and Mr Simpson seem to take the gloomy view of realisation over time of 65p in the £. They do not explain how they get to that point. In any event at paragraph 21 b of his affidavit Mr Lovett suggests that the FSC/Treasury will have all of the 5p above 60 p and thus the depositors’ dividend looks to be capped at 60 p.


@jkk

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:08

Can you PM me, I have a bowl of cherries available, and we may just get more than the stones left at the bottom.


60p cap

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:00

I'm with you jkk.

I noticed this yesterday.

There's not enough to pay 100%, so we can argue how to split the 65%. Or we can campaign for the 100%: now, and forever. On the way we may accept 65%, but it's an interim payment. Our representatives should not be assisting in dividing a poisonous 65% cake - the IoM and its allies and the insurers will do that.

I've been following your posts these last few days, and you've been shouting from a lonely turret. Keep going.


Add one more. It seems the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:05

Add one more.
It seems the philosophy is "the more you have, the more you can afford at accept compromise"

I do not agree that anyone over 50K should see differing returns.


Cap on SoA

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 12:24

The view taken by Alix of there currently being around 65% was not contradicted in Court yesterday, so although JW believes it to be gloomy, and personally I believe it to be a bit on the low side, the liquidator must presumably have an estimated return currently of around 65% too as his advocate did not raise one objection to the figures used. Asd they have more access to the figures than anyone and they are both coming to roughly the same numbers then I would think it safe to assume they are going to be pretty good estimates, even if, as I said before, I believe them to be a bit low. How they get there we could go over the numbers, but just quickly, the loan book is just over £400m and I believe they are assuming a 15-20% bad debt provision, also they have only used a 15% return from London.

I have not read the document from which you quote the passage, however what the SoA says is that the IoMG will not take back the extra liquidity it has provided until payouts reach 60% to all depositors. This does NOT mean it keeps everything above 60%

A simpler way to look at it is the IoMG are providing a loan to the SoA So the SoA is committed to paying out at least 30% to all depositors within 2 years. However asset recoveries might only be, say 20%. Therefore the IoM govt will lend 10% of the total to the SoA. These funds will not be paid back until all depositors have received 60%. So at this point assets recovery would have been only 50%.(IoMG having made up the 10% difference) Therefore when the final 15% of assets are recovered 10% will be used to pay back IoMG and 5% distributed to depositors who would end up with 65%.

Please note this posting in no way indicates support for or against a SoA but purely to clarify the mechanics


Ally 60p cap

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:23

It's a quick read: paragraph 21b of Lovett's affidavit.
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Thi...

The Treasury begins claw back (of its Top up Fund) after 60%.


Which is exactly what Ally

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:27

Which is exactly what Ally said!


... which means that it will

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:35

... which means that it will be difficult for us to recover above 60%...


iom loan

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 13:14

IoM loan? Great! Why stop at lending 10%? Let's campaign to persuade the IoM to lend the quantity required so we all get 100%?

Heh, I like this loan idea!


A small group of determined people

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 00:26

Nixi, I did warn you, but you didn't listen :)

But seriously, poll mania is a good thing, IMHO. I'll happily resign (I've tried twice already) and wait to be re-elected.

Nixi, knows, Diver knows, Sleepless, Teapot and I know - its bloody stressful, exhausting and at many times unrewarding. What keeps us going is the desire that justice be done, that our money be returned to us, and the knowledge that we'll have one hell of a party when we achieve our goals. And after that, we can just get back on with our lives, which is probably all that anybody here really wants.

I have the dubious honour of having chosen the words "A small group of determined people can change the course of history" to be displayed at the top of every page - I happen to believe it's true.


A small group of determined people

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:14

Just seen NG's post from early this morning which I must have missed, for goodness sake do not take the views of a mindless, un-gratefil minority to reflect the whole. I for one am eternally grateful for the technology provided by NG and the tremedous efforts of Diver and many others too numerous to mention - hang on in there and I for one look forward to the mother of all parties, as NG suggests, when this thing is over, successfully.
Graham