The Isle of Man Treasury and a New Pair of Shoes
I needed a new pair of shoes; I'd saved for ages to buy them and tonight was the big occasion so I went to the shoe shop and bought those shoes that I'd been keeping my eyes on. Getting ready that evening, the bottom fell off my new shoes, ruining my special night completely. I went back to to the shoe shop the next day and demanded my money back - adding that the ruination of my planned evening was valued even higher than the expensive shoes. The shop owner said I could have another pair, but they didn't have any identical shoes; I demanded my money back, 100%.
He said that instead of following the identfified legal recourse to getting my money back, that he'd provide another solution that was even better. I said I wanted my money back, but he insisted on pursuing his idea instead. A few weeks later he presented me with his final solution, but I rejected it and demanded my money back with costs for delayed payment. He hired a lawyer who insisted that I should pay the shop owner's costs for his time and expenditure in developing an alternative means of recompensing my loss instead of just giving me my money back i.a.w. normal customer's rights.
Who do you think is right and does it take 71 pages of diatribe to explain it? When wrong, people tend to expend an awful lot of words trying to prove they're right. The IoMT need hanging out to dry for every penny they've wasted and then double that for the months that depositors have waited in patient anguish whilst these moronic idiots tom-fool around with our money and our lives. Come-uppance is coming, one way or another.
New Shoes
Any normal person would understand the parable but unfortunately the IOMTW need to see a financial incentive for them before they change into gear to understand normal moral issues.
new pair of shoes
Ice: Agreed. In English law it is stated thus: "costs normally follow the event". It is a fairly simple rule, that applies equally in the Isle of Man, but one that seems to be beyond the comprehension of the IoM treasury, which regards DAG's position on costs as being entirely unprecedented.
It will probably come as no surprise to you to learn that the problem with costs in this matter is not the law, which in spite of the Treasury's poorly drafted skeleton arguments is pretty straightforward, but whether the judge is sufficiently equipped.
costs of SoA
Given that we may well lose the case before a Manx Court what would be our rights of appeal?
Could the appeal route lead us back to a court in England? We would certainly get a better hearing there.
costs of SoA
There is an appeal, first to a Manx court of appeal (2 deemsters) and then to the Privy Council (essentially the Houseof Lords). However, it is trite law in England and IoM that there is no point in appealing a costs order, since costs are always in the discretion of the trial judge, so we only get one go at it.
costs SoA
You are quite correct that the it is difficult to appeal on costs awards.
I would have thought in the circumstances that comments such as "whether the judge is sufficiently equipped" against the deemster might not be useful.
The other matter is the attempt to get the liquidator's costs to be postponed until full realisations have (if they are ever) been made.
I would have thought that MS's lawyers would have a view on this so there is likely to be a further affidavit by them.
It is my view that the arguments on costs are quite balanced.
I wouldn't assume that the courts always make pro IOMG decisions, it isn't my view that there is that sort of bias at all.
I like the synonym Icecrusher
Its diabolical that the IOMT expect the creditors of KSFIOM to pay for the legal costs of Michael Simpson and his crew for the considerable time spent on dealing with the SOA. Looking back on this saga the whole issue of the SOA has been a complete waste of time and money.
I hope I am wrong but I feel that we may have an uphill struggle to win the arguement over these costs as a consequence of the influence I suspect the IOMG will have on the IOM Court. Its a pity we can't get the case heard outside the IOM.
SoA costs
I believe that our biggest hurdle in terms of the costs incurred by KSFIOM will the argument of the IOMT that the LP (MS) was a co-sponsor of the SoA and that the bank should therefore bear its part of the costs incurred.
This demonstrates that the fact that MS recommended the SoA will eventually cost us (the depositors)dearly!
I hope I am wrong but I am extremely pessimistic.
PWC were NOT co-sponsor of the SOA
Brabander,
No, no. I personally attended the SOA roadshow in London and I myself asked Peter Spratt of PWC who was sponsoring the SOA and was categorically told by him that this was the IOM Government. At the meeting, we were told that this roadshow was recorded and would then be made available through the internet, so perhaps you would be able to check this? Anyway, PWC made this representation at that meeting and so there's NO WAY that IOMT can try to claim PWC was a co-sponsor. IOMT must pick up the full costs that KSF IOM has incurred rgarding the SOA. Simpson's estimate of £600k has to be way too low - this figure hardly pays for his and Spratt's time, let alone all the other costs. A claim of £2 - 3 million is more realistic.
Joint petition of SoA
It is a fact that in para 12 the IOMT states that the SoA petition was a "JOINT PETITION OF THE COMPANY AND THE TREASURY".
Unless the Company ie the LP states, in court, that this is incorrect the DAG case will be very weak.
We, the creditors, can of course hold the LP ultimately to account through the creditors committee but satisfying the bank's creditors may have a low level of priority for him compared with the damage he may do to his relations with the IOMG.
Elgee, this explains my pessimism.
Mike
PWC not co-sponsor
ianw: Would you like to swear an affidavit that effect for the IoM court? I am not sure that it would do any good, since as I recall PWC said otherwise in an affidavit, but it wouldn't do any harm for a little truth to emerge in these proceedings.
@ianw/elgee
Especially if accompanied by a video/audio recording indicating that despositors were being misled.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen on this forum or elsewhere, nor have I been officially notified by the IoMT that it was taking action on my behalf - and at my cost - to provide an alternative solution to the IoM's DCS scheme. Why would the IoM sell itself and its financial services on the back of such a scheme only to declare it inadequate when tested, and then spend 8 months trying to persuade depositors that the SoA would be a better alternative!
It is diabolical and preposterous beyond what thinking men can comprehend, for these half-wits to even stoop to such depths to even remotely consider and enter their minicscule brains that depositors should pay for this dreadfully long wait for nothing - and only at the Treaury's insistence - we had no bloody choice in the matter and they want us to pay?!!!! They insult us only because they can, it has to stop. Where are the gunships, I'm going to war.
Ice
SoA costs
Brabander: If that is the case then it is likely eventually to cost Simpson dearly too.
e-mail to MS
Perhaps all depositors should send an e-mail to MS expressing their concern that the IOMT has claimed in their submissions to the court that the SoA was a joint proposal by the the Company and the IOMT.
The depositors should ask for clarification whether this claim is correct and if so on what basis did he believe that this expenditure of the Company's assets could be justified.
If there is no satisfactory explanation any future votes by the creditors committee would naturally reflect this.
Perhaps a DAG member more literate than myself could draw up such an e-mail.
We want to make it clear to MS that supporting the IOMT in our claim for recompense may carry a penalty!