Issues & questions to be raised at the Creditors Committee of Inspection

  • PPD DAG team
  • 28/09/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 05/10/2009 - 14:57

To all creditors:

Please use this forum to post the issues that you would like to see raised by us on the Creditors Committee of Inspection ("CCI"). Given the confidentiality agreement we will normally not be able to respond directly but you can be sure that we fully acknowledge our responsibility to represent ALL creditors on the CCI.
Gavin Brake, Peter Wakeham

4.578945
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (19 votes)

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

PwC site

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 09:05

[moved to reply to relevant post below]


Questions to be asked at creditors meeting

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/11/2009 - 17:55

Why so much secrecy as to when payments are going to be made to us. Surely it must be possible to shedule when all payments should be made to us in future and at least a forecast of what we should receive as a percentage of our total account as it stood on that black day in October when sanity seemed to leave the isle of man.


Questions to be asked at creditors meeting

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/11/2009 - 17:55

Why so much secrecy as to when payments are going to be made to us. Surely it must be possible to shedule when all payments should be made to us in future and at least a forecast of what we should receive as a percentage of our total account as it stood on that black day in October when sanity seemed to leave the isle of man.


14% in december

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 13:13

Thanks Icecrusher for posting the link

Second distribution
'I can confirm that it is our intention to pay a second distribution in December 2009. The amount of dividend cannot yet be confirmed, however it is expected to be in the region of 14%. The amount will be confirmed in early December when the amount of cash available for distribution is known.'


Hi Bellyup and Icerusher re14%

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 14:48

Where did you get this news? One can't help feeling a litlle releived if we are getting double the miserly 7% predicted. However When I go onto the www.kaupthingsingers .co.uk link Ice it doesn't open any info. Best to both of you and thanks for your continued on the pulse monitoring Ice, and constant activity bellyup. Let's hope we can all be a little happier soon or ideally a lot if we can acheive results in other actions/avenues.


14%

  • alec
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 15:12

Here is the link - http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4160.

The 7% is the predicted return from kSFUK, not KSFIOM. Ours is 14%.


scroll down at singers

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 15:02

You have to scroll down and its about second from the bottom of the page.


Creditors Committee of Inspection meeting on 05/11/09

  • Expat Spain
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/11/2009 - 15:25

Can anyone advise when we will receive feedback from the Creditors Committee of Inspection.

Will tthis appear on this site or just the Members site ?.


Creditors' meeting

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 06:49

I personally cannot understand why the DAG people representing us at the creditors' meeting find it inappropriate to give us any information about the meeting. A week has gone by since the meeting was held and we are still waiting in the wings, bereft of information - still without our cash or any hope of attaining it.

I don't think any of us is asking for a blow-by-blow account of the meeting, but we would like a summary that would give us some indication of what we are looking at further down the line. Is there hope? Are our hopes to be dashed (yet again?) Has some new strategy / timeline been devised? What questions were asked? Was the possible culpability of the bank's directors brought up? What about the parental agreement?

We weren't there. People representing our interests were. We'd like to know what happened.


@Podcar

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:16

Podcar they cant give us any information as they are bound by the confidentiality agreement /rules.


Waiting for news

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 14:19

Hi Bellyup,

I didn't realize that there is a confidentiality agreement, and of course, if they are signed on it, they are bound to honor it.

However, I see far too frequently on the DAG site phrases such as: "I can't say anything more at the moment," and the like. I am in far too deep a state of anxiety to say nothing of poverty to accept a situation where I'm left in the dark, questioning but never quite knowing what is going on. I do believe that there should be more transparency.

I'm simply frustrated at not being there, pounding on the table, demanding my rights (well, my money, anyway). It's difficult to be patient under the circumstances.

Having said all that, I must again express my gratitude to those who are out there representing us and expending so much effort on getting our money back. Without you guys, we would probably have been long forgotten. So thanks and apologies for my impatience.


CCI Feedback

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/11/2009 - 19:23

Expat Spain - this is the DAG Members site open to all DAG members. Any feedback that the CCI members post on the DAG-DST stie should be available on this site too. All members of the CCI represent all creditors without discrimination.

The official feedback should come directly from the Liquidator. I will ask the CCI representatives if they can answer this question directly.


Re: CCI feedback

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/11/2009 - 20:09

Hi all

Minutes of the CCI meeting should be up on the PwC site within a week. At this stage, until those minutes are published, it is inappropriate for me (or, I would venture to suggest any other member of the CCI) to comment further.

I hope that answers the immediate question in any case.

KE


cci update

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 07:13

KE,
can we have a link to the PWC site where the minutes from the CCI meeting will be published? thanks


re: cci update

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 11/11/2009 - 09:06

mr lynton

Of course - http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/?pageid=3985 (or you can go through www.kaupthingsingers.co.im)

They're not up yet, but that's where they'll be.

KE


Good Luck to the CC today!

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/11/2009 - 10:59

Hope we get some good news and it is not all too confidential!


working relations between liquidator and DCS

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 06:44

There have been long delays in pay-outs by DCS

The DCS is blaming the liquidator for this saying they are tardy in assigning claims

is this true?

the rate of approval has dropped to less than 300 in October with 1400 (approx) outstanding

is this good enough? Could we have some data to allow us to judge performance?

regds

iain


When is this meeting going to

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 06:28

When is this meeting going to be held?

Sorry for asking what is probably plastered all over this site, but I can't seem to find it.


Next meeting for CC meeting is Thurs 5th November 2009

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 07:00

Hi Podcar,

NextCC meeting will be held on 5th November 2009.


See list of questions for CC

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/10/2009 - 09:12

Just to keep this item in Recents Comments section for a while.


List of questions to be asked in next CC meeting

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/10/2009 - 22:44
  1. FORENSIC
    1. Are any investigations in hand to establish whether there was any misconduct and/or negligence by the auditors of KSFIOM (and KSFUK ) ? ( See recent Hong Kong Akai case).
    2. Can anyone say whether Serious Fraud Office or police have been invited to investigate KSFIOM or the KSFUK E&Y auditors?
    3. Is the liquidator considering pursuing legal action against the UK’s FSA? This in light that Tony Shearer stated that he warned the FSA, prior to them allowing Kaupthing into the UK of the risks of doing so and considers the FSA guilty of regulatory failure for not taking preventative action.
    4. Is there any investigation into the legal implications of the bank executives, directors and board members’ decision in transferring some of KSFIOM’s assets into Kaupthing UK without adequate protection for its depositors?
    5. Was Mr Docherty coerced , by KSFUK, to move money from KSFIOM to London? If so- does this give us a legal argument that effectively KSFIOM was run by London and can thus be treated as a UK company?
    6. What are the roles played by Mr Docherty, Mr Cashen and Mr Gelling in the credit committee process?
    7. Why did Mr A Docherty reassure savers their money was safe, due to a parental guarantee, when it wasn't?
    8. Was any consideration given at time of FSC concerns in 2008 (spring) to close the bank to new business? Was it a choice between closing and putting new monies into highly speculative investments in order to pay enough interest to pay new saver rates?
    9. In offering over 7% to savers, did the directors of the Bank consider that the only way to generate this was to engage in highly risky and speculative lending? Explain their lending strategy and how they considered our money was safe?
    10. Is PWC going to do an investigation into the loans of KSFIOM to KSFUK? Were these loans on speculative investments such as property development, high-street store takeovers? Were there any loans made to family or friends of KSFUK staff or directors?
    11. Why were these loans set up the way they were? Why was KSFIOM fully exposed by any failure on the repayment of loans and accept the sort of “security” that was given?
    12. Can Mr Simpson and Mr Spratt review what kind of credit committee review went on in Douglas prior to this loan to KSFUK?
    13. How many of these loans, to KSFUK were post the Lehman collapse?

  2. KSFUK

    1. Forensic

      1. Why hasn't the liquidator sold the last major shareholding under the repo agreement?
        Are these shares and the other minor ones now worthless and if so how much is the claim against KSF UK for the balance under the repo agreement?
      2. What is the agreed amount owed by KSFUK to KSFIOM?
      3. Can we receive an update on how much we expect to recover from the UK?
      4. Why did the Liquidator Provisional decide to stop the in-flight transfers when it was clear that KSF IOM had sufficient funds ,with KSF UK, to complete these? Completing these transactions would have reduced the total creditors claims against the bank by more than the reduction in the bank's net assets with KSF UK.
      5. Does the Liquidator intend to challenge any liability assessments made by E&Y.
      6. With the KSFUK loan book terms, over what period are we expecting to wait for recoveries back to FSFIOM?
      7. What was the timeframe on the loans/ joint ventures with UK?
      8. Can a list of all the various components that relate to KSFUK, in monetary term and how they interlink be supplied?
  3. Parent Guarantee

     1. Can the CCI seek clarification as to what efforts (if any ?) have been made by the IOMG and HMG to enrol the assistance of HMG to pressure Iceland 
         to stand by the parental guarantee?
     2. Can the CCI seek information as to why was Iceland abiding by the parental guarantee not included in the pressure exerted by HMG
         as a prerequisite to removing the block on IMF assistance ?
    
  4. Loan Book

     1. What definite losses do we know about on the loan book - ie write offs and the like?
    
  5. Costs of liquidation

     1. What are the roles of the remaining paid bank staff of KSFIOM and why are so many still employed? How long are they to be employed?
     2. What are the non-executive  director services supplied by C & G?
    
  6. Balance Sheet

     1. Can PWC explain the “contingent liability” mentioned in your report?
     2. Has the total amount owed to creditors been adjusted to reflect the removal of accrued but uncapitalised interest in excess of 5% from  
         the dividend payout calculations?
    
  7. Recovery

     1. Can we have a monthly statement of account, posted on the bank website, set up?
     2. Can we get a spreadsheet/list of assets which are now less than their book value and an explanation why?
     3. Can we have a new table for interest due by year and what was due for the balance of 2009 after the 1st dividend?
    
  8. General

     1. Has a decision been made between E&Y and PWC about the declared date of default?
     2. Was there a major project, from Spring 08, to reinvest monies previously deposited with Kaupthing HF?
    

Sorry that formatting is not perfect.


Excellent questions

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/10/2009 - 12:25

Excellent questions and they make interesting reading BUT - who is going to pick them up and ask them at the next CC meeting next week- can you tell us please?


CCI DAG Questions

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 02:16

Julienne,

These questions will be asked by the DAG representatives. Between the 4 of them they will no doubt have additional questions and issues given that they are seeing considerably more information.

It is the job of the CCI representatives to ensure that answers are given. Some questions will probably not get a public response due to a claim of commericial confidentiality or sensitivity. Again it is the responsiblity of our representatives to ensure this is only done where reasonable. Clearly there will be some despositors that are unhappy but that is the process.


Very important to reiterate

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 08:01

Very important to reiterate that ALL fours representitives have a duty to represent ALL depositors. There are no groups, no PPDG, No DST just ALL depositors.


Re: Very important to reiterate

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 15:13

I think it's probably worth clarifying that all CC representatives have a duty to represent all creditors (and not just depositors).

KE


Thanks KE, its important for

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/11/2009 - 15:54

Thanks KE, its important for everyone to know this I think. No partisanship involved!


List of questions for CC

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/10/2009 - 10:10

Thankyou Most Helpful! and interesting reading! Still Here....

Aurora


We would like a monthly

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 23:31

We would like a monthly statement of account posted on the bank website. Please.


Any Misconduct/Negligence by Auditors ?

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 16:19

I should like the CCI to ask if any investigations are in hand to establish whether there was any misconduct and/or negligence by the auditors of KSFIOM ( and KSFUK ) ?

If there has been then there may well be a case for seeking redress from the auditors ( in a recent case in Hong Kong one of the world's "big four" accountancy firms agreed to US$200M out-of-court settlement to avoid defending a full court case. However, this was reportedly after in-depth investigation by an independent Australian accountancy firm that refused to be fobbed off by cover ups or vested interests ).


Any Misconduct / Negligence by Auditors

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/10/2009 - 04:51

I've got more information on the Hong Kong case.

The firm that went into liquidation was Akai Hong Kong. Its auditors were Ernst & Young and the liquidators were Borelli Walsh. The liquidators managed to get an out-of-court settlement ( reported in Hong Kong as US$200M) from Ernst & Young. The Financial Times article of 23 September gives more information - those interested can find it on Google.


Bloomberg report on the Hong Kong & EY audit court case.

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/10/2009 - 09:52

Auditors Fraud in Hong Kong PWC

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 17:24

Yes and as far as I remember this was good old PWC in Hong Kong.

Come on DST legal team please answer our questions. Can anyone say whether Serious Fraud Office or police have raided the IOM KIOM and PCW offices (a good time would be when our CCI members or a legal representative can be there to oversee and make sure there is no further shenanigans or shredding going on) or KSFUK E&Y auditors. Let's bring this horror to a close sooner than 2017! With Justice and damages for our suffering so far. Let’s face it the very fact that everything has been sealed , non disclosed no apologies etc reeks of guilt doesn’t it?


DST legal team may not be watching here

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/10/2009 - 11:14

I don't know to what extent (if at all) DST is active on this site - if you want to ask them questions that's probably best done either by email or by posting on the ksfiomdag.com site.


@fight theft, aurora

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 21:35

The DST legal team is no longer monitoring this site regularly and is unlikely to respond here, particularly since one of them no longer has access. I would therefore suggest that questions to them should be posed in the Legal area of the Discussion Board on the members only site, which was specifically set up to allow better communication between DST and DAG members (ksfiomdag.com).

Questions for the DST representatives on the Creditors Committee (Simon and Stuart) can also be posed there in a dedicated forum for this purpose where they will do their best to respond.


The DST legal team is not

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 23:39

The DST legal team is not really relevant here - PWC will have lawyers handling any cases for us - the creditors. Note that until liquidation, they were not allowed to get into this area, and the last minutes of the CC (posted by Gavin and Peter) made it clear that legal avenues were now being investigated.

I must reflect on the lack of success of the Edwin Coe people - and how much of our money is being diverted to them which is totally unnecessary. Are DST giving the money back? Funny - they aren't.

Similarly the disastrous PR group employed.


DST legal expenses

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/10/2009 - 21:53

Frog,

You are correct that PwC has lawyers handling cases for KSFIOM - but it is wrong to say that they are handling cases for the creditors directly. I am on this site extremely infrequently now, but felt I had to correct the inaccuracies in your posting above.

Legal avenues are, as you say, being investigated by PwC, as the CoI minutes posted by Mike Simpson made clear, and it's not appropriate for me to say more about that at this time.

However, it is also worth noting that there are of course claims against third parties that cannot be brought by KSFIOM. For instance, claims by ex-Derbyshire depositors and/or ancillary claims by bondholders against their life companies and/or IFAs. I am sure I don't need to go into the detail of those here.

It is overly simplistic and trusting (if not naive) to say that PwC are automatically pursuing all creditors' interests and claims, and to simply rely on that, and even more so without anyone advising the creditors on those claims separately as required.

As a CoI member, I think it's appropriate that the CoI has its own legal advice and does not rely on Cains, who advise PwC (or KSFIOM); similarly, it's appropriate that creditors have access to their own legal advice when necessary. Although PwC's interests and ours should be broadly aligned, experience has shown that this has regrettably not always been the case to date.

The importance of this principle is one of the reasons that DST legal funds were committed to a legal review of the confidentiality agreement that all the CoI members had to sign. A comparison of what was signed against what was originally proffered by PwC/Cains should demonstrate that a number of changes were argued for and won as a direct result of that review and negotiation.

Similarly, one can debate the old chestnut of whether the defeat of the SoA was a "success" or not, and I don't propose reopening that one here - but I do know that EC's views were pretty clear on that subject, and that people seemed to want to know what those views were at the time.

KE


@knife edge

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/10/2009 - 23:32

However, it is also worth noting that there are of course claims against third parties that cannot be brought by KSFIOM. For instance, claims by ex-Derbyshire depositors and/or ancillary claims by bondholders against their life companies and/or IFAs. I am sure I don't need to go into the detail of those here.

As someone who has contributed towards the legal effort I would like to know what the legal funds are being spent on and in what proportion.
So what exactly is Edwin Coe advising now ?
Many people ask but have not got a reply

The importance of this principle is one of the reasons that DST legal funds were committed to a legal review of the confidentiality agreement that all the CoI members had to sign. A comparison of what was signed against what was originally proffered by PwC/Cains should demonstrate that a number of changes were argued for and won as a direct result of that review and negotiation.

DST legal funds.
Shouldnt this be DAG legal funds?
When I contributed I was contributing to the DAG legal fund.
Now it appears it belongs only to the DST ?
What of those bonafide depositors who have contributed but have been effectively told they are now no longer DAG and no you cant have your money back?
As the court awarded costs to the DAG which will at some time be repaid from the banks assets ( ie depositors assets ) why should the DST not repay those who have contributed but it no longer deems to be part of DAG?


I really have no comment on

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/10/2009 - 15:04

I really have no comment on KE's post. I think it speaks for itself.... I agree with Bellyup.


Thanks angigaut

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 21:55

I will cut and paste to the other site. Best fight theft


Negligence & Redress

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 16:55

What are the DST doing about this? Edwin Coe are acting on behalf of the DAG what is their response?.. The Longer we leave it the harder it becomes to find the Clues... Smelling a Rat, Iceland have been at it whos to say UK IOM aren't as well.. Trust is the issue its Fraud thats what I call it so we need to bring in the the Police for an Investigation.

Some of us are suing the Kaupthing Hf and there needs to be an inquiry about the FSA FSC situation and they should be held accountable for this huge Blunder and our Losses.

I agree with you all, your Letters are extreme and worrying and we need to keep up the Momentum of this and do something about it..

You men out there are Bankers Lawyers or in Business get together and sort this OUT if it means the Police then it needs action.

But the worrying thing is this Cover Up where is the Justice its deciet... we already know that so its illegal under Banking Law.

Can the Media BBC help in any way? By emphasising this story and questioning the people in the frame! This Country is Corrupt and we have to just sit here and put up with it?? NO

Where is the fighting Spirit.. British Bull Dog in us, we need experience and many Heads who are knowledgable in the field of Banking and Law.

There has to be more it needs to be made transparent.

Regards Aurora


Question for Liquidator - Regarding FSA

  • jr
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 18:04

Is the liquidator/Edwin Coe considering pursuing legal action against the UK’s FSA? Yet again (Sky News 25th October 2009) Tony Shearer states that he warned the FSA prior to them allowing Kaupthing into the UK of the risks of doing so, and considers the FSA guilty of regulatory failure for not taking preventative action.

If FSA regulatory failure led to the demise of the UK operation, can we not take legal action to recover money held in the UK?


Issues to raise

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 13:00

I still have £370,000 to be returned and would like to know how long I am going to have to wait for it.

Put simply am I going to get it or as the little note on some of the emails has so sucintly reminded us!!! will I have to put the money yet to be received in my will for my heirs.

A very sorry state indeed when, one is constantly reminded of all the other financial disasters where savers are receiving their money back without the trouble we are being caused by the Isle of Man.

Jeff Wilkins


Did the bank's executives,

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 10:41

Did the bank's executives, directors and board members conduct themselves in a legal manner when they transferred the bulk of KSF IOM assets to Kaupthing UK without any warranty or protection of the depositors whose money they were transferring?

As this is the single, most significant act that led to the collapse of the bank, have the legal implications of the bank's decision-makers been investigated thoroughly?


Bank's executives and Reinstating conference call

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/10/2009 - 16:48

Agree with Podcar about the behaviour of the bank's executives

Reinstate the conference call with the liquidator. How about asking for the other liquidator this time - not Simpson


CCI question page

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 10:27

Just bumping up the question page .


repo shares

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 07:38

Why hasn't the liquidator sold the last major shareholding under the repo agreement?
Are these shares and the other minor ones now worthless and if so how much is the claim against KSF UK for the balance under the repo agreement ?


Repo's

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 16:23

Could someone explain basically how these work.
Is it a case of KSFIOM lending KSFUK money and being given these shares as security - with KSFUK still owing the full loan as a debt and being allowed to repurchase the shares at a fixed price?
Or a case of KSFIOM lending money on terms that they would get the shares and if the loan wasn't repaid they would lose the loan - keeping the shares?
Or something else?
Did KSFIOM also have lots of "contracts for differences" too? If so, how did they work?


Your option B is the closest

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 23:42

Your option B is the closest - although KSFUK would be responsible for the shortfall.

So if the repo value was 100K then collateral to the value of 100K would be given to KSFIOM - and say they sold it at 30K, then KSFUK would be responsible to take that up to the net return rate (say 50%) and have to pay an extra 20K. If the collateral was worth 110K though, KSFIOM would keep the lot.

There were no contracts for difference listed - and anyhow, anything like that (including the repo and forex positions) were closed down on the 8th Oct last year.


Here are some questions

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/10/2009 - 15:32

Here are some questions outstanding from Frog's telephone call with Simpson back on June 1st. WHAT about these LOST sums? Why was Simpson let off the hook over these questions? He slipped out and no one stopped him, now we are still wondering where our money went and who put it there. WHY has/is Simpson being so evasive, what happened to the money?

Note: This clip from the summary of the transcribed call contains emphasis and clarification of my own. See:http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/summary-conference-call-mike-simpson-1st-june-2009

  1. Can you clarify why the balance with KSFUK dropped by £128M from one balance sheet to the next?
    a. Is the £241m now quoted as due back from KSFUK – a net figure? I.e. The previous net book value figure shown on Oct 2008 was £401.8m. So are we now saying the £241m comes from £401.8m - £241 = £160.8m of a difference?
    b. If so what has caused this difference of £160.8m? 
I saw one explanation that it was due to KSFUK (E&Y) getting their initial figures wrong due to the complexity of untangling the situation. Any truth in that?
    c. Does the Liq Prov still expect 10p in the £ back from KSFUK in June/July this year?
    d. What is happening with the CDs – has the first £10M come back – how about the rest?

A: This was due to the complexities of the relationship between KSFIOM and KSFUK. The bulk of the difference was due to what was thought to be regular bank deposits [but] were actually tied up with repo agreements.
‘Normal’ bank deposits came to about £350M, then there were Swap and Repo agreements and the set-off due to sub-participation. There was double counting which got reversed out. (?)
With regard to the UK distribution, if the UK money comes back in time for the KSFIOM dividend then this would increase the payout to almost 20% (3% for the KSFUK distribution and another 3-4% for the CDs if they come back in time)
The money from Newcastle BS is expected soon. They are still in negotiation with the other building societies. Whether the costs associated with bringing the test case will be awarded to KSFIOM has not been finalized yet.
With regard to the in-flight case, we are still waiting for the judgment.
5. With the UK balance, how much is in clearly identifiable cash deposits? What financial instruments is the rest denominated in? Why is their valuation uncertain? You have previously talked about offsets and put the total at £164.3m. Exactly what are those offsets?
A: The normal cash deposits are about £350M – with the swap agreements (Mike Simpson did not have the approximate value to hand.)

Ice:
You might wonder (as I do) where are the answers to the questions of the £160.8M posited above; how does one reverse out another £128M; where is the explanation concerning £164.3M of offsets (see my other posts on this forum about this subject) and what exactly were the financial instruments that our money was held in? .

Is Simpson an honest, trustworthy sort of guy who we feel comfortable with? Is he open and forthright in answering our questions - or is he devious and evasive? Who is he covering?


I recall (maybe incorrectly)

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/10/2009 - 23:45

I recall (maybe incorrectly) that the first dividend of KSFUK was paid out without the date issue being settled - so the lesser of the two (the KSFUK position) was paid out. Things may have changed since then, so - question to the CC - has this been resolved, and who won?