It's official!

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:23

I believe it is now official that the SoA has been defeated in classes 2 and 3. The scheme was defeated in both classes by number (more than 50%) *and by value (more than 25%). Since a defeat only required that tere be a vote against in 1 of the 3 classes by number or by value, it can be corrected stated (qualitatively speaking) that the scheme was defeated four times over.

4.61905
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (21 votes)

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

Can someone explain please....

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 14:49

Was one investor able to shoot down the SOA or presumably vote it in irrespective of how everyone else voted?

How can it be democracy that one person can dictate? Surely Mike Simpson at least would be aware of this and able to restructure the voting terms to make it fairer for all?

If it was the case then as another poster said there was no need to waste so much time and money on canvassing everyone's votes as only one vote actually counted. In which case once again the liquidator has not served us well and has wasted a considerable sum of money and squandered time on the SOA when arranging a meeting with the one voter would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble.

Also, the voter apparently votes 3mil which is still only a small percentage of the overall claim, therefore how could this one vote hold such sway? The insurance companies control far more than that but their vote apparently counted for nothing.


In one word...........

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 18:45

In one word .............. YES.

[Whatever the vote was about, YES one particular person, if voting, could decide the outcome.
So if, say, 7,999 people had decided to vote against the SoA (for example) then if this one person had voted for it then it would have been carried.

Crazy isn't it ?


bobby shafted

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 19:20

crazy or not, them's the rules/breaks (I also agree with them, even if I was pro-SOA) and they were in place from the start.


lorraine, you seem to have misunderstood the rules

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 17:43

You seem to misunderstand the concept of this type of vote. This is not a regular election where only votes are counted. The reason for this is pure and simple that each depositor has a different amount at stake and you can’t just count votes irrespectively of people’s deposit. To put it in the extreme if a bank had four depositors with three of these each having £100 in their account and the fourth having 1 Million pounds, in the account, then would it be “fair” if the three depositors each with £100 would be able to overrule the wishes of the single 1 Million pound depositor? People who have thought this through and made the precedence on these issues clearly don’t think so and I would certainly agree with them. By entering into the SoA the creditors are giving up certain legal rights and therefore you can’t just make up the rules to suit a specific purpose (a yes vote in your case) as you suggest


Explanation of democracy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 16:53

How could Mike Simpson, PWC or anyone else know which way any voter would vote in advance?

If that "disproportionately large depositor " had voted for the SOA, then the class 2 vote would still have killed it.

It's foolish to try and judge the outcome of a voting system in advance, or suggest it was a waste of time.

If you think the organisers should just decide the vote merely by consulting everyone in advance, would you (or anyone else) be happy about that? Would they tell the truth?

The vote achieved what it was intended to do. It's called democracy !


Great News

  • keving
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 03:25

Thanks to the dedication of the DAG our voices have been heard finally which was to go ahead with liquidation.

For those who whine against the vote outcome, ask yourselves why our DAG legal team (the ones who pored over the SOA in detail) was clearly against it and why even PWC said in the end that there was little difference. If the IOM had offered a decent package we would certainly have accepted it; they didnt, instead choosing to devise a scheme heavily biased in their own interests. They could have worked with depositor groups to find a solution; they didnt. In the end they missed yet another chance to find common ground between IOMG and depositors and better solution for all.

Its just a pity that here we in May initiating a DCS that should have been triggered months ago.


Is the vote final?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 23:02

I'm bewildered. The announcement seems to be set in stone, yet I understood the voting was being held open until the forthcoming court hearing.
Is there going to be a recount then?
Are we counting are chickens?


Results in the press

  • jetski
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 23:25

Looks like it is all over Jabberwock, See attached
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/KSF-depositors-reject-scheme-of.5295060.jp


@elgee

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 14:40

Elgee: you seem to have posted this monumental news in the "up to 50K" group. Is this what you intended? Will everyone see it there?


@elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:07

Anrigaut: thanks for pointing that out. It was not intentional. However, it has now been posted elsewhere, so I will not bother to correct it


SOA VOTE

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 14:17

I'm anti SOA but looks like one person in class 3 ( value of deposit 3 million) had the power to vote down SOA on their own!


Indeed - makes you wonder why they bothered with the vote

  • allyourbase
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:09

PWC could have just asked the creditor if they wanted to vote against SoA, and then could have just cancelled the entire vote as it would be pointless.


Democracy??

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 22:17

allyourbase, Yes 20:20 hindsight is wonderful !

Is that how you think elections should be conducted? Just ask all prospective voters in advance how they are going to vote, and decide the result on that !!

Where do you come from? Wonderland?


Absolutely right

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:14

Wonder which of KSFIOM's non-depositor creditors with such a big value kyboshed it?


Given their past performance, probably...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:56

....the IOMG signed in the wrong box.


typos and facts corrected (sorry)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:27

I believe it is now official that the SoA has been defeated in classes 2 and 3. The scheme was defeated in class 2 by number (more than 50%) and in classes 2 and 3 by value (more than 25%). Since a defeat only required that there be a vote against the scheme in one of the 3 classes by number or by value, it can be corrected stated (qualitatively speaking) that the scheme was defeated three times over.


Conretulation

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:16

At last You have now concured the IOM. What now?


the figures

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:35

class 1: number 376 against, 1922 for; value: £9m against, £50m for (rounded)
class 2: number: 935 against, 825 for; value £216m against, £406m for (rounded)
class 3: number 1 against, 13 for; value £3m against, £0.3m for (rounded)


Well Done

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 14:29

To the DAG team - Great work. Very many thanks for all your effort


Bravo Bravo

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 20:26

Bravo DAG Team - I congratulate you on a fight well fought. Now we enter round 2. I know everyone who is signed up to this site will agree with me - because our effort is for 100% return for ALL.


Everyone dosn't agree with you

  • kevkev1888
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 04:27

The majority voted for the SOA yet you still belive everyone agrees with you?

Unbelivable!!!


It's known as tyranny of the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 05:35

It's known as tyranny of the minority!


100% For ALL

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 05:01

The reason I know everyone agrees with me is because this site is for 100% for all. The reason I joined. I didn't realise there are people who don't agree with this and have still joined the site.

Isn't that like joining a site for religion when you are an atheist ?


@merlina

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 05:37

Just because someone voted for the SoA does not mean they are not in favour of 100% for all, it just means there is a difference of opinion on how to achieve it. The SoA in no way prevented 100% for all, as liquidation does no way guarantee it, they are just two different approaches. No one knows if the liquidation is the right approach just as no one knows if the SoA would have been.

If the purpose of this site is to agree on everything the DAG do and not question anything they say then I think you may be in for a long wait for your money back, just because they have organised themselves and obtained legal advice does not make them infalible. Any successful campaign relies on healthy debate and discussion of the various ways in achieving the ultimate objective.

And whilst we are on the subject, some of us joined and focused on the fight to get our money back 3 months before you could be bothered to make the effort to do so so and long before the '100% for all' was devised so please dont lecture on what its aims are.


How Childish !

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 06:52

Your final para is so childish - I joined days after the collapse of KSFIOM - under Merlin and then decided to join under my own name Merlina.


typos and facts corrected (sorry)

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:32

Won't be opening the sparkling wine here!

Now I hope and pray that the Not so silent minority are correct in what they have achieved (if achieved is the right phrase!)


Silent minority???

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:37

Obviously not that small of a minority or it wouldnt have been defeated!!!


Silent minority

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:55

In response to Monkeyface3604 I say, look at the numbers! 68% wanted it 32% didnt!, sounds like a small minority to me and, for the life of me I cannot begin to understand why the numbers were set accordingly? In most elections a simple majority would have sufficed?

In response to Elgee, I hope you are correct sir! I am left feeling numb and exactly the same as I did on October 8th last year, then I was convinced we would lose everything, gradually my hopes and spirits were raised and now they are dashed - I am afraid its October 8th back in my household - hence the pessimistic noises! As I said though, I hope that you are correct!


Grapow look again.

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 17:54

7 votes from the insurance companies counted for, with a total of £250m. had they voted in accordance with the wishes of the clients and gave a proportion for and against the amount against would have been much greater. It is no good saying that the greater number voted for as that is not strictly true.


typos and facts corrected (sorry)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 13:36

Grapow, whether you agree with the result or not, it is most certainly a monumental achievement.


The only achievement is the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 05:37

The only achievement is the size of the legal bill!! Time will show that accusing and abusing the IOM G was a big mistake; time will show that the real target was missed, HMG; time will show that the assumption that a deal would be struck for 100% because of 'skeletons in an IOM cupboard" was wholly erroneous. Time will show that liquidation will be painful. Time will show that the general public see this as an Icelandic banking failure and not an IoM failure; time will show that's one of the many reasons that press commentaries are rarely supportive of this cause. Time will show that a more realistic view from the outset by some, ie this is a bank going into liquidation, might have elicited a better SoA deal. Lets face it in the end there has been NO influence on events of any note, the bank has gone into liquidation; it could have been influenced, but some seemed to think that there were dubious reasons and conspiracies, when there obviously was none. Bad management was at the root of all of this, not conspiracies or skeletons. Not tittle tattle, agendas and rumours, just poor decisions and actions.

You reap what you sow and what was sown here was a great deal of bile and bad blood, and some of you wonder why the IoM G wouldn't give better terms!

Well I'm off to get on with my life, I suggest the rest of you do the same, there is no public sympathy out there for a cause that uses the weapons that were used here. Oh and loses!

As to who appointed John Wright, I would have thought that was very easy to work out!!!


Bollox

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 01:50

Is it bollox elgee. It has acheived absolutely nothing. Acheiving something is when the UK return the deposit KSF made and which caused the downfall in the first place. Acheiving something is when the, currently tiny, pot of money that is now going to be used to try and repay us has enough money in it to be worthwhile. Fool.


@elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 18:51

elgee, for such a "monumental achievement" celebrations here seem conspicuously muted.

Any ideas why ?


@elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 19:44

I agree that it is a pity that some depositors would have preferred a different outcome, but I think that time will tell.


Elgee - go away

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 01:52

Or is it a pity that some (the majority) people are fed up with you and wish you would just go away. How about a whipround to get Elgee his £16.87 back so he will move away from the keyboard?


Elgee

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 28/05/2009 - 02:21

I am with you. Thanks for your contribution to the result. Keep up the good work! The DST are doing the right thing. It is good to have arguments for all opinions but I wish it was more constructive.


Your monument

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:24

Sit at the top of this monument, you have to loose nothing just gain!!!!!!