JL - Question & answer session

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 27/05/2010 - 09:16

Hi Folks,

Back eventually to update you all on my latest quest for answers from one of the JL's. Again limited time allowed via the conference call, and did not manage to ask all of my questions. To be fair there was a large number as I collated them from 4 lists sent to the JLs between early March to mid May.

I by passed some as I felt they were now out of date and referred back to Jan & Feb figures. But I did include some from April figures and the E&Y 6 monthly report as at 30.4.2010.

I have finalised my written notes for my thoughts on the April figures and will post them for you all to see once I get them typed up. hopefully today or to-morrow. sorry for the delay in posting these things, I had other more pressing concerns over the past few weeks - all past now.

I will also continue to update my draft Table 9 that I don't see being complete until after we get the now - July 'fuller' update from the JLs as the COI meeting will now not take place until late June.

I atach my data as an appendix to try and keep things in order.

Again these are my on thoughts, probably not right, and some or all of you may not agree with them at all, but they are my best thoughts at this time,

Take care,

And God Bless,

Gordon 45

Your rating: None Average: 5 (13 votes)

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


  • softlad66
  • 10/10/08 27/04/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 31/05/2010 - 12:49

What's the outcome on the Habana appeal? Has a further appeal been lodged?

Thanks and please clarify

  • Ohdear
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 27/05/2010 - 23:09

Thanks for all the hard work. I really appreciate your messages.

There is one point I am confused. In the document you mentioned third dividend was in March 2010 and fourth dividend is at the end of July 2010? As far I know we have had two dividend so far or have I got this wrong? I need to know when to expect some money after 50000 DCS has been cleared. Thanks in advance.

Ohdear - re dividends

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 28/05/2010 - 19:14

Hi There,

And thanks to Caledonia, who is right. there are dividends from two parties at present - those ex E&Y (KSFUK) and those from our own PWC from KSFIOM.

We have received 2 dividends from our Liquidators PWC on behalf of KSFIOM. These were 24.8p/£ in Sept 2009, a further 14.2p/£ in Dec 2009 and we are due a 3rd dividend worth at least 10p/£ in early July. These are the ones paid direct to us or via our Bond Holding Companies etc. And if we get 10p/£ we will have received by early July a total 50p/£ back (based on what the JLs and IOMG call 100%).

The other lot of dividends come back from the Administrators E&Y on behalf of KSFUK back to our Liquidators - not us. The cash they send back is added to the cash held by our Liquidators and they, the JLs then decide, based on the total cash they hold when to give out a dividend. So far we have had 3 dividends from E&Y back to our JLs - E&Y paid a 1st dividend back to the JLs on 22.7.2009 at 20p/£, a 2nd dividend of 10p/£ back on 9.12.2009, a 3rd dividend of 5p/£ on 30.3.2010 and have said they will give a 4th dividend in late July 2010 of at least 5p/£. And I think personally, based on figures in their 6 monthly update of 30.4.2010 and what appears to be their general overall competence in that report that there might be a 5th divdend of another 5p/£ in December 2010. Or they might pay out more in late July to cut dividend costs, because money is there to do one or the other. The other thing you must remember is for every 5p/£ E&Y send back to us means around 1.25p/£ to us. This is because the current £205m on which E&Y base any returns to us on, is approx one quarter of our total owed to KSFIOM Creditors (£909m).

Hope the above helps to clarify for you,

Take care,

Gordon 45

Thank you

  • Ohdear
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/05/2010 - 09:41

Thanks for this clear explanation Gordon. It really helps and also thanks you for your regular updates which are excellent.

Best wishes.


  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 28/05/2010 - 09:16

Often when dividends are referred to, they are the dividends paid by KSF (UK) to KSF (IOM) - not the dividends paid from KSF (IOM) to us. This may be the case here but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks Gordon

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 27/05/2010 - 17:24

Thanks as always for your tireless efforts for us all. Very glad all is well with you now.

Questions and Answers

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 27/05/2010 - 14:56

Thanks again Gordon 45 for all your efforts to help provide us with information to plan our lives. It seems to be a very difficult business to obtain answers to questions you would think we were entitled to know.

JLs suck.

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 27/05/2010 - 18:06

These two clowns think we came down the Thames on a barge, and I take everything they say with a pinch of salt. Having promised a full report in April/May they have now excused themselves for another 2 months without attempting explanation. Enough information has already accumulated to warrant a full report right now, it's only a matter of typing up what has already passed and known to them. The trouble is they keep making such cock-ups they prefer to wait and hope to cover it up with something else that happens later. They gave us their opinion of what they thought should happen in the last report - not what was to happen or actually happened. They sold us their concocted notion and would have hoped to keep it from us by deferring the next report. They are not honest. They are too laid back; laissez faire - well its not their money is it? £205m, £229m, £235m? What's £30m anyway according to PwC-think?

JLs suck

  • Stunned Mullet
  • 17/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 29/05/2010 - 07:30

Icecrusher, I entirely agree with yo assessment of the JLs. Who ae they accountable to? Surely they can't be permitted to contnue to act in this shoddy, tardy and what appears to be incompetent manner without some formal control of them? In retrospect, I'm beginning to thing it would have been more cost effective to have given them the flick when we had the chance, opposed to retaining them as they had the "full picture" at the time. That in itself seems now to be untrue.

Really appreciate you and Gordon 45 keeping us focused on this.


  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/06/2010 - 16:52

Apart from the above mentioned failures on the part of the JL's it now appears that they have been negligently silent with regard to the re-assignments of accounts back to the liquidator when the DCS payout has been satisfied. The DCS originally asked claimants to assign the full amount of the account and said that once DCS had been repaid the 50K they would allow the account to be re-assigned back to the liquidator. Bearing in mind that the assignment to the DCS was by signing a form - the liquidator is now asking that individual depositors have to apply to the courts to have the account re-assigned. Such a task will obvously cost the depositor considerable expense. And the JL's claim to be working for the depositors?????? How on earth can such a claim be made?? What an absolute joke it is to have these people running the show.....

What a shame we didn't give them the red card when we had the chance......

PWC as always are a load of w**kers.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/06/2010 - 05:56

There exists a small caucus of complainants at this point.
The positioning of those is obvious.

PWC need to be subjected to legal pressure to comply. Simpson and Pratt need to be made explicitly aware of their legal default in responding to reasonable requests that they comply with reasonable requests for accurate and timely information as to the situation to the creditors.
PWC are accustomed to flaunting their arrogance.
I worked once with these bastards, I'm accustomed to them.

PWC were/are part of the whole f***king problem. In one sense thay are the problem. And the arrogant bastards know it. Screw you Simpson! (and much more the minder Pratt - what a lucky bastard having such a significant name).).

So how, talking amongst the few that remain. can we secure compliance?

I have just read through Simpson's replies to Gordon45's questions.
He'll read this and laugh. Yes Simpson, you are a ct. But you a mediocre ct., just riding on the coattails of the barbarian organization you work within. And you don't have to worry personally. You are just morally reprehensible. I guess your kid's are indifferent to you - that is if you have any (I've got a lot of experience with egotistical prats that think they are caring for their kids).

But my question is to ourselves.

Gordon45, and Icecrusher, concentrate on the detail and are constantly rebuffed.
The insult they suffer is our insult. They act for us.
How can we work together to secure a more appropriately respectful response from PWC?

Yes I do hold the larger picture. And it is not pretty. Simpson and Pratt are criminals within this larger picture.

So what is on the main site?
And what are the COI doing?