KSFUK FIRST DIVIDEND OF 20% (VERSUS 10% ESTIMATED)

KSFUK DIVIDEND OF 20%

This was announced on the KSFUK website on July 10, 2009 and also reported by the Times that same day. Also reported by the Times was that an E & Y spokeswoman indicated that a second dividend would be paid later in the year.

Does KSFIOM qualify?

In order to have qualified KSFIOM would have needed to submit a claim by June 18, 2009. Mike Simpson of PWC indicated in the June 1 conference call he would inform us about the claim when he submitted it.

No information forthcoming, has Simpson submitted the KSFIOM claim or not? A simple question and yet we do not know the answer. Perhaps the answer is in that promised Directors Statement of Affairs which was supposed to be circulated to creditors before the July 7, 2009 meeting, but which document, now at least a week late, has yet to see the light of day.

To have not submitted a claim, after all the time that PWC have had to agree the numbers and all the expense that PWC have heaped upon the KSMIOM depositors, borders on the incompetent. Perhaps too much time spent helping out the IOM Treasury with the SOA and not enough time being true accountants and agreeing the numbers.

Surely it is the responsibility of PWC to maximize the returns (both in magnitude and timing) to KSFIOM creditors and not to have turned in a claim to KSFUK is a dereliction of this responsibility.

Notwithstanding the fact that the KSFIOM claim would need UK Treasury approval to be paid, the claim should nonetheless have been put in on time, and if UK Treasury approval was granted (as in this case it was) KSFIOM would be in line for that July dividend.

Even if the dividend from KSFUK wouldn’t be received in time for the first dividend from KSFIOM, it would still be in the bank, earning interest and thus defraying some of those PWC costs. As it now stands, it looks like this money will stay in the UK, earning interest for the benefit of most of the other creditors of KSFUK.

The performance of PWC and Simpson has been nothing short of appalling. They spent our money on the doomed SOA without agreeing these fees would be reimbursed by the IOM Treasury beforehand, and why not, it meant more fees for them, more money in their pocket and it extended the whole process and would therefore put more money in their pockets in the future. The only numbers Simpson appears to be on top of are the PWC partner charge out rates and the PWC fees generated to date; and to think we are adding another £650+ partner to the team! We don’t need more of the same we just need fewer and better.