Lack of news

  • Roman2005
  • 04/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 01/09/2009 - 20:17

Why is it taking PWC so long to issue the meeting notes/minutes following the meeting of the creditors inspection commitee that took place almost 2 weeks ago. The Kaupthing website indicated these would be posted within a fewd days not weeks!!

If PWC are too busy dealing with the Sept 4th first dividend it would be nice of the inspection commitee representatives to provide some form of update. Afterall they are supposed to be representing all depositors. I do appreciate that some level of confidentilaity has been agreed too but we deserve at least some level of update on our money!!

Could the DST also provide an update on the state of play and when and how other depositors are going to be able to pose questions and have them channelled through to Mike Simpson.

One question I would like answering is why the JJB shares were sold for peanuts!! They were so low in value at the time they were sold it was absolutely ridiculous to sell them!! Why were these shares treated so differently from the Brooker shares which were held on to and returned a decent return as the markets recovered ?

4.142855
Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (7 votes)

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

Re: Lack of news

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 01/09/2009 - 21:12

Hi

I understand your frustration about not getting any news following the CC meeting.

I've been in touch with PwC about the lack of an update and they have explained that a few issues relating to the dividend have meant that regrettably the update on the CC meeting has not been posted as promptly as they originally indicated it would or would have liked. They have assured me that it will be put up as soon as possible now, i.e. they are aiming to put it up tomorrow together with an announcement regarding the first distribution.

The reason no-one from the CC can put up a summary of the meeting is, as you correctly surmised, because of the terms of the confidentiality undertaking that was required from them.

KE


@Knife Edge- Yes or No?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 11:19

Now that the minutes of the CC meeting have been posted and bearing in mind the confidentiality agreement please can you tell us if you were on the whole happy with the CC meeting?

This is a Yes or No question .


Knife Edge

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 02/09/2009 - 21:08

As there has been no announcement I think we can assume that an assurance from PwC is as much use as a chocolate tea pot.
I feel that the members we have elected to the committee could at least post something on here as a holding statement, confirming the difficulties referred to by PwC so can have have some degree of confidence that we are not just being stonewalled and held in contempt by those we are effectively paying to get the money back.
Shame on everyone involved in this fiasco.
John


PwC

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 02/09/2009 - 22:16

Hi

I am one of the members you elected to the CC, and that posting from me above was essentially a holding statement, based on what PwC told me. MS has told me this evening that he is putting the posting up tomorrow. He told me the same thing yesterday. On this, I can only report what he tells me.

I can't comment on why he won't put something up himself as a holding statement, or why it has taken an organisation so large so long to do something that is (to my mind) so simple - all I can say is that it has not escaped my notice, that I am seeking to hold PwC to their undertakings, and that I will draw his attention to this thread now (11.20PM UK time).

KE


KE

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 06:38

As i did not know that the monica knife edge related to a member of the CC as it was not mentioned in the update I stand by what I said. There are things happening and promises made that are not being kept and the vast majority of people are still in the dark as to whether they will receive 22.1% tomorrow or more and what should have been in the updates. Presumably you must know what it is that is keeping them from updating the CC minutes otherwise they would not be reflective of the committee meeting. I am simply asking that if things are going to be delayed after promises made that the depositors are kept updated in a timely manner. They made a statement to you and could not even manage to keep that promise.
John


@thesunnysouth

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 07:39

John/thesunnysouth

I wasn't asking you to resile from what you'd said, nor do I disagree with what you and others have said; I should have clarified the basis for my making that statement, but it is of course open to people to get in touch with MS themselves. As I said above, I understand and share the frustration with the process and the inordinate delays - in my post I was simply trying to share what information I had and was able to share.

I know what PwC say was keeping them from posting the minutes, and it relates to work on the loan book and the mechanics of making the first dividend payment; as I am not in the office with them, it's hard for me to assess that statement. Having got in touch with them again, and received a draft of the minutes this morning, I'd say they will be posted today once the CC have been through and approved the draft. An update on the dividend position will also be posted.

KE


Excuses, lack of transparency...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 02/09/2009 - 05:42

the refuge of rogues.
What have we ever had but a stream of obfuscation and excuses?
These guys 'might' be trying but they are accustomed to hiding behind justifiable(?) delays. "Commercial in confidence" is exactly how we got into this mess, and those still in power are determined to maintain this cover. We might like to ask who exactly this "commercial confidentiality" is designed to protect? I don't think anybody except the guilty believe it's ourselves. Rather grand issues but it doesn't hurt to point them up repeatedly, and at least every time they are offered as defence for possibly self-defensive actions on behalf of the banksters, and let us be clear, we are in the hands of 'the banksters'.
These guys could at least post a 'holding post', but of course they always choose not to, which indicates a specific type of arrogant and lazy attitude. Shame on them, and I really mean that. It indicates clearly a lack of respect, and they manage to maintain this level of disrespect because there is no effective challenge.
I hope Mr Simmons becomes aware of this posting and manages slightly more than a moment of reflection over this, I think he is suffering from an understandably inflated opinion of his real role in the situation. He might realise that he operates in damage limitation like the IoMG. Socially his role is indeed such, to a certain extent, I just feel he is flexing the envelope a little too much. Those that the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. And madness might be described as a total disjunction between different realities. He doesn't quite realise the level of hostility extant about the activities of his employers. It's a slow boil situation. I guess the French royalty never imagined what might happen.


rogues

  • jingleed
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 02/09/2009 - 17:34

i don't post here much, but that is one of the best dissections of a bent b@stard that i have read in quite some time ..thanks:)


jingleed - you are right!

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 02/09/2009 - 18:28

And to think there are those amongst us who want to deal with these rogues and b@stards...

Bring on the revolution!


We have no choice

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 10:59

We have no choice but to deal with Mike Simpson this is a court appointed position.


No choice NOW - but....

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 14:17

No Bellyup we have no choice now - but we HAD THE CHOICE and threw it away!

We deserve what we get I'm afraid. Though it grieves me to say it.


@banna: What do you mean?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 08:52

"We threw it away." This isn't a facetious question. What do you mean?


we threw it away

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 15:00

follow_the_tao

I'll try to answer your question and reply to bellyup at the same time.

After the final decision by the court to liquidate the bank we had the choice at the creditors' meeting to put forward a unanimous proposal to change the liquidator and nominate a person of our choice, or to leave things as they were with PWC as the liquidator/receiver.
As a group of creditors we were unable to present a united front because some of us were more interested in trying to shine than in trying to find the best solution for all of us. I genuinely believe that some creditors were more interested in polishing their own egos than in pursuing the path most likely to bring us the best outcome.
Whether I'm right or wrong, as a result of our disunity PWC were able to see us off with a derisory wave - and thus we threw away the only chance we would ever have of putting in place a liquidator/receiver with whom we could genuinely cooperate.
Now, there are some like bellyup, and perhaps they are even numerous, who believe that the liquidator/receivership of KSFIOM is a complex task which can be effectively carried out only by a large firm of highly experienced operators. I happen to disagree - but even if I agreed I would have to point out that PWC in the person of Mike Simpson have not shown themselves to be the smart operators that this opinion seems to find necessary.
As for complexity, it seems to me that there are only 4 issues which need to be well managed :
- realisation of the loan book. A simple task being done by former bank staff under supervision.
- management/recovery of the monies entrusted to KSF UK. Any competent accountant with appropriate legal advice could handle this situation. EY will certainly have defined their own position and clarified the figures. Our man needs to look at the figures, examine the assumptions and try to find the chink that would give us some improvement - and get good legal advice to do so.
- the parental guarantee. Whoever handles the liquidation will need to find a smart lawyer to find the right angle and mount the best campaign. The accounting element will be quite straightforward.
- somewhere there are people who carry the responsibility, or part of it, for the situation we are in. Those people are in part on IOM: perhaps Directors, perhaps FSC. Others are in London; perhaps FSA, perhaps others. The liquidator receiver needs to examine in detail what happened, decide with a smart lawyer those who might be considered to be at fault and then decide whether litigation is worthwhile or not.
Most of the really tedious work is in digging through the figures and events and most of the really clever work will be done by the lawyers. But it's going to need some courage to lead the fight on IOM and PWC have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of fighting that battle, so in my view it's lost in advance.
So where is the extreme complexity?
We needed a liquidator/receiver who had our interests at heart above all else. It's clear to me that we haven't got that. We have a timeserver who will hide behind whatever legislation best suits him


You might be right banna

  • arny
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 05/09/2009 - 06:27

But the Icelandic banking saga will be ongoing for many years, with as yet unforeseen fallout among the big boys. I have great faith in Eva Joly & her team.......... in the long term. Not much help at the moment, though I do feel very different now that I have a few pounds back. Let the world know how you feel about PWC rather than post it here. We can all help you with that.


No we dont deserve what we get

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 14:39

NO we dont deserve what we get!

There are very few firms around that have the capability to do a liquidation like this and there is no guarantee that they would be/have been any better .

I really cant see that constant derogation of the Liquidator does any good.


@bellyup: Reasoned criticism, even of God, has it's place.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 09:27

My criticism was specific "bellyup." I think that MS and PWC have multiple roles, and the role that interests them most is their own paycheck at the end of the month, and their forthcoming paychecks.
If you go to the Kaupthing IoM site and look at the posting for "September 09" (which hasn't even arrived yet - their minions couldn't even get the date right) you will find in the reference files a listing of those that attended the creditor meeting. Now look at this carefully, very carefully (and whilst you are doing this you might like to reflect that we paid for it) and start wondering why the list includes such luminaries as the rottweiler Seth Caine and PWC bigwigs that to date have not dared to surface.
My question is just what such heavyweights were doing at a 'standard' CC meeting. And the next question is the obvious one: What are these guys trying so desperately to prevent reaching the light?


Standard meeting?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 11:12

I dont really understand what you mean by a standard CC meeting?

This is not just any old liquidation the majority of companies that go into liquidation dont have any money.

With the breadth of the issues Iceland, KSFUK ,E&Y I am pleased to see some big wigs there.

I would be very concerned if i saw only junior people attempting to chase down my money - the more high powered the better!


rogues and ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/09/2009 - 15:16

I don't go in for constant derogation of the Liquidator - but I think we are entitled to express our frustrations here from time to time! I wasn't meaning to start an argument. Sorry if I over-reacted in a moment of rage against all who profit from our misery. Indeed, my comment was aimed more widely and not specifically - or even primarily - at the Liquidators.


@anriguat: You are entitled to rage.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 09:40

The situation demands rage.
What you must do is channel your rage with reason.


Thanks FTT! That is what I

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/09/2009 - 09:49

Thanks FTT! That is what I try to do.