LEGAL ACTION AGAINST DIRECTORS/FSC

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:17

Isn't it time to stop pussy footing around and get some serious pressure on the IOM by instigating legal action against the directors of the bank and FSC for negligence. It is plainly obvious the IOM is scared of HMG in pursuing the recovery of the KSF UK asset so lets ramp up the pressure on them and not let them off the hook.

4.8125
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (16 votes)

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

Who is "LondonTeam"?

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 16:51

ng wrote:

" "Why could they not continue posting under their original screen names?"
Two reasons: (1) Because many people, especially newer members would not associate one with the other. Also because one or more LondonTeam members existed on this site before they became part of the London Team, therefore there would be no way of knowing which posts represented LondonTeam posts and which were individual's posts. Likewise if an individual subsequently leaves London Team the same would be true."

I am sorry ng, but your explanations leave me even more skeptical than I was before.

Why do you find it necessary to explain the motivations of persons other than yourself? Are they incapable of doing it themselves?

This sudden care about newer members not knowing who represents the London team is quite touching, but you seem to forget that even the oldest DAG members are being kept in the dark about the identity of the Central Committee aka core aka informal committee etc.

Lucky Jim warns us about wolves in sheep's clothing penetrating this site. I am no particular fan of Lucky Jim but I have no reason to believe that he is just trying to make a silly prank.

What makes you so sure that "LondonTeam" is not one of those wolves?


Creation of LondonTeam login is logical

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/02/2009 - 10:11

I find the creation of the LondonTeam login to be a logical step, because Diver is no longer posting the DAG 'voice' using his login. I used to look for his login because it was always linked to content that really needed to be read amongst all the woffle. Now it's LondonTeam that I look for, and that's ok too.


The wise skeptic

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 17:30

"Why do you find it necessary to explain the motivations of persons other than yourself? Are they incapable of doing it themselves?"

To save time. I happened to be reading this thread. It's called teamwork.

jkk, with respect, this is starting to seem like deja vu . There is no "core" group and hasn't been for months. There is the London Team, with whom I work closely. There is the informal committee membership of which is published elsewhere on this site, and is simply a communication channel between DAG and IoMG. There are also a number of splinter groups, none of which I am personally involved with.

“The wise skeptic does not teach doubt but how to look for the permanent in the mutable and fleeting.”

I would suggest: Be suspicious of those whose contributions here seem designed as deliberately disruptive, especially if repeatedly or exclusively so. Listen to those of whom the reverse is true.

I suggest we stop wasting time and energy with this (put simply, no further comment.)


Who pays?

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:50

How will you fund this action?


Legal Action

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:59

It is my understanding that legal action can/could occur in 2 ways, either by the LP, but only when KSFIOM is actually in liquidation or by ourselves via legal representation, which we would need to and have been funding. One problem as I see it is, if we vote for a SoA (as presently defined by Alix Partners- but under review )we cannot take legal action, if we vote for DCS, then we can.

Whether it is done by PWC or ourselves, I think you will find we will pay for it either directly or via PWC costs

If you wish to contribute to the legal fund then there is information on the public site to allow you to do this


legal action

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 11:12

The problem for bond holders is we don't get a vote on the SOA - that pleasure goes to our life companies. Maybe we should get the legal action in before the SOA vote. I'm prepared to contribute to the legal fund and have been doing regularly.


Payout to bondholders?

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 11:33

Bondholders cannot vote
Bondholders do not get £50k from DCS

How would bondholders benefit from your proposed action?
(To achieve 100% for every one we must include bondholders, small companies etc.)


bondholders

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 12:34

I am primarily suggesting this tactic to persuade IOM to recognise its responsibilities and compensate everyone 100%, rather than the SOA route which is no good to bond holders as i see it. This tactic might put the wind up them and force their hand in buying the bank themselves or getting a loan from HMG using the KSF UK deposit as collateral


Bondholders DCS/SoA

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 12:50

I must have misunderstood something. I was under the impression that DCS did not pay out to individual bondholders, whereas the SoA would.


Bondholders DCS/SoA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 09:27

Please check this post from Diver.. it contains answers to this issue from the IoM government.
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/bond-holders-and-65-misinfo...


BONDHOLDERS DCS/SOA

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 16:40

DCS = LIQUIDATION OF BANK. Bondholders are treated like any other depositor and get a percentage of any funds recovered by liquidator to the same amount as a depositor. DCS just guarantees non-bondholders up to 50k.
SOA = same amount of money to bond holders/depositors but gets IOM off hook with respect to legal action/ hiding skeletons in closet regarding negligence.
IOM govt = a bunch of muppets


bondholders DCS/SoA

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 23:18

mr lynton,
thanks for the explanation. Succinct and to the point !
Also I think your description of DCS is better than the one posted by the London Team and headed " clarification"

not sure I have the bottle to point this out to them!


AS IT STANDS BONDHOLDERS WOULD BE BETTER OFF UNDER SoA

  • zoggy
  • 13/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 17:31

I had a long conversation with my insurance company yesterday who confirmed that bondholders would effectively get up to 65% of their monies returned under SoA and a percentage of any further monies recovered. Bondholders would of course not get the £50k under DCS. I am happy to contribute further to the legal fund but only on the understanding that bondholders are treated exactly the same as depositors. At the present that is not the case.


As I understand it

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 19:14

.....they are anticipating about 60-65% return on ALL deposits, whether the DCS or the SOA is used. That means that EVERYBODY (Bondholders included) would get that back, less costs (and it's worth bearing in mind that someone posted a while back that the last time this happened, with the Shepards Fund, the costs were approx 30% - so the depositors got about 30% back ,and the liquidators got the other 30% (approximately) in costs).

But anyway, if the overall return is 65%, bondholders get that whether SOA or liquidation plus DCS is used.

The 50k under the DCS is ONLY a "top-up"! so if a depositor had 50K, and the return was 50%, they would get 25K from the liquidation and 25K from the DCS.

The bondholders aren't really covered by the DCS so the lower the return from the liquidation, the more they lose out. That's where a SOA would convey an advantage to DCS for bondholders. But the current form of the SOA removes all legal rights to pursue other parties. If you had 100K in a bond, at 65% return, you would get more than 50K back from the liquidation and not get a penny extra from the SOA - so would you vote for it and lose your legal right to sue anyone else for the remainder of your money?

I could be wrong in my interpretation here, it's just the impression I get from other posts. Our real problem is that we haven't been given enough information to choose between the two (lousy) alternatives, and yet we are all trying to choose anyway!

Wouldn't it be better for us all to wait until we have seen the "final version" of hte SOA and heard what our lawyers (and maybe Mike Simpson, who is the only person in all this legally bound to act in our collective interest) have to say about it? IMHO the lawyers are the only ones who are likely to tell us how to calculate whether the final SOA offered is in each of our individual interests or not.

Here goes another donation to the legal fund!


As I understand it...

  • Mortimer
  • 14/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 11:51

Brokefirefly,

I'm not sure which way to turn currently (Prudential bond holder >£500,000), there is a huge amount of speculation here and its difficult to separate it from the facts. However in your posting you say:

'The bondholders aren't really covered by the DCS so the lower the return from the liquidation, the more they lose out. That's where a SOA would convey an advantage to DCS for bondholders. But the current form of the SOA removes all legal rights to pursue other parties. If you had 100K in a bond, at 65% return, you would get more than 50K back from the liquidation and not get a penny extra from the SOA - so would you vote for it and lose your legal right to sue anyone else for the remainder of your money?'

As I see it - I can't vote for anything - the Prudential will do this on my behalf. This would mean therefore that THEY loose their rights to persue other avenues for regaining my money, but it wont stop me..


IOM Lawyers view

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 12:46

I agree we need the IOM to wake up to the fact that their regulator the FSC is going to be sued for negligence or some other cause and that this will irreparable undermine their finance industry.

Our IOM lawyer should be able to advise on whether there is a simple writ that can be issued as a marker of our intentions.


Actions & Info

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 17:17

Can I suggest you read the forum topic done by the London Team, as put into the shout box, it may answer some of your questions

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/london-team-report


Writ against the FSC between now and 19th

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 10:07

TD - if you are referrring to my question then yes I've read that note from the London Team and no it doesn't answer my question. I asking if a writ (or similar instrument) can be issued between now and 19th Feb against the FSC in negligence as a marker to the IOM Gov't that we are serious. They appear to think we are not and are taking a large risk. The ultimate cost of failing to act could be many multiples of acting now.

This could be done by a single individual who if chosen carefully could be a safe stalking horse for the rest of us.


Urgent! Writ Against FSC, KSFIoM & IoMG

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 12:12

BC, good for you!

This is a phenomenal proposal, probaly the first one on this forum that really makes sense. We absolutely must do it and we should not limit our accusations to FSC. IoMG and KSFIoM board of directors must be named in that writ as well.

Such action if carried out before 19 would very neatly pre-empt any "moratorium (...) preventing creditors from bringing proceedings against KSFIOM" which AlixP are trying to smuggle into the terms of SoA.

Too bad that Our Beloved Leader and His Central Committee have already wasted £26,000 on some legal clowns whose "professional services" proved to be completely worthless. But there is still time to do things right.

Would someone on the IoM Team be able to verify what would be required to have such writ issued before 19 January?


Writ BC/jkk

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 13:04

Would a single target before 19 February be sufficient, or do we need to target all the usual suspects?

as for "information hidden deep in filing cabinets", do any DAG members unknown to the London team have an index... just an idle thought.


Writ

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 13:27

The target or targets that need to be aimed at are I believe being put into sights by our legal team (Edwin & Coe) - but you also need to prove that there is a case to be answered, otherwise you are wasting money, time and effort as such. I dont think a scattergun approach is the best way forward.
At present I personally am trying to uncover official records of KSFIOM and associated companies, which our legal bods may be able to use to piece together some of the history of this saga and perhaps bring to light those that we need to 'target'. This info will be sent via the londonteam to our legal rep (Edwin & Coe), its then up to them if they can use it or not, its what they are good at and get paid for.
As to timescale, that is something else for the legal team, I would imagine, to be aware of.
My comment is my opinion


Timing and intent

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 13:21

In which case TD we're only discussing timing and following through words with actions.

I've contacted the London team and all I'd like to know is it/has it been considered. I still feel the 14/19th of Feb are watershed days and therefore action prior to those dates may be more valuable in terms of impact.


IOM Writ

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 12:06

TD, appreciate in the medium-long-term our English lawyers will identify a party(s) and cause(s) of action. What I am asking for in the short-term is a IOM legal view on a stalking horse action in the Manx courts before 19th Feb.

This would be a signal to the IOM Gov't that the costs of inaction are likely to be substantial. At present they seem to see the SoA or even liquidation as away to protect themselves and IOM tax payers.

If a single depositor was carefully selected my question is could an writ (or equivilant action) be started prior to the 19 Feb. The movement of money to the UK would certainly suggest in English law a cause against both the regulator and the directors.

Consider both the message to the IOM Gov't and additonal publicity we can generate.


IOM Writ

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 12:49

I understand where you are coming from and where you want things to go, Unfortunately I am not an expert on either IOM or English. Maybe your suggestion is already in hand by our legal reps, and they are keeping their 'powder dry'. Having re read some docs on the public site and letters/emails sent to the Tynwald and FSC recently from members in the DAG forum, that IOMG would be totally aware legal action is imminent, unless the pull their finger out - whether they do or not is up to them


ask london team

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 12:12

BC why don't you forward your question to London Team who can ask the lawyers?? Could be an important lead.


Who hides behind LondonTeam screen name?

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 14:21

Swiss, do you really know who hides behind LondonTeam screen name?

LondonTeam's user profile says he/she has been a member for three days and 16 hours. And LondonTeam is "not prepared to answer" if he/she is a depositor.

What makes you sure this is not a government's new trick to lead us quietly to the slaughter?


LondonTeam identitiy

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 14:40

I can confirm that LondonTeam is just that - DAG London Team - This was announced here, though of course you are right, that could have been a false post. Please rest assured that the "user" LondonTeam represents what it says - in practice it may be any one of the team members posting under that collective name.


Who is LondonTeam?

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 15:25

If that is so, why was it necessary to create this fictitious character of "LondonTeam" who is not prepared to answer if he/she is a depositor? Why could they not continue posting under their original screen names?


Verification of "LondonTeam" identity

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 15:45

"If that is so, "

It is.

"why was it necessary to create this fictitious character of "LondonTeam" who is not prepared to answer if he/she is a depositor?"

Because saying "yes" would give the wrong count to our data, saying "no" wouldn't really be true. I could add an extra option "none of the above" so they can choose that.

"Why could they not continue posting under their original screen names?"
Two reasons: (1) Because many people, especially newer members would not associate one with the other. Also because one or more LondonTeam members existed on this site before they became part of the London Team, therefore there would be no way of knowing which posts represented LondonTeam posts and which were individual's posts. Likewise if an individual subsequently leaves London Team the same would be true.


who is

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 15:31

well if I was one of that team, and all members had my user name I would probably be inudated with emails and not do the job I should be doing


Who is LondonTeam?

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 15:44

Not true. You can easily disable email contact in your user profile.


You're right to be concerned,

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 14:35

You're right to be concerned, I'm just going on the postings that they have made which seemed genuine. I haven't contacted them personally so can't help.


Writ TD BC/jkk

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 15:38

TD
I appreciate your comment and have no doubts as to competence and industriousness of London team/DAG lawyers.
Thank you to all of them.

We do all benefit from co-operation, we share our stories/situations, different aspects of which provide good PR and good ammunition at different times. The PR attached to ex-pats without UK bank accounts and the ammunition now
associated with the S&F takeover and sale of DIoM to KSF are examples of this sharing.

However people do still feel obliged by their personal commitments to take what they see as appropriate action:
the now (in)famous example is the 9 letters submitted at the 29 January IoM court hearing. The 9 people were expressing their own point of view. Some of them had been described to DAG membership as team leaders.

In this particular instance there may be people with enough incentive / information / funds to take action.
They are free to do so and would be unlikely to harm the DAG cause.

Have just read the London Team response to Lucky Jim:

I do agree with the London team re their highly effective PR machine... fantastic!
also re their legal team and the 21 day adjournment and the current work in progress... good news!
again, many thanks.


Writ/Legal Action

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 10:48

BC - like all legal actions/writs etc, it is necessary to have enough 'evidence' in place to make them worthwhile following. This I believe is what is going on at the moment, hence the call from the London Team for all who can, to donate to the legal fund, so that this work can continue. Information and research is continuing 24 hours a day to try and prove what can be proved, but as you will know, a lot of the information that is being sought, is hidden deep in the 'filing cabinet'.
More information is I believe coming to light every hour, so it is probably a very fluid situation for those invovled, and is also why from time to time it is difficult I guess for them to keep the rest of us updated more often.
For one I have in any contact I have had with IOMG via emails etc or via Manx radio, not held back in the aspect, that one of our options as a Group, is to take legal action against whoever is responsible.


Stalking Horse

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 11:36

Agree with all you say - with the exception that after 19th Feb the game changes. A writ in the English law system at least can be used as a marker for showing intent. It can also be used for discovery/disclosure purposes.

Any DAG group action will almost certainly not be possible this side 19th Feb.

I only asked that consideration was given to this route as a further example to the IOM Gov't that in trying to avoid cost to themselves now they are likely to incurred substantial greater costs, both directly in compensation claims and indirectly in terms of reputation and lost economic activity.


re stalking horse

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 11:17

TD
are you looking for a depositor to whom a particular set of circumstances applies?
if so how will the London team know they have the most effective example?


re stalking horse

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 11:22

No, I'm not looking for a particular depositor at all. I assume that if legal action is taken it would be in the same fashion as the DAGs representation in the Court hearings ie as a Group


Stalking Horse

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 23:52

I have written to "The London Team" asking if they have considered this approach prior to 19th Feb. I'll let you know if I receive a response. All I would like is a yes/no and a reason if no, no great consulation process required.

Meanwhile I believe we may have a candidate who fits the profile I believe would be ideal for this role. An action at this stage does not and almost certainly could not be be in the name of DAG - as DAG is not a legal person.

Just to reiterate this is about ensuring that the IOM Gov't, FSC and Directors of the Bank are left in no doubt that a failure to ensure 100% of saving back (our aim remember) will lead to them being held accountable and ultimately costing the IOM a greater sum of money.

I believe cause is prima facie already obvious in the case of the Directors and the FSC.


BC - any answer?

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/02/2009 - 15:18

BC re: stalking horse

Any answer yet?


Stalking horse

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/02/2009 - 10:13

BC

Have just reread the Report from the London Team and noticed this comment:

"depositors need to get out of the mindset that there must be a single route to get 100% return. There is more than one way to get our cash back................. this is something that our lawyers are looking at closely."

I hope they are paying due attention to your suggestion re stalking horse.


Stalking Horse

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/02/2009 - 20:55

No nothing.

So far I've been happy to contribute to legal fees but I for one want to see more openess and where possible dialogue. The old way of just pay up and trust us for me does not work.


Stalking horse

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/02/2009 - 00:08

BC

Affidavits have to be submitted by 12 Feb for next IoM court hearing,

Is this timing relevant to the idea of action involving a stalking horse?


Stalking Horse

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/02/2009 - 00:32

Coldlightofday, I believe every day counts from here up to and including the 19th Feb. I've now had a reply from the London Team. They've reasured me that they have various options that they are working so for now happy to leave it with them.

For me what remains essential is to ensure that all parties know that should the 19th Feb arrive and KSFIOM enters liquidation the costs of resolving 100% of our desposits is going to increase markedly and the IOM will suffer.