LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT NEXT LIQUIDATION HEARING

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 29/10/2008 - 21:39

It would seem appropriate and prudent to ensure that we have legal representation at the next liquidation hearing which is due on 21 November. We, as one of the largest creditors of KSFIOM, need to make sure we have a say in what happens going forward and need to know we are making informed decisions for the right legal reasons. Also, we need to be able to appoint the liquidator of our choice and not one with other agendas.

We have done some research on this matter and we believe that, to have someone represent us at the meeting and do all the research for us to make sure we have all the facts, will cost in the region of £2,000 - £3,000. Bearing in mind how many of us there are that shouldn't be too hard on anyone's pocket.

I appreciate that there are some of us in serious dire situations and clearly I do not expect them to contribute to this. However, I do expect that if we go ahead with this that as many people as possible contribute - this is something for all of us not just a select group.

A POLL IS NOW RUNNING (SEE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN) PLEASE VOTE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY

Thanks.

0
Your rating: None

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

Next Liquidation Hearing - DATE??

  • Yogi
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 10:14

Apologies if I haven't been paying attention, I suffer from PMT (permanently mushy thoughts!) but I have seen two different dates for this - 21st & 27th Nov. I have just checked the KSF page again and they definitely say 27th @ 10am, but I have seen it several places as 21st too. Please can someone clarify for me?

Like everyone else my husband & I are agonising over following the right course of action, we are constantly mulling over the legal action route. Hoping very much that Monday may produce something positive? and make a decision after then.

Dithering never pays off, but these are such unchartered waters for us all.

Just to repeat the sentiments again, many thanks to all for the great site (lifeline), the London & IOM teams and many nameless others, we are deeply indebted.


hearing date and tme

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 01/11/2008 - 00:31

27 Nov, 9am until 2pm, may be extended


IOM Govt must have legal team?

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 08:53

Surely the IOM Govt itself must be putting together a legal team - to recover the GBP10million it had in KSFIOM?


IOMG - legal team

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 01/11/2008 - 00:39

An advocate from the Attorney General;s chambers appeared for the Treasury


IOM Treasury

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 01/11/2008 - 00:32

It has - it made an appearance at the past hearing


IOM Advocate

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:43

The following advocate has been recommended to me:

Alex Spencer
Advocate
For and on behalf of
Simcocks Advocates Limited
Ridgeway House, Ridgeway Street, Douglas, Isle of Man IM99 1PY
Tel +44 (0)1624 690300 Fax +44 (0)1624 690333

Brian, do you want to contact him. Shall I? Anybody have any objection to this guy or prefer someone else?


contact has been made with

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:03

contact has been made with simcocks thanks guys, we are talking, but there may be a problem, will report when we know more


Expat

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:15

Elgee has made some enquiries too and come up with a few names, some will be happy to represent us as a whole group and i think he has some figures for the how much aspect as well


yes thats fine with me, make

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:31

yes thats fine with me, make sure that driver is in the loop please


No worries Expat

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:35

I'm in very frequent contact with Elgee...especially about this.


just wanted to make sure that

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:45

just wanted to make sure that we are all treading the same path, so many voices i can't always keep up


Expat - I'm with you guys,

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 09:14

Expat - I'm with you guys, clearly a united front is the best, so whatever you decide vis a vis legal representation is fine with me, so long as there is legal representation. I don't know how many depositors participate in this forum, assuming that a portion of the 10,000 either have no access to computers, have money deposited elsewhere and don't care, lurk on the site or have just decided to sit things out in a bubble and let others do the donkey work.

However many we are participating, planning and enduring this hell together, I'm convinced there are enough to cover costs, which would be forthcoming in the event of victory and the return of our money. I'm not sure what happens if we retain counsel and it fails - but I don't even want to contemplate failure at this stage.

The only thing I would stress at this point is that we have to move quickly - November 27 is not so far off and whoever we select to front us needs time to prepare.


IOM Adviser - Brian/Podcar

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:21

Podcar/Brian

I think we need to clarify a couple of points.

Brian, as far as I can tell, you are advocating a "macro" approach (where the law firm acts as our advocate at all levels and coordinates with local advisers (I am thinking here of IOM and Iceland in particular). I'd venture to suggest that the blue chip City firms may feel a little uneasy about representing a large group of individuals with perhaps conflicting priorities and interests if that group is not carefully managed - if nothing else it runs the risk of being very expensive. I am not against this in principle, but I think it is a question of timing of appointment and coordination with the group here.

I know you have offered to act as a liaison, which is very generous and public-spirited of you, and I applaud that. I will gladly support you as best I can in this, but we need to walk into this with our eyes wide open in terms of cost, and how that is funded, and also to develop a protocol for ensuring that groups of interests (depositors/inflight transfers/pensions/bondholders/small businesses/anyone else) are clearly defined and communicated with.

Podcar - I think that you (and the poll) are talking about IOM legal representation at the hearing. Originally, I was against doing anything too hasty on this front, as there simply wasn't enough information in the public domain to build a case. I am starting to think otherwise now, and I am almost certain that the fall-out from the TSC meeting on Monday and the upcoming announcement from GMR will mean that it will be a very good idea to have somebody lined up to be there at the hearing fighting our depositors' corner specifically.

Interesting you mention Simcocks. I have already been in touch with them and got them to agree that they won't act for anyone else on this matter without checking with me first. There's been a problem with the relatively limited number of law firms on the IOM and the amount of interests out there conflicting them. Dickinson Cruickshank are one firm I found out can't act for us, for example, as they're conflicted. I spoke with (amongst others) Rob Lindley there, who I gather is a respected lawyer specialising in insolvency matters.

My own background is that I was a City banking lawyer for over ten years, I dealt with all the magic circle firms (Allen & Overy, Linklaters, Freshfields, Clifford Chance) and others who'd like to be magic circle, before I moved inhouse and became a consumer of legal services; so, if you like, I've seen the business from both sides.


Legal conflicts

  • pwakeham
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 22:22

I spoke with a former Linklaters partner today re UK issues. he checked and came back with the view that Linklaters and probably the whole magic circle are almost certainly conflicted. I also believe that we need to appoint lawyers and should start thinking about how to fund this. A discussion on what action to consider taking would make sense. We could possibly join with Icelandic Govt action v UK Government. At the same time, we might want to join in action against the Icelandic Govt. IOM authorities should be considering this.


Actually, when I first posted

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:52

Actually, when I first posted the idea of retaining counsel, I wasn't referring to representation at the hearing. I was thinking more in terms of going on the offensive and finding out what our legal position is and what can be done to get our money returned to us via the courts.

However, I see nothing wrong with having legal representation at the hearing. I think we shouldn't presuppose the direction legal advice would take but rather have a delegation go meet with a lawyer and take it from there.

So now we have a name, what next? I feel hampered by the fact that I'm thousands of miles away. I'd love to come to the IOM and take over the reins, but - and I suspect I'm not the only one - I don't have enough money.


Dear Knife Edge, I like the clear way you write.....

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:50

Dear Knife Edge, I like the clear way you write.....

Is it better to split the depositors up into different classes eg., individuals, bondholders, in-flighters, small businesses etc?

Wouldn't the bondholders be already represented by, eg. NU or AXA appointed solicitors etc?

I personally have been thinking mainly of the individual depositors in what I have been writing

Also, have you read about the appointment by the 'New Kaupthing Bank' of Deloitte's to liaise with individual non -Icelandic depositors?

Wouldn't Deloittes be a fairly good 'one-stop shop' for us getting info as to what is happening from the Icelandic side? Wouldn't the appointment by us of a top UK/City firm get us access to all possible info needed from London?

I think if we achieved these two it would be easy to handle the IOM side?

Brian


Brian F - legal representation & conflicts

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 10:53

Brian

Thanks - I see that this has been taken up by the "core team" now. As regards groups of petitioners, it is important to bear in mind that, while this action group has a common goal - to get all our money back, there is a very real chance of a direct conflict of interests between the "in-flight transfers" and the depositors (some, like me, may have that conflict themselves, as I fall into both camps, but in my case I fall much more heavily into the depositors' one).

I don't think I'm stating anything that hasn't been said elsewhere before when I say that clearly the "in-flighters" want their money out of the KSFIOM net, while the provisional liquidator will want their cash in it (and it would economicallly benefit the depositors for that to be the case) - provided that's the legal position.

If Deloittes are looking after New Kaupthing, their interests are not at all aligned with ours (unless there are some undisclosed conditions to the IMF bail-out). I think GMR would be a better bet (just checked their website, nothing new there) - but note that will get us into a possible suit against the UK, which you said was not something you wanted to get into at this stage (a sentiment I agree with - while we're on the subject of conflicts, the UK government of course has the biggest one).

As regards a London law firm, I'm just not sure what info a big City law firm would get for us that we haven't already been able to get: the teams in London and IOM are doing a great job. As long as the order putting KSFUK into administration remains sealed, there's very little that I can see that can be done at a procedural court level (unless we want a judicial review of that decision and the decision to put KSFUK into administration itself, which no-one has seriously suggested - yet).

It may be worth briefing a firm by giving them our position paper, but that wouldn't take them long to digest that as it's clear and well-researched.

I do think it is worth identifying the firm we're going to use, and clearing the way to appointing them, so that we are ready to act swiftly - that won't cost anything and means that the decks are clear when we want to push the button. Having said that, the costs of digesting the position paper wouldn't be astronomical either. The thing is, that once they start work, they will follow every twist and turn with us and that costs money - better (and cheaper) to instruct them when we have as much information and as clear a position as possible and then get them to work quickly. I'm sure you charged by the hour as well and will be fully familiar with this dynamic - I know I did and am.

KE


"in-flighters"

  • softlad66
  • 10/10/08 27/04/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 11:39

Knife Edge - please keep in mind that the amount of money the "in-flighters" group is pursuing through legal action is relatively small and will make no tangible difference to the overall position of other depositors. Therefore, the conflict of interests you have described is not as significant as you make out.


Deloittes issue

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 02:06

Maybe I am being stupid, but having re-read this announcement it appears to be limited to creditors of Kaupthing hf and its "international branches". I think the latter may mean "its branches outside Iceland" and is distinct from its subsidiaries (eg. KSF(IOM)), which is a separate legal entity and not a branch of Kaupthing hf.


Brian Fisher

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 21:21

I would like to discuss these matters with you if you can give me a call, please.


Elgee: What number are you on ?.....

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 23:02

Elgee: What number are you on ? I would be happy to call and discuss this question in particular of legal representation. i think it is necessary to discuss this verbally.

My UK mobile is +44. (0)7803902763. Or you can email me a number if you want on brian(?)brian-fisher [dot] com.

Thanks

BF


Don't forget statement tomorrow by Grundberg

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:14

As was mentioned this morning (UK time) of web site of Grundberg Mocatta Rakison - where there is statement regarding depositors in KSFIOM who have approached them "...We are currently considering whether we can act for depositors in this regard. We fully expect to be able to make a further statement by 31st Oct.2008"
They are representing Kaupthing Bank (I think).


Our legal representation MUST be strategic, not tactical...

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:25

I am interested to see what GMR say tomorrow. They may not be able to represent depositors because of conflict concerns.

In any event, we need to approach legal representation in the widest possible STRATEGIC way, not in a simple, narrow tactical way.

We need a firm of at least the same weight as GMR which can deal with, and represent us at, the highest levels of the government and financial authorities, as well as vis a vis top accountants, lawyers and the media and have top barristers on hand - and to be able to achieve this in all the relevant jurisdictions - UK, IOM, Iceland or wherever.

Anything else will be a waste of time and money.

We have a lot of firepower to be able to agree a good fee deal with the best in the profession.

BF


Difference

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:40

There is a big difference between having a solicitor advise us and the represent us at the liquidation hearing and a solicitor who will wish to appoint council in a huge litigation hearing.

This particular avenue is only for the former and NOT the latter. As I'm sure you'll appreciate the latter route is very very very expensive and so far our research hasn't dug up anyone who would take this on a % of recovery basis.

I do not propose at this stage to ask people to pay out for measures that we are not sure will need to be taken yet. Yes, we need to have contingencies in place should we need to take drastic action but I don't believe the time for that is just yet. Money is a very scarce comodity for a lot of people here and we need to make sure that any funds we request are absolutely necessary.

I appreciate that some of you would like to start suing the UK government right now but please think of the costs...do you really want to throw thousands of pounds (and it will be a lot of thousands!) in the direction of Lawyers if we don't yet need to?


This is not the time for suing the UK government....

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:50

I personally would definitely agree this is not the time for suing the UK government, but I think it IS the time to cut out a lot of conjecture and guesswork and appoint a firm that can liaise easily with the likes of PWC, E&Y, Deloittes, the various Treasuries, FSA's etc, and eke out the FACTS in all this.

Its not even a question of law at this stage! - How can we know what detailed areas of law we are dealing with until we know the full facts?

BF


did you know KPMG are the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 10:27

did you know KPMG are the auditors for KSF UK? Now maybe they need to be looked at as well Brian, take a good look at the 2007 KSF UK report.


Employing the services of a law firm

  • Ashoker
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:49

I agree with what Diver has to say on this subject. However, it would not hurt to make some enquiries re. a suitable law firm in case we need to go down that road. So if somebody is prepared to do the necessary spade work so as to have the right people provisionally in place - I have no objection.


Brian FISHER: With your legal

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:27

Brian FISHER: With your legal background, can you not select a firm that you believe would best represent us?


I can think of a number of possibilities....

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:37

I can think of a number of possibilities. who could handle this - the best. Freshfields, Linklaters, etc., there are a number, and it is in their wider interests to be involved in this

But my own view there needs to be a meeting asap, for example, of people who are London-based, to discuss this whole question of legal representation.

I am quite sure it would be best to begin this in London, not the IOM.

The best, top firms would have departments that can handle all possibilities that may arise - even if matters of criminal law begin to appear.

We need a real strategy in place, and the top firms will know how to do this.

I am confident I know most of the questions in this matter. We need a top firm that may know, hopefully, all the answers.

BF


london golden circle of firms

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:05

Brian, hi. my sister is an attorney at one of those firms in the UK. Our parents have lost everything in this debacle. She already has us in contact with the best of the best banking litigaters on insolvency matters. happy to talk to you and diver directly if needs be.


Happy to call

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 07:45

Would be happy to call you to discuss this if you would like, just email me contact details. Thanks.


London Golden Circle Firms

  • two time loser
  • 10/10/08 21/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 18:56

liebank

Would your sister's firm consider taking this on a part or wholly contingent basis? Perhaps some depositors would pay and others with limited funds accept a contingent arrangement.

There are many initiatives for legal represenattion but an arrangement like this would surely attract nearly all the depositors and make a very worthwhile claim.

Two Time Loser


Brian FISHER: With your legal

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:27

Brian FISHER: With your legal background, can you not select a firm that you believe would best represent us?


Don't ask him , it's not fair

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:32

Don't ask him , it's not fair if it goes tits up.

Ask Cherie Blair or David Knapley.


legal fee fighting fund

  • steve
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 15:44

If we are to go down the litigation route (if the political solution fails which is still our best option) how about charging all depositors (and I mean every single one of us) a percentage of their balance. Say we are owed a total of 850 million, 1% would give us a fighting fund of £8,500,000. Surely, that would give us some clout wouldn't it, or am I being too simplistic?


Agree about contributions but some wont be able to pay

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 06:13

steve, i agree with you wholeheartedly. However, there are a small percentage of folk who have been left litterally pennyless. The last 3 weeks has been a struggle for basics (food & toiletries are the main things) for some on the site.

Maybe we could ask those who couldnt pay to promise to pay if we won. But if it comes to litigation we would have already lost for those who now have nothing (sorry, drifting into unhelpful melancholy there).

Difficult one....


...and the others

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 06:17

(Missed the real killer for 'all should pay'..)

Postscript. Also, what about the depositors who wont know about the litigation; either not computer literate or dont have access. While this site has a large number of members, not all are depositors (which does make me wonder why they are here i must admit) and the total is still less than 50% of the number of KSFIOM customers.


% contribution from everyone

  • beneix
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:59

I second steve's proposal and would happily pitch in with 1% of what I otherwise stand to lose. In fact, even if my in-flight transfer should arrive, I would still be prepared to help everyone else.


its a bit of light relief at

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:37

its a bit of light relief at times, tsunamivictim, yes i will have to go back at some point can't let the fmily disintergrate, hope you are okay well as best you cn be in the circumstances


in the circumstances

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:08

Well, have been better. Dogs and I on reduced rations....depends on how much fish we can catch each day...70 plus dogs takes a lot of feeding....
Where is Robindon Crusoe when I need him!!


You're lucky - If I go back,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:41

You're lucky - If I go back, then the family WILL disintegrate.

I'm better here where I can wrought out my aggression on a lump of badly welded 316 stainless.


i'm in suggest we get

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 15:52

i'm in suggest we get cold-doses opinion as to whom, on the matter of signatories i will have to go back to moscow at some point, so that probably counts me out.


fighting amongst ourselves

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:31

Can I suggest we stop all this tooing and froing about Barrie etc etc. Its irrelevent and wastes energy and time. Expat has to return at some point to Moscow..,.hes done an amazing job....we should be standing 100% behind him instead of wasting so much space talking about rubbish who said/he said/etc etc
Its not imporant. What is important is supporting those people like Expat and Diver who are working so hard to get our money back.
Tsunasmivictim


support for Expat

  • Kev
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:40

Yes, lets support Expat, he really is doing an excellent job for all of us.


Support for others too

  • Kev
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 16:44

Sorry, forgot to mention Diver and the iner circle. Please, please dont give up your momentum


Legal Representation

  • TERENCE STEVENS
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 15:21

Yes in principle, but it depends of what this is likely to achieve. To my mind representation at the hearing is a backstop after a lot of other things have happened and failed. What we need to do now, as the whole depositor group, is sue the UK government for theft. The bare bones are that the freezing of KSF Ltd's has included £537m of KSF IOM's assets, I assume the loan book or similar. Amazingly, this action, taken under a very doubtful application to the anti-terrorist laws is being taken to liquidation and already their investment management business and their capital management businesses have been sold off for cash and a management buy out respectively. Also theft. So much so that as you know the Iceland government have this morning announced the hiring of Lovells, a top litigation law firm, to challenge this action in court, amongst other things. We need to follow suit. And the opportune time is now. Now another reason is this. The 24th liquidation hearing was postponed at the request of the treasury as high level negotiations were taken place. We do not know what these are. The FT is of the opinion that a political settlement between the UK government and Iceland is likely rather than a court case. We need to ensure that this includes us in the right structure: that is, approximately, KFS IOM gets its loan book back and then the business is handed back under guarantee to Kaupthing hf so that eventually normal business can be resumed and the deposits released. We have to be part of an overall settlement with the other UK K hf assets.
As far as costs are concerned my first option would be to find a London law firm who is willing to take this on on a success fee basis. Feel free to put this proposal to the vote and comment if necessary


Barrie's Brother

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/10/2008 - 08:11

Terence Stevens...Never heard of him! I have no brother! He is no relation. We're just a common lot with same name.


Are you Barrie's brother

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 15:33

Are you Barrie's brother then? Where did you get the idea that the hearing was postponed at the request of the Treasury, who drove that decision? Where have you been before 1 hour ago?


Are you Barrie's brother

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:09

I'm sure I am not the only one who is wondering what the IOM Treasury and FSA etc are actually doing. Is this the current situation or am I entirely wrong -
Postpone the liquidation - they don't have to pay out a penny yet
Let the UK Government act for them in talks with Iceland - they don't have pay out a penny yet
Let Kaupthing use IOM solicitors to sue UK Government - they don't have to pay out a penny yet
Make press releases re the new depositors guarantee scheme - they don't have to pay out a penny yet


And be a joint petitioner

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 17:12

And be a joint petitioner which very cleverly gets them out of - not paying a penny yet.