Letter from the administrator

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 07/11/2008 - 00:42

Has anyone received a formal letter from the administrator to inform you that the bank is under administration. Or any notification at all.

Cheers Calpespain

Your rating: None

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

Letter fro KSF

  • Maud
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 19:31

I have received a letter from KSF advising me that my requested transfer of funds did not take place and therefore it is ranked as an unsecured creditor against KSFIOM and I do not have a proprietary claim against them!!!!!. The headed paper actuallys says "KSFLtd in Administration" and on the bottom given the Insolvency Practioners names. It also advised me to contact Mr Simpson if I want any further information as to where my money is!!!!. Maud

not administration

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 15:23

To be accurate the bank is in provisional liquidation, not administration.

Ya I know, but to be honest

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 02:39


Ya I know, but to be honest, to me, it has the same meaning. I have lost my money, so far or as you may say, access to it. But I have lost money too in Guernsey which has an administrator is administrator and here I know its a LP. But who cares, I made this post a month ago and somehow, it has been reposted or has reappeared.

But it is getting a response this time, so no matter how it got here, I still have heard noting form the PL or LP. The reason I asked the question was that after about 7 days I did receive notification from the administrator in Guernsey and thought at this being a much bigger operation, they could have missed me. But they have me, I have now telephoned to check.

It also said from Mike Simpson that he was contacting all depositors with a notification as of 30th September but that too has not happened. Seems they are working, hopefully, their butts off trying to secure us a very good deal.

I also know from reading the posts that you have been an extremely active member of this group which I personally would say a big thank you for. You all that are and have been involved have been amazing and,I hope that all of your work be that as individuals or collectively, will be rewarded by the return of all of our deposits. Be that, as individuals or as a corporate investor through an insurance bond.

You guys deserve to be recognized and hopefully when this is all over and we are all settled down once again with our money being returned we will not forget those that managed to secure an outcome that has benefitted us all one-way or the other.


  • callie53
  • 04/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:14

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph Calpe. I am also in Spain probably 40 mins from you.

Who is responsible for this?

  • where to now
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 10:13

I want to know the name of the person that is responsible for MY MONEY being frozen. This is my life savings for my later years - which is now. I cannot accept that somebody can simply hijack my funds, and walk away. This is a crime of the highest magnitude.
I need to contact this person face to face. Who is this person?


  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:59

The people responsible for the money being frozen are the Isle of Man Government's regulator, the FSC. They licenced and regulated KSF, that is why we invested. They would have had to agree to this transfer and must have known that the UK company was in trouble or, they did not do their research, incompetence maybe. They would have communicated with the UK regulator on such a major transaction. It just shows that a license from the IoM FSC is worth nothinig, it is a con, an idirect tax to investors.

So if you are looking for heads, its Mr Aspden (Chief Exec) and Mr Weldon (Deputy) at the IoM FSC. You might also consider a certain Mr Cashen who is (still) Deputy Chairman of the IoM FSC and is also (still) a Director of KSF, now isn't that strange.

Can not understand why everyone is critisising the PL, he is on our side. It's the civil servants above who have not done their job and are now out of the spotlight and apparantly not accountable. A highly regulated jurisdiction, I think not.

The person responsible for freezing your money....

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 21:55

The person responsible for freezing your money is the Judge who made the Court Order on 8/10.
Neither he has your money nor does the Government. It is 'frozen' in the assets of Kaupthing UK which is in receivership. Secured creditors are laying claim to what is in the Kaupthing UK 'pot'. BUT the £570 million of KSFIOM money in that 'pot' can not be touched without HM Treasury's agreement.

As I see it the £570million questions are:
1. why doesn't the Treasury authorise the Receiver to give back that money to KSFIOM?
2. why can't the KSFIOM provisional Liquidator tell us why he is unable to get the money returned?
3. on what grounds, & at what point, will HM Treasury unfreeze that money, & who will it say should have it?

The 'legal beagles' are endeavouring to get answers to these & other questions.

government interference

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 04:54

Is the government (UK) empowered to interfere in the affairs of the administrator? The work of the administrator is to protect the company from its creditors. If the government is able to interfere and direct the flow of the assets, would they choose to return the money to KSFIoM?

It is irritating that we receive so little info from the liquidator provisionally, but he does not have to contact depositors. His duty is secure the assets of the company, either to get the company going again, or to distribute the assets to the creditors.

If we know who placed the 550m in Kaupthing UK, we will have someone to blame, and someone to contact for compensation. But what we really want is for somebody to order the administrator of Kaupthing UK to give 550m to the liquidator provisionally of KSFIoM.

a name to blame

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 11:05

Kaupthing UK suffered a run on its funds as everyone in the know pulled out their money. When the assets sank below a preset value, the bank automatically fell into administration, with no human intervention. This caused KSF IoM to fall into default (because of GBP550 stored? in Kaupthing UK.
Is there any one person to point the finger at? Our Darling who triggered it all? KSFIoM senior management for transferring half a billion pounds to another Iceland bank for safe keeping? Safe keeping! Wheee! Or is it the chief of IoM's FSC for failing to oversee the affairs of KSFIoM?

who to blame?

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 14:55

My vote on who to blame goes to Darling.
At 10:10 on 8th Oct. Landsbanki assets were frozen by order of the treasury. 2 hrs 5 min later, at 12:15 on 8th Oct. KSFUK was put into administration and simultaneously the Kaupthing Edge accounts in KSFUK were ordered to be transferred to Dutch bank ING. The treasury's transfer order includes s27 which has the effect of forbidding the transfer of any assets from KSFUK to KSFIOM without the express permission of the treasury.The KSFUK court papers were and are sealed. Anti-terrorism legislation was used, and both treasury orders came into effect even before they had been put before Parliament. I have yet to hear an explanation as to how this chain of events could have been anything other than pre-meditated and pre-planned, yet the government claims that the demise of KSFUK was nothing to do with them.The treasury alone has the power to permit the return of our money to KSFIOM but clearly refuses to do so, or to even discuss the matter in the open,but continues to hide behind its "not our jurisdiction/tax haven" smokescreen.

Darling is to blame

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 17:49

I totaaly agree. It must have been pre-meditated to have happened at those times. Including the deal with ING - that must have been in place before the stuff hit the fan. I have no problem with the ING deal and support the aim of protecting savers, but KSFIOM should be a part of the deal and have the 550 million returned.

Need to keep pressure on the root cause - Darling

I'm with you mikeinfrance,

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 18:13

I'm with you mikeinfrance, this operation must have been pre-planned - the lights in Whitehall were burning by night all right - but before operation 'IceBust' not after!

Mr Darling led the conversation with Arni Mathiesen on Oct 7th, the latter merely confirmed the answers to most of the Chancellor's leading questions - no wonder Darling claimed that it was the conversation in its entirety that led him to believe the Icelandics intended to renege their guarantees - he directed it!

The intention was to contain as much money in the UK as was possible, the FSA claim that KSFUK was determined unable to meet it conditions - how convenient that should happen in so timely a fashion!

If HMG had not intended to harm the IoM and it's savers, they could have found a way of returning the asset to the IoM jurisdiction when the first delegation from the Island went to London - three visits later we still have no idea of what happened and why they cannot find a way to repay/loan the money.

IceCrusher & mikeinfrance - IoM not represented by the UK

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 18:49

IceCrusher & mikeinfrance
Succinctly put and I agree with your assumptions, HMG will have to put a lot of spin on it to prove otherwise . It is hard to believe that there was not planning and malice aforethought here. One of the matters that really irks me on top of all this is the lack of obvious representation for the IoM by the UK when negotiations were underway to get the IMF deal through.

We were led to believe that the UK was representing the IoM in those negotiations (when the UK would not sanction the IMF loan to Iceland unless and until UK interests were covered). Yet, once again those UK interests did not include the IoM as promised! I would have thought that the UK had a perfect opportunity to leverage additional funds(if needed) re-Iceland (our £557m) at that stage?

That perfect opportunity has come and gone. Now it is surely blindingly obvious that the UK did not represent the IoM, if they did then, how come they got a result for UK Icesave etc. but came up with a big fat zero for the IoM? If as the letter sent to "BC" from John Austin MP's assistant says:

"Hello Mr XXX

I understand that John Austin has been informed that Treasury Officials are representing IoM depositiors in negotiations with the Icelandic Government. He will get back to everyone that contacted him when he has any further information.I know it is frustrating and taking a long time but anything firm that is heard and comes to us will be forwarded on as soon as possible.


Then why didn't HMG fight (represent) the IOM corner when it had better leverage via the IMF negotiations to do so? Are we still being led to believe that meaningful negotiations are still going on?

Government Action Was Pre-Meditated

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 19:29

As soon as I first saw the transfer agreement, I knew the deal was pre-meditated.

Isn't it interesting that it was the Dutch and the UK who refused Iceland a loan to bail them out. Then on the 8th Oct 2008 the UK Arm of Kaupthing is put into administration and a transfer is arranged in one foul swoop (very apt wording) - how interesting that ING is a Dutch company eh ?

The UK Government and Dutch Government or their Treasuries at least must have been in cahoots for some time. They had the whole deal arranged beforehand. They just needed an excuse to bring it into force. It was all a bit like provoking a fight....

Are you going to guarantee UK savers deposits upto £50K Iceland ? No ... right then ... sock it to them ! Bish bash. It's like the UK & Dutch Governments had been down they gym in preparation - everything was in place to throw a couple of knock-out punches and take down a couple of Icelandic banks.

What we have to work out is, exactly what what were the UK Government's motives ?

A. To rescue UK savers with deposits in Icelandic owned banks.

I very much doubt that that was the real reason - the UK Government will swear it was.

B. To spent a huge wad of taxpayers money and take a few back-handers in the process

This seems pretty likely given the secrecy surrounding the scandal.

C. Make an example of offshore jurisdictions and discredit them.

Well, they certainly seem to have done that.

D. Get revenge on offshore depositors for not paying more tax to the UK.

The government already collect plenty of tax via EUSD, so this doesn't make much sense.

E. Steal funds from offshore depositors.

This seems extremely likely under the circumstances. This is exactly what's happened. The transfer document is preventing Kaupthing (IoM) any access to it's assets held in Kaupthing (UK). The UK Government appear to have used our money to fund their transfer of Kaupthing(UK) to ING.

F. So Iceland got into an even bigger fix and would need to borrow even more money from the UK Treasury.

Well, Iceland certainly is in a much worse financial situation thanks to the UK Government action. Also, the UK Government has lent Iceland some money after all - is that because the Government feels guilty after making a monumental cock-up and completely wrecking Icelands economy ?

Any other ideas why the UK Government might have done this folks ? If we can come up with some plausible reasons, then we can start suggesting them to the media and try to bring added heat onto the UK Government.

What do you reckon is in the sealed papers ? Does anyone know how long they will be sealed for, or whether we can force the gits to unseal them ?

I think we should be informing the IoM Government of anything we find out - they probably need some amunition to throw at the UK Government. Perhaps the IoM Government would be able to fight our cause better that way and get a better settlement ?

Sealed Papers

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 21:45

The mystery of the sealed papers still irks me. What could possibly be the reason for such a clandestine act?? The situation with ING has been well publicised - what else could they be trying to hide?? And if they are not hiding anything then why the sealed papers???

IOM Gov't too

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 21:07

Lets not take our eye of the culpability of the IOM (Treasury/FSC etc) for allowing our funds to be so concentrated and unsecured. Never mind the lack of protection of the PCG or the poor regulation of KSFIOM.

For now they have time to try and sort out their errors/ommisions and I agree we should help them in tackling the 550mln in the UK, but if there is a short-fall after KSFUK is liquidated make no mistake it is to the IOM Gov't that we will need to look.

Whats more the UK Government

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 15:06

Whats more the UK Government have told Ernst & Young (Administrators of KSF UK) that their priority is any work associated with the transfer of the retail depositors to ING. So the remaining creditors of KSF UK (including us via KSF IOM) have to pay the administrators fees for work that it is doing on behalf of the Government.

Letter from Administartor

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 03:45

Only one was advising that the requested transfer of 5th Oct did not take place and that the funds were now frozen with the appointment of the LP.
BTW - My parents lived their last years in Calpe - I've been there many times - great place!!

Two letters received, dated 5

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:43

Two letters received, dated 5 Nov and 6 Nov, both of which refer to "transfer of funds prior to 9th October". The wording is broadly the same, and they basically say that my transfer [not specified in the letter in any way, but it was a BACS of £5000, requested on the morning of 6 Oct and not completed] will be re-credited to my account.

Letter from the Administrator

  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 01:01

I have received two letters from the Liquidator Provisional in regards to the cancelation of the account Visa Card and regards to a transfer that did not go out before the freezing of assets.

The recent articles in the IOM Today seem very negative and would suggest our cause may be losing hope...

Letters from administrator . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 02:02

My wife and I received two similar letters, followed by a statement for ONE of our two accounts. By the time they reached us, the information that they conveyed was as obvious as the sky and earth. We have had no further communication regarding our funds. One wonders why, if the bank was normally able to produce periodic statements for customers as part of doing business, that the Liquidator, employing many people, has been unable to accomplish even that. I can not recall having received so little information, or value, for so much money (our life / retirement savings).

At the end of the day, the letter I want to receive will inform me that I now have access to the funds that were frozen, plus interest, along with an apology. What do you think of the chances of pigs flying? As we say in Oz, "we've got Buckleys, mate."f

I have received absolutely

  • Hawkerman
  • 29/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 09:55

I have received absolutely nothing from anyone! How can a bank go into administration and 2 months later still no notification of such from anyone? If I didn't have a computer I just would not know. It is utterly appalling and gives me no confidence whatsoever that "all is being done in the interests of depositers."
As I had said before on this site it is time we all started making demands on the administrator. No excuses, no more playing for time. I want answers and a solution NOW!

Agreed - I find that

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 10:29

Agreed - I find that INCREDIBLE too. I did eventually get a letter about 2 weeks ago, but only because I had a tracker account for which I was entitled (big deal!) to a statement at that time, and a letter from Mike Simpson (on KSFIOM headed paper) dated 6 Nov announcing his appointment as LP came with it. What is unbelievable is that depositors who had (only) accounts which did not normally provide statements at this time (eg fixed term bonds) have still not received this letter. How many such depositors without on-line access (and this is NOT an Internet bank)) are still unaware what has happened to their savings?


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/12/2008 - 10:02