LIQUIDATION OR SoA - or WHAT ? - WE SHALL HAVE TO CHOOSE

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 29/01/2009 - 01:59

I have for weeks hoped that discussions would lead to a situation where together with IOM G we would find a way of getting back our money. I want/need 100% but might have been satisfied with 95% - or even 90%. I've kept quiet and waited.

The discussions have lead nowhere- and we should not go on procrastinating.

We need to be clear about where we are :
1. IOM G have not offered to put a single penny in the pot. Neither have the
financial institutions which should pay levies.

  1. In both scenarios IOM G has merely agreed to advance funds so that one or other
    scheme can make payouts. But they then will reclaim every penny previously
    advanced.

  2. The end result of both scenarios is exactly the same : read the affidavits of PWC
    and Alix. They clearly say : payout in SoA = payout in liquidation.

4.The only money which will be paid back to us IN BOTH SCENARIOS is what can be
realised from the assets on the balance sheet.- UNLESS WE CAN PERSUADE IOM G
or UK ( or Father Christmas) TO PUT SOME MONEY IN THE POT AND LEAVE IT THERE.

  1. Be quite clear : THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF 65%, it is a mirage.
    Where did the 65% idea come from ? It came from the basic assumption made by
    Alix. See note (1) to "Illustrative Scheme of Arrangement - payment Schedule"
    which says ' In this illustration realisations are targeted to be 65% of book values'
    In other words the SoA will pay out what can be realised from the assets. If he
    had assumed a target of 85% the SoA would have proposed a payout of 85%, and
    100% if he had targeted a 100% realisation.
    However,when my wife was despairing of getting anything back 3 months ago I
    told her then that a look at the balance sheets suggested that we would get 65%
    back in liquidation. So I am not surprised at Alix's assumption - but it's an
    assumption that holds good for both scenarios.

  2. There are only 2 ways of maximising our return :
    a. maximise the realisation from the assets
    b. persuade IOM to put something into the pot and leave it there until we get
    100% of our money

  3. I formally propose that we open negotiations with IOM G to ask them what they
    are prepared to put in and leave in. If the answer is nil we need to know now.

  4. Unless IOM are prepared to make some reasonable offer I shall vote for liquidation
    and the DCS. The SoA is no more certain in the long run and in my view will pay
    out no more quickly.It cannot do so because both scenarios depend upon asset
    realisation. I would urge every depositor to make this choice. If we accept the
    SoA without a real contribution from IOM we are giving up any possibility of
    action against the FSC, the Directors and any other party on the island WITHOUT
    ANY BENEFIT. I hope we get the Court to agree to liquidation tomorrow but if
    not we cannot afford to go on wasting time talking to a partner who is offering
    nothing, so we need the delay to be as short as possible.
    My family has more than £630k at risk so I do not take such a decision without
    having thought about it a little.

  5. I am perturbed by the depositors' letters sent to the Court via the lawyer,
    although it is the absolute right of every depositor to take whatever action he
    sees fit to protect his interests. The texts leave no doubt that it was a concerted
    action. I am primarily puzzled by the fact that no evidence is advanced for saying
    the SoA is a better deal - and that statement flies in the face of all the evidence
    listed in the affidavits. Either our fellow depositors know something I don't, or I'm
    missing a trick - or they are deluding themselves.

I had seriously been hopeful of a better outcome to our discussions but I do not blame or criticise any of those who attempted something. At least they acted. One thing I would say is that we have perhaps been at fault in relying too much on a solution coming from Alix and might have been better to put forward our own proposal for negotiation.

The past is the past - we now have to decide what's next. So it's up to each one of us to make a choice. My choice is clear : if IOM will not do better by us I'm for liquidation and then fight all and sundry to try to right the wrongs.

BUT PLEASE LET'S NOT HANG ABOUT!

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (22 votes)

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

SOA

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 19:40

I also think the SOA is more favorable to the remainder of banks as they would possibly not have to pay as much into the scheme, againIOM trying to protect the rest of their finantial center


Rational postings

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:33

Thankyou for the recent postings here they are getting back to rational thinking , as some postings recently have not been helpfull, my broard outlook recently is that Alex was hired for the IOM own protection and not depositors interests, i do not think that any rights of furthur action against the authoirities should be given away by signing up to anything, i am hoping that IOM see sence in this and come forward with a satisfactory solution.


The £550m

  • markH
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 07:54

The status of the £550M is crucial and needs to be addressed properly in the SOA for me to vote for it.

IF 65/100 payout is based on a 10 per cent recovery of the £550M then why has this small recovery amount been used? Is this realistic? If there is a clear indication that only 10 per cent will be recovered then we need to know this, and who has calculated this.

If there is in all liklehood the chance of 100% recovery of the £550M in time, (and remember, the other big unsecured depositors like London Transport and the various councils came out months ago and said they had been promised full reimbursement, so why shouldn't KSFIOM?) then this will make a huge difference to the payout to us depositors - it should lead to full payout in fact.

This is crucial surely? If the SOA gives AT WORST 65/100, but the potential for 100/100 payout if we hang on for a while, depending on the status of the £550M, then this must be the best option.

We need clarification on this point above all, IMO. As it stands, without this point made absolutely clear, then the SOA is currently no better than liquidation.

On a different note, news from our 'core members' is well overdue. All sorts of accusations are being made on this forum, without foundation, and if e.g. Diver took the time to post a message a lot of us could rest a bit easier. We have placed unprecedented trust in Diver and his team and we need some news.


550m from uk

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:32

Mark H,
I agree absolutely that the return of our monies from London is central to a reasonable result for us. Diver's meeting with the TSL is an important element in this, but so is continued pressure on MPs and the FSA.
I think we should note however that according to PWC the net sum available is not £550m but £402m.
I believe also, as I said earlier, that the effect on us of the London outturn is exactly the same whether in liquidation or in an SoA.


The 550m GBP: markH's posting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:45

An excellent posting. You are so right - payout could eventually be much higher than the (assumed) 65% which I would like to think is a very pessimistic assumption. The 550m GBP recovery is so vital, so critical in the whole fiasco - yet there is no reasonable arguement presented regarding assumptions made in regard thereto in the SoA by Alix & partners, not a word from E&Y (KSF-UK administrators), Mike Simpson is totally in the dark, so too is the IoM-G.
Let there be light -- in much less than 60 days please!


Possible confusion here over '65% payout based on 10% rec....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:42

I don't think this is actually the case. As I asked for and received a clarification over the figure 10% I'll hazard some sort of clarification here.
The 10% recovery was being used as an illustration to develop some sort of feel for the size of contribution the IoMG would make to the SoA depending on different recovery rates. The 10% was being used as what we might think of as a boundary case.
A 10% recovery from the funds IoM funds placed via KSFUK, God forbid, could not possibly produce a 65% dividend. If I understand it correctly the 65% dividend corresponds to a generalised perception, working estimate, held by people like Mike Simmons, Alix, the IoM treasury?. For instance given his experience in liquidation, and his understanding of the results of all this taking place within a widespread credit crisis, and his informal chats with the UK liquidators, 65% seems like an reasonable, third quartile, sort of figure overall, To understand what sort of recovery rate this actually implies of the UK funds you need to work backwards through all the figures.

Whilst on the subject there was a very interesting comment on this point elsewhere on the site that suggested that this (65%) overall rate of recovery was 'the January figure', The 'April figure was 53%'. The suggestion was that these figures were fairly serious informed projections. I don't think there is more information re this on the site. In this economic climate, as possibly we are just going into the second half (?) of this economic crisis, there is a strong possibilty of more significant economic shocks and movement in asset valuations. I don't know whether this might be the explanation. It does not seem reasonable to think that expenses are corroding the asset stock at this rate, once again if so we would be in serious trouble.

The above goes to stress the need for this, we do need more information on the UK situation, and the IoMG ought to be complaining to the UK government about it's role in delaying the production of this information.
As we ought to be. Time is critical. This stranglehold from the UK is not fair. I think the IoMG would have helped us more if it had just concentrated on this issue and forgotten about the SoA. Or possibly the SoA would have made sense if the UK end had been worked out first.


KSF-UK scenario % ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:56

I thought Id read somewhere that the 65% figure was based on a scenario of a 50% payout from KSF-UK. Sorry I cant remember where but I think in Alixsconfidential` document.


just ahead of the court hearing... where do we stand?

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 09:33

These are thoughtful posts..thanks

the affidavits are also very informative

Mike Simpson said that the payouts under an SoA will be the same as the DCS and struggled to find advantages in the SoA

John Wright makes a strong case for rejecting the SoA in its current form

I have looked at the Alix comparison between SoA and DCS/liquidation for depositors with 138K..i can't see any advantages in SoA

I am now tending towards liquidation and hope that i may get about 60p in the pound (assuming 50% recovery from loan book and KSFUK) after 3 years

There is still a small chance of a political/financial solution but i am pessimistic that any cash will be injected into the process

With liquidation we know were we stand...and it can be followed by proper legal action against those who may be responsible including FSC, HMG etc

we may also get some satisfaction from the damage to IOMG reputation

and of course there is still the parental guarantee..which can only be called on if KSFIOM is liquidated

regds


Liquidate

  • markH
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 09:45

As things stand, I'm in favour of liquidation. I'm a well in excess of +50K depositor but there is nothing in the SOA, AS IT STANDS, that gives us an advantage over liquidation. As said above, liquidation also gives us the option of persuing those who may be liable to prosecution and also keeps the guarantee as a further option.

I'm half hoping that one of our 'team', particularly those who have submitted support for a further adjournment of 60 days, and who have been talking to the IOMG, will come on here and give us some more information. If the SOA is worth voting for then we need to know why. The silence is deafening.


Liquidate - unless ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:01

I agree with markH - succinctly put. I have >50k (<100k) and would love to see it all back. But as it stands, I would not vote for the SoA for the same reasons as markH.


Show me the MONEY, show me the MONEY !

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:48

markH - I also cannot see what the SOA brings. I can wait for my money if I have to, and believe me I'm in this for serious money, but it seems that the SoA as described doesn't bring any extra MONEY to the pot and doesn't speed up the process either, it just seems to reduce our rights in pursuing the creators of the debacle, so stuff it . Things would be different if IOMG were promising to put new money into an SoA above the £150m which they (I believe) offered to stump-up for the DCS. The problem is that right now Simpson has £140m and the loan book - and that ain't enough even with £150m from IOMG. The path (ie. SoA vs DCS) chosen doesn't seem very relevant if there's too little MONEY to pay back to us.

My two penneth - The IOMG needs to do what other jurisdictions have done and put money into the Early Payment Scheme right now (borrowed if necessary) to cover 100% deposits, and then pull the money back from KSF UK, loan book, Simpson etc as it becomes available. That's the responsible thing to do and it's what the UK did and other governments have done. It should be obvious that a government is far better placed to handle such a situation than a group of individuals. They might even end up with >100% back in the end, something which I'd endorse if I could get my money now. As it stands, they're just trying to avoid coming up with real money. Therefore the 'Liquidate' option may prove to be more effective than accepting an onerous process of undefined duration and undefined return. In the end it's up to IOMG to decide whether they are men or mice, and so far their tiny squeeks indicate the latter.

Show us the MONEY now.


The very worrying uncertainties and nature of the SoA

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 07:01

Yes, I too have been hoping for justice, and for something much better than this.

At first sight, the David Lovett/Alix Partners Affidavit seemed to give a glimmer of light – the notion of our savings coming back to us, albeit gradually. A closer look, however, quickly gave me great cause for concern. It is riddled throughout with qualifications as to the sums that will be available to pay the “dividends”, and whether or not they will actually be paid. The only certainty seems to be that three assured lump sums per depositor will be paid – these equivalent to the DCS payment amounts – and we will be required to hand over all control to the “Scheme” – which will, as I understand it, be terminated when the Scheme Administrators see fit.

Throughout the document we are told that it is based on “projections”, “forecasts”, “estimates“ and “assumptions”; that it is “speculative”; that there are no “warranties” or “guarantees”, but plenty of “uncertainties” – yet we are supposed to put our trust in the people setting up and running this scheme.

On a personal level, whether we receive 12.5% of our funds in July/August this year, or £20,000 each, we will still be in dire straits – just retired and without a home or income, and with our plans for purchasing a home in shreds – I can’t even see how we could get a mortgage with this uncertain scenario. I have been trying to figure out just how we could manage over the rest of our lives on the “dividend" scenario of payments of 12.5% - 7.5% - 15% - 15% - 10% - 5% - but what is the point of even trying to do this when this isn’t guaranteed?

John Wright, in his Affidavit for the KSFIOMDAG, is right about depositors – we are (regardless of age, I would think) vulnerable, we have been put in an intolerable position, and our levels of stress and anxiety are increasing daily.

I am also glad to see that he raises the questions of the role and power of Kaupthing hf, and claims against bodies such as Kaupthing hf, and the various governments involved, etc. – and that he points out that we seek the return of all of our money. His paragraph 22 seems to be of the utmost importance.

My thanks to the KSFIOMDAG Team. I wait anxiously to find out what we need to do next.


@hoping and coping: What we need to do now.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:40

I think my immediate answer is more of the same.
I apologise to the site if I suddenly seem to be verbose but I have been alarmed over the last couple of weeks at the turn of events, and thoughts developed since reading the site intently over the last seven weeks are bubbling out.
Some comments:
I am in exactly the same position as you (hoping and coping) vis a vis needing to buy a house and looking at the proposed timing of payout of dividends and wondering what do I do now. It is normal to look at these situations thinking in terms like Net Present Value. A 65% paypout over 5 yrs is not the '65% payout' people may think it is on first glance. Obviously.
I too am hostile to the current proposal for an SoA as proposed by Alix. But I am also wondering at this moment about exactly how the liquidator would handle the release of funds recovered as dividend payments. There has been comment about the predisposition of liquidators in general to retain funds to cover themselves re their recovery of costs. And it is perfectly understandable how, as they have control, they would err on the side of protecting themselves absolutely to the extent of including in their risk analysis the next tsunami to strike the shores of the IoM. The clear schedule of the the SoA is sold as a significant advantage. In it's present form this advantage does not sell itself to me in my situation. But I am not familiar with liquidator behaviour. Deloitte recovered gt 75% with BCCI!
What we might think of the cashflow smoothing action of an SoA doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to an SoA. There is no absolute reason why the IoMG cannot, by means of a loan or guarantee facility, facilitate cashflow smoothing in a liquidation situation. They might not like to think 'outside of the box', but ask yourself "why not?"
The SoA is basically their cashflow smoothing proposal wrapped up in a contract by which the suck back finally more than the benefit to us of their gesture. We need to think about the politics of this situation.
Are they trying to assist us or themselves? Are they confused? Has Mr Bell lost the plot. What do the members of the Tynwald think? What do they know?
There is every reason for the IoM to be concerned about fallout, about their reputation. Crude threats don't help our case, and they are actually misinformed. What we need is to analyse and understand the real risk to the IoM financial sector. In a world where the financial sector is certain to contract significantly the IoM is at risk of a disproportionate contraction even without our help. Their business is mainly institutional like Jersey. But as we all know, business is business, any business. In this moment inappropriate behaviour to your client base will be noticed. Santander has just underwritten the losses of the clients it positioned with Madoff.
What we ask of the IoMG is imagination. We don't have the concrete figures but it is possible to make informed estimates. The performance of Mr Bell and Alix partners to date is poor, they are thinking in a small minded defensive and apparently petty way. This isn't what is needed. They will ultimately be judged by their peers and not just by us.
The clear message they give, and thus reaction here, tells us they've lost perspective with their SoA proposal and have forgotten, as they revert to form in detailed negotiation, that this is a rescue effort for a situation where one set of depositors has been disproportionately disadvantaged within a systemic failure, within which a bank under their regulatory supervision looks like it made a number of inappropriate operational decisions, and the generalised consensus is that the authorities step in to attenuate at the minimum the impact on the basically innocent depositors.

I believe Diver has done a really fine job up until now, I know I feel I would have been forced to take pretty much the same approach. The issue with the 'nine letters' (see forum about affidavits) is a lesson to us on why we need a vigorous debate here and need to do everything to support consensus, why we all need to inform ourselves of the situation, even if this meaning having to make an effort to learn some new things. We cannot afford to end up flaming ourselves. We all get paranoid sometimes, we need to understand and accept what happens in a really stressful situation.

One question is what are we struggling to achieve? My feeling is that we are being disproportionately disadvantaged in a situation where everybody is taking some form of hit. The key point is 'disproportionally'.
The very existence of a depositor compensation scheme, or parental guarantee, is an implicit acknowledgement of the role of chance in the occurrence of such a situation, and the acceptance that provision of an insurance system is an appropriate response. When they are advertised is is not expected that they be empty promises or be implemented in a way that belies the promise. I like Niall Ferguson's book "The Cash Nexus". He demonstrates the enormous cost to states of failing to make good on their agreements. He makes the argument that England won against the French, and Napoleon because they paid the coupon on their bonds, whereas the French defaulted, and as a result England was able to finance it's war effort through borrowing, whereas the French because they defaulted faced penal rates of interest on new borrowing that eventually crippled them.

We have the court result tomorrow. Whatever it is, if it seems unjust to us we probably do have grounds to challenge it. This will require concerted action. I don't think we are powerless here. My suggestion is we see what happens and then we all discuss it vigorously without rancour. After the 'nine letters' incident I look forward to listening sympathetically to the committees thinking.

This is a difficult moment, we need to make an effort and act together.

I feel I've had a Mr Tony Blair moment. I hope we can make our words a little less vacuous than his.


@hoping and coping: What we need to do now.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:19

I think my immediate answer is more of the same.
I apologise to the site if I suddenly seem to be verbose but I have been alarmed over the last couple of weeks at the turn of events, and thoughts developed since reading the site intently over the last seven weeks are bubbling out.
Some comments:
I am in exactly the same position as you (hoping and coping) vis a vis needing to buy a house and looking at the proposed timing of payout of dividends and wondering what do I do now. It is normal to look at these situations thinking in terms like Net Present Value. A 65% paypout over 5 yrs is not the '65% payout' people may think it is on first glance. Obviously.
I too am hostile to the current proposal for an SoA as proposed by Alix. But I am also wondering at this moment about exactly how the liquidator would handle the release of funds recovered as dividend payments. There has been comment about the predisposition of liquidators in general to retain funds to cover themselves re their recovery of costs. And it is perfectly understandable how, as they have control, they would err on the side of protecting themselves absolutely to the extent of including in their risk analysis the next tsunami to strike the shores of the IoM. The clear schedule of the the SoA is sold as a significant advantage. In it's present form this advantage does not sell itself to me in my situation. But I am not familiar with liquidator behaviour. Deloitte recovered gt 75% with BCCI!
What we might think of the cashflow smoothing action of an SoA doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to an SoA. There is no absolute reason why the IoMG cannot, by means of a loan or guarantee facility, facilitate cashflow smoothing in a liquidation situation. They might not like to think 'outside of the box', but ask yourself "why not?"
The SoA is basically their cashflow smoothing proposal wrapped up in a contract by which the suck back finally more than the benefit to us of their gesture. We need to think about the politics of this situation.
Are they trying to assist us or themselves? Are they confused? Has Mr Bell lost the plot. What do the members of the Tynwald think? What do they know?
There is every reason for the IoM to be concerned about fallout, about their reputation. Crude threats don't help our case, and they are actually misinformed. What we need is to analyse and understand the real risk to the IoM financial sector. In a world where the financial sector is certain to contract significantly the IoM is at risk of a disproportionate contraction even without our help. Their business is mainly institutional like Jersey. But as we all know, business is business, any business. In this moment inappropriate behaviour to your client base will be noticed. Santander has just underwritten the losses of the clients it positioned with Madoff.
What we ask of the IoMG is imagination. We don't have the concrete figures but it is possible to make informed estimates. The performance of Mr Bell and Alix partners to date is poor, they are thinking in a small minded defensive and apparently petty way. This isn't what is needed. They will ultimately be judged by their peers and not just by us.
The clear message they give, and thus reaction here, tells us they've lost perspective with their SoA proposal and have forgotten, as they revert to form in detailed negotiation, that this is a rescue effort for a situation where one set of depositors has been disproportionately disadvantaged within a systemic failure, within which a bank under their regulatory supervision looks like it made a number of inappropriate operational decisions, and the generalised consensus is that the authorities step in to attenuate at the minimum the impact on the basically innocent depositors.

I believe Diver has done a really fine job up until now, I know I feel I would have been forced to take pretty much the same approach. The issue with the 'nine letters' (see forum about affidavits) is a lesson to us on why we need a vigorous debate here and need to do everything to support consensus, why we all need to inform ourselves of the situation, even if this meaning having to make an effort to learn some new things. We cannot afford to end up flaming ourselves. We all get paranoid sometimes, we need to understand and accept what happens in a really stressful situation.

One question is what are we struggling to achieve? My feeling is that we are being disproportionately disadvantaged in a situation where everybody is taking some form of hit. The key point is 'disproportionally'.
The very existence of a depositor compensation scheme, or parental guarantee, is an implicit acknowledgement of the role of chance in the occurrence of such a situation, and the acceptance that provision of an insurance system is an appropriate response. When they are advertised is is not expected that they be empty promises or be implemented in a way that belies the promise. I like Niall Ferguson's book "The Cash Nexus". He demonstrates the enormous cost to states of failing to make good on their agreements. He makes the argument that England won against the French, and Napoleon because they paid the coupon on their bonds, whereas the French defaulted, and as a result England was able to finance it's war effort through borrowing, whereas the French because they defaulted faced penal rates of interest on new borrowing that eventually crippled them.

We have the court result tomorrow. Whatever it is, if it seems unjust to us we probably do have grounds to challenge it. This will require concerted action. I don't think we are powerless here. My suggestion is we see what happens and then we all discuss it vigorously without rancour. After the 'nine letters' incident I look forward to listening sympathetically to the committees thinking.

This is a difficult moment, we need to make an effort and act together.

I feel I've had a Mr Tony Blair moment. I hope we can make our words a little less vacuous than his.


SoA - be careful!

  • keving
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 04:03

I tend to agree, the fact that there are no details surrounding the SoA, just gives me bad feelings. It does however seem that it is what the IOMg want, but I suspect it is just a play for time, knowing well that the longer things drag on the less the issue is highlighted. Wear us out and we will gradually shut up, the DAG will continue to fragment, we will get tired of the whole thing and move on. We should remind ourselves that what is in the interests of the IOMg is the protection of their financial services, and if they can maintain this while still trashing our deposits then I see no reason why they would not go down this path. The S0A gives them an easier way of doing this, Liquidation forces them into action for compensation, and brings the anger of insitutional investors upon them who will be only be minimally compensated. Now you start to see why they want the SOA.

The lack of voices being heard from the institutional investors is also suspicious and almost certainly because, with their vast legal resources, they are exerting a lot of power behind the scences. As they stand to gain limited compensation from liquidation, they will also be pushing for the SoA. The first thing the IOM wants is to get these powerfull groups off their backs. To keep the institional investors angry and fighting on our side, liquidation is the best option, the SOA shuts them up!

It seems like we will almost certainly have to vote with limited information, and if forced to vote in the dark, I for one will chose the conservative route which is Liquidation. For your information I am well in over 50K.


IoM inaction

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 04:25

I agree with both of you. I wish we were in direct negotiation with IoM. I want them to try to put money forward to compensate us 100%. Raise taxes - it is a low-tax regime; a hefty hike to English levels sounds ok. Pressure on the UK. Whatever - I couldn't care less.

Far from trying to help use, they seem to trying to get off the hook - even to the extend of shielding directors from litigation!! We are (not) dealing with a load of crooks. And some of our number are stabbing us in the back.

Although I'm sub50k, I want justice done: return of all money. Or at least, efforts made to return 100%, rather than efforts to escape.


Protection of Directors

  • Alan Mauritius
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 07:20

Have we any proof that the Directors who are sitting, or are still sitting over our Deposits, are being protected in some way.

There will be some of us Depositors who are 'on the square' and would not like to feel that a Lodge in the IOM would stoop so low as to move the position of our 'Cornerstone'!!!


Directors were always silent

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:02

I think they have full protection, no one is serious to look after them to get truth.
As per various postings they are still helping LP to run the bank. What it is ?
It looks that no way left and and the only answer to get out of this terrible situation is Liquidation


Why accept being forced to

  • Hawkerman
  • 29/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:01

Why accept being forced to vote between the lesser of 2 evils? I thought we were not going to accept anything less than 100% payout? Don't abstain, REFUSE!
Our interests are not being considered here at all.


Because that`s the way it is

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:49

Hawkerman -

If we are asked to vote, it will be for or against an SoA - abstaining will count as against.
Without the requisite majority FOR an SoA - and in the absence of another viable alternative, the court will pronounce liquidation. We will not have any choice in that.


Hello Hawkerman

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:40

I understand your reaction, and the cry for 100% or nothing, but I very much doubt if it is attainable in a reasonable time - say, under five years. So you have to ask how long could we financially survive if both schemes are rejected, and we have absolutely nothing except a fresh fight. Not very long in my case, I'm afraid.

Looking at the present two options, I can't help but feel the suggestion that the SoA will pay out more and faster than the DCS is a myth - I cannot see any grounds for such a conclusion. Neither do I feel, looking at what little has been propounded, that there is a material difference in the two schemes over the longer term, viewed from the large depositors' viewpoint, except perhaps the loan book valuation.

There is however one big difference between the DCS and the SoA and that is the former is underpinned - if that is the right word! - by statute, and that is the clincher for me. I cannot but feel that the present fuss and nonsense in the Court today is simply delaying tactics. (Incidentally, what brief have our legal boys got for today?)

I have written the above I hope without too much bias. With 40k in the pot in joint names, I am going to be out fairly early in the proceedings either way, but I do not trust the SoA at all, and the DCS but a little, so the latter has my vote.


Legal position summed up in DAGs affidavit

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:05

legal position - Kaupthing legal action against HMG relevent ?

  • oliverdominic
  • 20/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 10:40

There appears no difference in the amount that will be returned to depositors between the schedule of payments scheme and the DPS. Under the schedule of payments scheme it will be the payment only and no chance whatsoever of anything further no matter what happens. Under the DPS there is the chance that further payments may be received from recovered KSF IOM assets in the future. Also possible is a further payment which may include lost interest if Kaupthing wins its case (which is being funded by the Iceland government) against the UK government. This may leave open the strong possibility of the KSF Depositors recovering the balance of what is owing to us on the basis of the success of the Kaupthing case against the UK government.

I am sure the KSF Depositors Group will prepare a paper outlining the pros and cons for depositors in the not too distant future. I am not sure that a majority vote by depositors in favour would have the effect of depriving those against the schedule of payments of their individual right to pursue Third Parties in the future. If depositors were so deprived of their right to such action it would smack of a dictatorial decision by the IOM government to protect the UK government from legal action and the potential embarrassment of losing its case just before a UK election.


DAG's affidavit.

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:32

Thanks for the reference, ng - cheered me up no end.

Everyone should read this through - it deals with many concerns.

Any chance we could have it at the top of this thread.

Mike