Manx Herald on costs

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 27/06/2009 - 07:48

I guess that someone else must have referred in the forum to the following Manx Herald piece on DAG's costs issues, but just in case here is the link again:

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/549.html

THe readers' comments are especialy interesting

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

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

elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 08:01

Out of interest, how much are DAG's legal costs (which the article refers to)?


@ chris watson

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 09:19

'Out of interest, how much are DAG's legal costs (which the article refers to)?'

Out of interest have you contributed to the DAG's legal costs as yet?


Done Like A Kipper

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 09:46

None of your business. How about you tell me what you've contributed.


LEGAL COSTS

  • Wombat761
  • 30/01/09 20/03/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 12:25

As a matter of fact, it IS our business, as DAG Members who have contributed.
Regards


wombat761

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 14:28

Sorry - I don't understand your post.

I would say that amount of legal costs DAG Strategy Team has incurred to date is all of our business, because if the IOM courts rule that the IOMT need not pay for these costs, then these costs incurred by DAG Strategy Team will be taken from the assets remaining in our bank (as proposed by DAG Strategy Team in their skeleton arguments to the court).

Who gave DAG Strategy Team the right to incur these costs and have them potentially paid for out of our remaining banks assets? Not me. The only people getting paid here are PWC, the various lawyers and God knows who else associated with them. I'd like to see the invoices. Wouldn't you?

The amount, if any, I have contributed to the DAG's legal costs is no ones business other than my own. I don't ask or care how much you or anyone else may of contributed or not. But I do care how much may be payable to Edwin Coe et al if the courts rule that they are paid for out of our banks assets, and to frank, I'd have thought everyone would want to know this.


Well if a costs award is made

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:40

Well if a costs award is made by the Courts, then these costs will be agreed with the Courts.
It won't be something you have a vote on Chris.
If the costs award is made then you will find out soon enough.


manx-person

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:58

Thanks, I was aware of that. I've not mentioned I was going to vote on it.

I want to know how much the DAG legal costs are and how they're broken down.

It's quite a straightforward question, no?


I think that if you made a

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 19:28

I think that if you made a contribution to the legal fund then yes, you should be entitled to find out how it has been spent; in fact I would go beyond that and say that they should have a positive duty to account this to you.

Otherwise I think not. I myself do have an idea of the costs from speaking to various people involved, but I don't know the extent to which all of this is recoverable in respect of the SoA matter.

The source and application of funds in the 'legal fund' is a sensetive matter and could advantage the other side.

From what I understand even if the costs award is made against the bank, the effect on realisations will be extremely insignificant; I am sure at this stage if the award is made then those organising the legal fund will contact the contributors for instructions.


manx-person

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 19:44

Well, if the costs come out of my bank's assets then all depositors are effectively paying for it including me.

In the same way we're all paying for PWC and will continue to pay from the bank's assets if PWC get replaced and a new liquidator is brought in etc.

I'd like to know how much is being clocked up by all the various parties involved before the whole lot disappears and the depositors get left with nothing.


Chris, Your sudden new-found

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 21:03

Chris,
Your sudden new-found concern for 'the depositors' as a whole would be touching if true. But coming from one who a) has apparently never contributed to the legal fund; b) has repeatedly given the impression of being anti almost everything DAG does and appears to have a huge chip on his shoulder and c) if I have understood well, is a fully protected depositor and will therefore be fully paid out by the DCS and thus unaffected by any dilution of the pot in liquidation - I suspect it is not real.

You also conveniently forget that DAG has asked for its costs to be paid by IOMT (and only if the court rules against this that they be charged to the bank as a co-proposer of the failed SoA). If the court rules in favour (as I believe it should normally do in such a case), then this will be just that - a ruling of the court in accordance with the Deemster's interpretation of the law, and he will also accept or not the exact amount claimed. As there is nothing you can do about this, I fail to see what good it will do to know the amount being claimed - other than to stir up more trouble. And I'm sure those depositors who actually do have a stake in the pot are quite able to look out for themselves. So give us a break - and let this drop.

DAG have also asked that PWC's costs in connection with the SoA should also be borne by IOMT (unfortunately our beloved liquidator couldn't put himself to support us on this). Are you against this too? I think they will make a much bigger hole in the assets...


@anrigaut

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 07:32

I couldn't have put it better. Having read the comments this CW guy posts on here most if not all are designed to cause controversy.

Oh and for your information CW, yes I have paid a tidy sum into the DAG legal fund!


Anrigaut

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 21:39

Dude, just because we don't agree don't mean I don't care.


DAG costs

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 20:33

Its very usual when an party opposes an order for them to seek costs.

I can't see how knowing what the DAG costs are is going to affect things materially. Either the order will be made to pay the costs from the banks assets or they wont. Of course if the Bathampton style order is also made then the PL costs in assisting with the SOA will be deferred until if/when there are 100% realisations - this will clearly be good new for depositors (even if the DAG's costs are awared from the Bank's corpus) as these cosst will be many times higher than the DAG legal costs.

In the scheme of things the DAG legal costs are insignificant in terms of professional fees.

Of course it could be that the DAG legal costs are paid by IOMT anyway.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

Oh and BTW - don't put my handle in the title of posts, better to put a meaningful subject then everyone can find the debate.


Hi cw: The costs are on the site in .......

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 19:51

an old DST posting, it would be within the last two months, probably a month ago ( you search... )
Off the top of my head they are about 180K.

[ng: edit requested by author] This information is incorrect and was not from a DST posting.


follow_the_tao has asked me

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 11:24

follow_the_tao has asked me to edit his comment (done) having realised that the information given was not originally from a reliable source.


follow_the_tao

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 10:48

Thanks for your post.

As mentioned by others, this 180K does seem a drop in the ocean compared to the costs which may be taken from the bank's assets if the courts rule that PWC's SOA-associated costs should be compensated this way.

I wonder, are any of the 180K DST legal fees going to those DST volunteers currently doing unpaid work and advising all "for free"? I presume the answer is "no" and it is all being done altruistically?


PWC's SoA costs

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 11:17

CW: "costs which may be taken from the bank's assets if the courts rule that PWC's SOA-associated costs should be compensated this way."

The costs incurred by PWC WILL be taken from the bank's assets (like all their other costs) UNLESS the court rules that they should be paid by IOMT. As I understand it, this is the status quo and does not require a ruling from the courts; DAG is are trying to get these costs paid by IOMT instead (unfortunately the LP did not see fit to support this request and appears quite happy for the bank's assets to foot the bill).

But obviously you will never be willing to give DST credit for anything they do. Your last paragraph speaks volumes for your primary antagonism and is beneath contempt. These are "legal fees" that are being claimed. Instead of nit-picking over a few thousand pounds, maybe you could tell us what alruistic work you have done for the cause recently?

From a newly-designated dude.


Anrigaut

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 11:36

Yes, I understand all PWC costs will be taken from the bank's assets and that DST are (commendably) asking for the portion related to the SOA should in the first instance be paid by the IOMT. No argument from me here. This, by the way, is not the first time I have given DST credit and will no doubt not be the last time either.

I'm sorry you feel asking the question of whether any of the DST costs presented to the courts will include any costs incurred by DST is "beneath contempt". To me it's just a direct question that can answered directly.

I am not alone in contemplating the motivation of those with no monies at risk "putting in the hours" on behalf of the depositors, and as I have stated, I am assuming it is for purely altruistic reasons. But like most things I dare to post here, instead of getting an honest response to an honest question, I am simply labelled a "trouble maker".

As for the altruistic work I do? Well, I am fully protected and it makes no difference to me if the costs from DST and PWC get taken from the bank assets so I could simply wash my hands of the whole thing and no longer bother posting, given the ego-bashing I get. No doubt many would prefer this. But believe me, there are also many non-verbal forum members too nervous to post direct questions as they do not wish to be seen as "antagonizers", and actually support my line questioning.

I'm not advocating a "vote Chris Watson" approach, simply asking questions which I think are fair to ask. It's up to others to make their own minds up. If there's nothing to hide, why the outcry?