More Affidavits in

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 28/01/2009 - 17:30

Affidavits from:
Peter Clucas for KSFIOM
Mike Simpson
London Legal

are now up on the public site under facts/court documnets
here: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/category/10/666/748

They are fairly self explanatory.. in so much as anything is in this saga!

3.666665
Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

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

Someone somewhere is having a

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:19

Someone somewhere is having a laugh at our expense. Dated 22nd Jan 2009 received Jan 21st 2008. OMEGA what's coming next, how could these people whoever they are, get paid. Clearly all stamped at the same time otherwise, the date on at least one would have the correct year...COME ON YOU IDIOTS its 2009. That comment refers to the person with the stamp and the person who never checked it.


0 to 21 days max.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 21:24

I, like everyone else commenting here so far, am a little happier after reading the DAG affidavit.

The Clucas affidavit is empty. Elgee has noted that it might be inferred from the dates of the Lovitt affidavit and the dates on 'the nine letters' that these depositors hadn't seen what little SoA detail there actually is.
He could be right. Or he might be wrong, in that as these nine are being so obliging to Mr Bell and Alix partners they may well have received some preferential treatment. Perhaps Mr Wright could ask Clucas for clarification?

And the FSC affidavit, seems delightfully neutral. I feel it might be read, though probably I'm prejudiced, as pretty much supporting the DAG arguments.

The insurance company affidavits?

I would like to see a max of 21 days. I really can't see what more they could achieve in 28 days. In fact unless we are expecting something more on the table why do we need a adjournment at all? It is agreed that what is on offer at this point is not acceptable, if they want to sell us a new revised super-dooper version let them work up a sweat in producing it. I find myself wondering what critical events are they waiting on. I can't see any falling in the next month. The only thing that might happen is a political decision, and how long does that take?


"The Clucas affidavit is

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:39

"The Clucas affidavit is empty.
Elgee has noted that it might be inferred from the dates of the Lovitt affidavit and the dates on 'the nine letters' that these depositors hadn't seen what little SoA detail there actually is."

Yes

Wrong.


DAG Affadavit

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 21:23

Can only agree with others that JW's position is highly reasonable, despite the lack of time.

I have a question (as a Bondholder). Why does he specifically request that Bondholders are included in the extended (GBP 10.000 EPS) when there is nothing in Bell's affadavit to say that they / we wouldn't be.

Bondholders had / have access to the GBP 1.000 and the revised amount didn't seem to change the eligibility so far as I could see.

Anyone know? Appreciate the advice.


0 to 21 days max.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 21:20

I, like everyone else commenting here so far, am a little happier after reading the DAG affidavit.

The Clucas affidavit is empty. Elgee has noted that it might be inferred from the dates of the Lovitt affidavit and the dates on 'the nine letters' that these depositors hadn't seen what little SoA detail there actually is.
He could be right. Or he might be wrong, in that as these nine are being so obliging to Mr Bell and Alix partners they may well have received some preferential treatment. Perhaps Mr Wright could ask Clucas for clarification?

And the FSC affidavit, seems delightfully neutral. I feel it might be read, though probably I'm prejudiced, as pretty much supporting the DAG arguments.

The insurance company affidavits?

I would like to see a max of 21 days. I really can't see what more they could achieve in 28 days. In fact unless we are expecting something more on the table why do we need a adjournment at all? It is agreed that what is on offer at this point is not acceptable, if they want to sell us a new revised super-dooper version let them work up a sweat in producing it. I find myself wondering what critical events are they waiting on. I can't see any falling in the next month. The only thing that might happen is a political decision, and how long does that take?


0 to 21 days max.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 21:47

In fact it was another poster who pointed out that exhibits to Clucas affidavit (I shall hereinafter refer to them as the "offending letters", because they sure as hell offended me) pre-dated the relevant affidavits).

However, I will say this about those letters. I feel that they have seriously undermined the depositors' case (and I do mean the depositors as a whole, not the sub 50k group) and that some of them wrongly represent the views of the writers as being representative of the DAG members. They also contradict John Wright's affidavit. I very much hope that none of those who wrote to Cains in these ill-advised terms are members of the two "teams" or worse still are our "representatives" on the "informal committee", but I fear that I may turn out to be very disappointed in this respect.


Affidavits and letters

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 22:29

I think it only fair to say that some of the letter writers from the IoM are from members of the informal committee. It is only to be expected that opinions would differ although even fellow committee members were unaware of their combined stance until this affdavit was published. It was a surprise for us too. When alerted to an initial letter to IOMG we did send a direct email to try to encourage certain key individuals to tell the forum of their actions to no avail.

The DAG affidavit complied by "the London team" with the legal eagles at Edwin Coe and John Wright is the affidavit which represents the DAG to the court. We will wait and see whether these 9 letters are referred to in court tomorrow.

The issues covered by this affidavit are, we hope, much more important and should carry more weight with the Deemster. We shall see.


lack of openness

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 23:59

These nine people did not write on their own behalf. The purport to have representation concerning the DAG. Did they inform us of their intention? Were we given chance to comment? Maybe I missed this.


one of the letters

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 23:35

I notice that one of the exhibited letters from supporters of the IoM Treasury's position on the SoA is signed by one Gordon Inglis, of Republica de Panama.

Is he by any chance related to a Gordon Inglis, of Republica de Panama, who on 5 October 2008, 3 days before our former bank collapsed, posted this remarkably insightful comment on the Times Online website?

"Kaupthing is a fantastically well managed international bank with strong fundamentals: excellent capital ratios, good liquidity position,c50% loan to deposit ratios, quality assets and more than two thirds of it's business outside Iceland and recently 5% owned by Qatar royal family.It's sound."

"Gordon Inglis, Panama, Republica de Panama"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...


Affidavits and letters

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 23:25

Nixi: In that case, in view of what you have written, I would like politely to suggest that those members of the informal committee who wrote the offending letters should be invited to resign immediately.

Can you tell the forum members which of the members of the informal committee (by their DAG forum "username") were invoved in this stunt please? Obviously I do not ask you to associate any particular forum username with the individual's real name. I know the answer to my question, of course, but it is not my place to say. You on the other hand, are a member of the committee.

The list published by Diver of committee members (by DAG username) is as follows:

Higher Value Depositors: DaveBraddan, Ally and Diver
Core Depositors (under 50k): Willumcat and Emabroad
Small Business: Nixi
Bonds/Investments: Teapot
In-Transit Funds: Sleeplessnight

Also, I note that the IOM team are well-represented amongst the letter writers. Can you say which IOM team members are involved (once again, by forum username)?


Clucas Affidavit

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 19:20

I am very concerned to read the affidavit of Peter Clucas of Cains and its exhibited letters. Of course these depositors are absolutely entitled to say what they like on their own behalf, but several of them claim to be speaking for the depositors or large numbers of them in supporting the proposed SoA, and in my view this is simply not justified.

Does anyone know which, if any, of the writers of these supportive letter are on the informal committee or either of the "teams" (London or IOM)? I think I know the answer to that, but I would rather that we be told.


Peter Clucas Affidavit 28/1/09

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 18:30

Nine letters from KSFIOM depositors that favour the SOA have been appended to this document. All nine letters are dated prior to David Lovetts Affidavit on 26/1/09.

We are now aware following David Lovetts Affidavit that the SOA has very nasty strings attached insofar that depositors would have to give up their right to commence any future proceedings against KSFIOM. The nine depositors would not have been aware of this SOA condition when they submitted their letters and in view of the fact that their requests are being placed before the Court tomorrow is there any way that these nine depositors can be contacted and advised accordingly before the hearing.

If may be too late to contact the nine depositors. Consequently DAG's lawyers should clearly raise this matter in Court tomorrow as I suspect that they would not have been made aware of this matter prior to the submission today of their own Affidavit.


Congratulations

  • half0rdh0use
  • 28/01/09 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 09:42

Congratulations to the nine who wrote the letters......

Do we really think a lengthy court case to bring to justice those members of the bank that were instrumental in this sorry state of affairs will result in a full distribution of monies back to all, and in a short space of time.....?

I think not...

The SOA is the quickest and most efficient way of allowing us all to rebuild what we have, and the letters writers would have known this even without the information that they would have to give up their rights to commence any future proceedings against the bank.

SOA= Somecash Out Asap


DAG team and Clucas

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 19:22

I fully support the DAGs teams efforts to date; at least we have representation. That said, looking at the KSFIOM lawyer's affidavit, some of those letters I believe come from DAG team members/ legal 'names'? This is not a criticism , after all they have their own interests to look after - especially as large depositors. It is possible that they had not seen the full details (I use the word loosley) of the proposed SOA before writing. Hopefully John Wrights affidavit now speaks for them all (21-28 days versus 60 days). The last thing we need is a split among those who we have relied on to date.


DAG Affidavit

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 18:04

Also just in the the DAG affidavit by John Wright. I looked through it quickly and am happy to see that the affidavit states that we will not be walked over by the IOM gov. Wright makes it clear that we need more transparency and more real numbers.

Thanks to the DAG team.


DAG. Affadavit 28th Jan 09

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 18:34

In the time Mr Wright has had,its an excellent document,and hopefully will inject some common sense,and purpose,into the whole matter,with the greatest of respect of everyone in the DAG,we now have a strong Legal voice and presence in the proceedings,which we hope the High Court will recognise.Three cheers for John.Rah,Rah,Rah.


DAG Affidavit

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 20:47

Totally agree - well writen document. I'll join in the three cheers! and also add three more for the DAG team who worked with Wright to make it happen.