Nationalisation

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 01/02/2009 - 09:32

It is early days yet but the majority so far favour Nationalisation--does anybody know how this can be pursued and if so what shall we do as a group?
can we lobby the Deemster or IOMGov to do this--is it a lost cause?
Is it a panacea for everyone to get off the hook?
The Irish just did it with Anglo Irish in IOM which was voted No. 1 expat bank last year.

0
Your rating: None

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

Nationalisation, since when was it an option before the court.

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 16:01

Ok, I'm going to get flamed and upset even more but lets just inject a little realism and facts here and not conjecture or wishful thinking.

What's on the table, or better still before the court.

Liquidation (and to keep everyone happy DCS)

Scheme of Arrangement.

DAG membership -- 2300 (this includes bond holders etc,. who we know have little or no influence on how their deposits will be used in any vote)

Bank creditors --- 11,000 (give or take a few thousand, as we still don't know if this "accounts" or "people")

DAG membership consists of 20.9% approx of the banks creditors.

Whatever the DAG decides it's still a minority, an even smaller minority once the bond holders are removed.

Liquidation & DCS.

How many of you have actually been involved in a liquidation - do we need yet another meaningless poll.

1st thing in liquidation - Creditors committee - the 5>7 insurance companies can & will dictate who will be on that committee. What influence will the rest of us bit players have in any say of how the committee or the liquidators operate, simple - F all.

Will PWC go after the directors and regulator - only if the creditor committee agree to funding, if no financial gain from legal action - then no they will not, PWC may voice legal actions / investigations - adds more to their fees.

DCS is unfunded no payments until at least November (IoMG's possible £150m), liquidation 10% payment in or around 3 months.

Payments after that :- From assetts at the discretion of the liquidator - DCS an annual % from the date of liquidation to infinity.

PWC have now been given approx figures to work on (a possible 65%) - that leaves him a min of 35% to play with, to get as much as they can within the legal framework for PWC and their legal teams.

SOA,

Crock of s8it but remove that legal clause - as bad as it is, it's better than liquidation and funding PWC and their legal teams for the next 6 > 60 years. Put aside the first 10% back and sue the a8se of anyone I can -- there's plenty of reasons and people to sue.

What happens to the future of the IoM after - what the F do we care - we have guaranteed payments for 3>6 years - if they can't look after and take care of the investments of their main industry -- that's their problem. In liquidation we would still have to go softly, softly where else will the sub 50K depositors get their DCS payments from.

Any other options -- there are none before the court, you have 14 days to convince ALL on the IoM that any additional options would be in their best interest and have it laid before the court in an affidavit.

Nationaliation - if it were before the court, fantastic -- I'll vote for that anyday, but we have two piles of dung - one bottomless and unfunded - the other just another pile.

Does this mean we give up, roll over and allow anyone to throw a few crumbs now & again, certainly not, lets just be objective and go for something we may be able to change in the next 14 days and make it more palatable with some teeth left in it.


nationalisation of bank

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 15:34

Who said the majority wanted nationalisation?
Has anybody got a clue what this means?


Nationalisation

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 14:06

Without sounding like a broken record, or stifling ideas, can you provide some information to all, that would give us some idea of what would be invovled in nationalising a bank on IOM.
Calling for this is good but it needs some substance behind it for all to at least start considering it as a viable alternative. For example is it possible to still return 100% of cash to depositors and over what timescale? Can the IOM nationalise a bank - if it cant then this idea is dead in the water. We need to know this info just as much as IOM authorities


natiuonalisation

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 09:37

The standard response from the IOM treasury is they can't nationalise a subsiduary bank of another country ie. Iceland. However , why can't they put an offer in to buy it?


Nationalisation, Yet Once More

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 10:53

Yes, that is what they keep saying despite the fact that they know it to be complete nonsense.

If they can "sell as a going concern" a subsidiary of a foreign bank, if they can liquidate it without asking permission from Iceland, they can just as well take it over i.e. nationalise it.

The SoA as they propose it is nothing else but liquidation by another name, except that in SoA the strict provisions of bankruptcy law get replaced by rules devised by the IoMG. Take a wild guess whose interests those rules are going to protect?

I think there is still time to convey it to the IoMG that we will not settle for anything less than 100% of our money back. If they can't deliver that, liquidation is the only remaining option.


Only Two Ways

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 13:37

Nationalization , and pay our money in full 100% or Liquidation which gives us full freedom to fight for our cause.
SoA not acceptable.


So let us demand

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 12:53

So let us demand nationalisation then


If there is a will there is a

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 10:03

If there is a will there is a way--best solution--probably


reply to comment

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 13:00

Best solution for us yes - but they aren't interested in that patently.


100% return

  • Julie
  • 03/12/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/02/2009 - 15:13

If IOMGM wish us to take the SOA serious, they should not require their monnies that they input until every depositor gets 100%return NOT 60% anything less is not acceptable anything less and we demand a recourse from however orchestrasted this BIG MESS