The New Petition Thread - No comments please, just re-writes of the petition

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 16/10/2008 - 13:20

PETITION
We the undersigned, depositors in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (IOM) Ltd, contend that the governments of the United Kingdom, The Isle of Man and Iceland have acted illegally, unfairly and in a discriminatory manner towards depositors in said bank in that:
1. The UK government’s actions in freezing Icelandic assets in the UK directly led to the failure and subsequent administration Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander UK (KSF UK) which up to then had been a solvent and liquid entity. This entity held significant assets belonging to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man (KSF IoM) in the form of an intercompany loan. The UK government’s actions therefore prevented KSF IoM form accessing funds that were rightfully its and, as a result, from discharging its obligations to depositors resulting in the bank’s license being suspended and a provisional liquidator being appointed.
2. The UK government has trumpeted its plans to ‘guarantee all savings’ whilst failing to truly do so. UK taxpayer funds are, rightly, being used to bail out numerous financial institutions on the mainland whilst those offshore are afforded no such favour. The result of this is that there are UK taxpayers who have contributed to the pool of funds now being used to guarantee onshore savings whilst they themselves are left to fend for themselves.
3. The Isle of Man is a Crown Dependency, with Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State and is part of the British Isles, yet British Citizens holding British passports, who banked with KSF IoM have been treated in a different and unfair manner to those banking with KSF UK.
4. The UK government and the UK Inland Revenue have enforced laws to obtain records of British nationals who bank with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander for the purpose of collecting taxes. The UK government has failed to protect the assets of the same depositors.
5. The Isle of Man government has failed to act in accordance with the governments around the world to protect the interests of depositors in the Isle of Man.
6. The Isle of Man government has failed to safeguard the Island’s reputation and credibility as a secure, safe jurisdiction for bank deposits.
7. The government of Iceland, having nationalised Kaupthing Hf, has failed in its duty to honour the parental guarantee issued by the bank to depositors in KSF IoM.
8. The government of Iceland has guaranteed 100% of all its own national depositors’ savings but has deliberately chosen to exclude depositors in overseas branches and subsidiaries of Icelandic banks including KSF IoM. This is the equivalent of placing a ranking system on all unsecured creditors which, by law, are all ranked equally. A possible result of this is that KSF IoM funds are used to fund the bail out of Iceland’s domestic banking system whilst leaving KSF IoM depositors destitute.

  1. It appears that the Prime Minister of Iceland, deliberately misled depositors in Kaupthing Hf, its subsidiaries (of which KSF IoM is one) and the international press, by stating that the bank was, to his knowledge, not in difficulties. The fact that the same Prime Minister nationalised Kaupthing Hf the next day would strongly indicate otherwise.

The above points lead us, as depositors in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man, to the following conclusions:

• The rash and ill advised actions of both the UK and Icelandic governments have resulted in the loss of millions of pounds to depositors in KSF IoM.
• It is the duty of the UK government as both catalyst for our losses and as the government responsible for the foreign affairs of the Isle of Man to protect and guarantee or interests.
• The Isle of Man Depositors Compensation Scheme is discriminatory as it, according to the islands regulators, excludes small businesses from claiming compensation, resulting in 100% losses for depositors.
We, the undersigned depositors in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man, therefore demand the following:
1. That the UK government instructs the administrators of KSF UK to release all assets belonging to KSF IoM in order that it may seek to resume its operations.
2. That the Isle of Man government immediately reinstates KSF IoM’s banking license to enable it to resume its operations.
3. That the UK government, in conjunction with the IoM government implement the same 100% guarantee for all depositors money in KSF IoM as has been afforded to other KSF depositors.
4. That the Icelandic government, as primary stakeholder and controller of Kaupthing Hf, acknowledges its duty to honour the parental guarantee given by Kaupthing Hf to all KSF IoM depositors.

0
Your rating: None

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

petition signing

  • malc
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 15:02

saoversoix,

can you check out post under actions/general actions/petition

This details how to sign up

malc


Petition ready to be signed on http://www.lostyoursavings.co.uk/

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 13:48

The other website has the petition all ready to go. You just have to write in name and whether have UK passport. Seems simple to do it that way

http://www.lostyoursavings.co.uk/petition/


No

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 13:51

Very well intentioned but there are fundamental errors in that petition....UK did not seize ANYTHING to do with KSF UK or KSF IoM. We must be sure of our facts before we put anything in front of Gordon.


Factually and Legally Inaccurate

  • DXB
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 15:33

Agree that this is well-intentioned but incorrect in many important respects. The "law" is whatever sovereign national legislatures enact. As a matter of "law", neither the Icelandic nor UK governments have any responsibility - or jurisdiction - over the internal financial affairs of the IoM. What most of us are looking for - the full return of our deposits - is not purely a legal matter, but a political one (as a matter of policy, it is undesirable for retail depositors to bear the risk of a bank insolvency; as a matter of reputational risk, it is undesirable for the IoM authorities not to attempt to resolve this affair as swiftly as possible in favour of depositors etc.).
There is no "legal" responsibility for anyone to bail us out here.


Re: Factually and Legally Inaccurate

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 15:41

Clearly fundamentally I agree with what you've written but with one proviso.... doesn't the Icelandic government as the new 'owners' of Kaupthing Hf have a legal obligation to honour the guarantees given by the company it took over? I'd equate it to buying a kettle from John Lewis which comes with a 5 year John Lewis guarantee. IF JL then gets bought out buy someone else then I'm reasonably sure the new owners would have to honour the same 5 year guarantee.


Shareholder Liability for Corporate Guarantees

  • DXB
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 15:54

Not quite - because a corporate entity is a separate legal person from its shareholders. In your kettle example therefore, it would still be JL (albeit JL under new ownership) that would have to honour the guarantee.
Just because the Icelandic government own Kaupthing hf doesn't automatically mean that they directly stand behind all Kaupthing hf's guarantees. It's a question of political will whether or not they choose to do so. They could decide to wind up Kaupthing hf, in which case the guarantee from Kaupthing hf would be worthless, but this would be damaging to the government's reputation.
Bear in mind also that governments have been known to default on sovereign debts. It is very difficult for private investors to seek recourse against a government if this happens.


Shareholder liability for corporate guarantees

  • malc
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 16:02

The guarantee legally may not automatically carry on, however there is a moral obligation on the part of a government who took over a bank and announced that their own citizens would have their deposits guaranteed. Most governments can get away with most things.

The point is not whether it is difficult or not, its a case of raising the issue and making it as uncomforable for them to ignore it as possible.

Sometimes public opinion can sway a government even when they do not have any legal standing.

malc


Iceland liabilities

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 15:59

I also believe I read somewhere that while Kaupthing HF was "nationalised" to the effect of its administration, the Icelandic Govt specifically did not take over its debts and liabilities. I could be wrong.


Other Petition

  • btandkt
  • 11/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/10/2008 - 13:57

The wording in the petition on this site is far more precise than the other and they don't even have the parent bank's name correct. It is Kaupthing hf.