NOT MUCH TIME FOR DAG TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER SOA

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 02/05/2009 - 12:38

Postal voting to accept or reject the SoA is underway and the final vote count will be done at the meetings to be held on 19 May. We are told that if the SoA is rejected the court will then place KSF(IoM) in liquidation.

If DAG succeeds in negotiating an improved SoA before 19 May I presume that postal votes already cast will no longer count, and a new round of voting will be required. However, if DAG waits until 19 May and the vote is against the SoA, I doubt if the court will allow any further delays for negotiation.

So with only 2 weeks to go it would seem that unless DAG can pull something out of its hat pretty quickly we have to choose the SoA as is, or face liquidation.

I don't see how DAG can use proxy votes to secure a better SoA in such a short time - can someone please enlighten me?

3.5
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (8 votes)

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

PROPOSAL FOR SOA- DELIVERY QUESTION

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/05/2009 - 02:25

And they still haven't arrived in Oz (Australia) . Perahps they haven't been posted at all! It took one (1) month for the Original LP Communication to arrive in December 2008.

Anyway, I'm posting it today - Saying "NO" - full stop !

The Question is "Yes" or "No" , and I can't think of anyways other than minor tinkering that the SOA could be changed WITHOUT INTRODUCING A FURTHER SIX MONTHS DELAY.

WHO WANTS THAT?

IF IOMG doesn't want fluidisation , and can't pay up more, then it'll have to go out and borrow from someone else. Keep fingers crossed.
Good luck to all


is dag negotiating a better soa?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:38

Are there discussions for a better soa or is that it? soa as it stands or liquidation..


Remember what you were advised, hippychickrobbed

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:54

"Persistence", if I remember correctly.

Check out:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/gap-closing-mission-will-be-...


Has anyone actually

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:10

Has anyone actually confirmed that there is meaningful dialogue ongoing between DAG and IOMG about the SOA being improved?

Seems too late in the day for me without even more delays, re-printing of the terms and re-posting of all the bumpf.

The IOMG have never been great at taking anything on board that has come from us. It either suits them or doesn't. If they offered 100% before claw back is it worth anything with all the caveats that stand regarding their ability to change the scheme without any consultation?


Well, I wouldn't expect some press release

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:14

but you can use the following link and it's not exactly a surprise...

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/gap-closing-mission-will-be-...


Not much time to negotiate - reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 13:45

The whole idea of assigning your proxy vote to the DAG and its legal team is to allow them to use the next two weeks or more to attempt to negotiate a better solution for depositors.

If you are clear in your mind as to how you wish to vote then you return your vote with a YES or a NO.
If you do this, your vote will be cast as it is signed either for or against the SOA in whatever form it takes (as currently is or improved due to negotiation), your wish can not be changed and your vote WILL count.

The benefit of a "at discretion" vote is that it allows the DAG to cast your vote as they are advised by Edwin Coe after these negotiations have taken place, so currently that would be a NO vote but should we be able to negotaite a more favourable SOA the advice MAY be that a YES vote would now be appropriate.
If this was the case your vote would be cast as advised.

Ideally proxy votes will be returned ASAP so as to allow time to collate the votes and then prove we have sufficent votes to affect the result and then open negotaiations with the IOMG.

There will not be another vote and a further delay, the result on the 19th will be the deciding factor but at discretion votes can change that outcome right up to the last minute.

The issues with the SOA though many, will not take weeks to discuss so there is still more than enough time.

Regarding depositors who have yet to receive their forms by surface mail, don't wait, download the forms from the website, complete them, scan and email them to Edwin Coe and cast you vote now.
You can then post the form to Edwin Coe by surface mail.

The Forms and how to complete and return them are available here, Don't delay use your vote.

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/instructions-completion-form...


Podather, or whoever responsible

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:13

Is there a 'message' to the fully Protected depositors that DAG strategy team can give, to assure such depositors that their best interests will be protected (i.e. up to 50K returned to all Protected deposits far sooner than 90-100 days minimum currently on offer in the SOA and will be at the forefront of negotiations) so they may give the DAG legal team their proxy vote, and consolidate the DAG position as a whole?

Or do DAG strategy team not need our votes/feel the message is clear enough already/are unable to?


Podather, or whoever responsible - reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:02

Chris,

The sub £50k depositors interests are absolutely part of the DAG's overall stratergy and our mantra was, is and always will be to represent ALL depositors to obtain the best solution possible for everybody.

The outcome for sub £50k depositors will form a key part of any negotiations that take place and an "at discretion" proxy vote from Class 1 depositors will only strengthen the DAG's position.

I fully appreciate, that sub £50k depositors having recently seen the period of total payout reduced to a little over a year for those over £35k and less than 4 months for those under £35,000 may wish to vote yes to the SOA because of this and will have less concerns over the legal aspects of the SOA as they are likely to affect them less due to the time they will be in the scheme and the full return they will obtain, but a non discretion vote could assist us greatly.

Having only recently reduced the payout to fully protected depositors by 12 months IOMG may be reluctant to reduce this further but all avenues will be explored and as much leverage exerted as we can to facilitate revisions such as this.

If any one class votes against the SOA it will not be implemented so a policy of representing all is the only way to approach this and we need at discretion proxy votes to do this.


Podather

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:29

Thanks for your response.

I do not believe liquidation is the best route for any of us, including IoM, and if taken, it'll get snarled.

Those on here, who seem hell-bent on liquidation seem to me to be either toughing it out for legitimate reasons, or using the situation for some ulterior motive/revenge. That's there decision.

I feel the current SOA is crap because it has not been negotiated. I cannot believe it will not be negotiated (unless DAG is completely impotent) and the outcome will be a better SOA.

I agree with a previous post of yours that there is still enough time for a 'satisfactory' conclusion.


@CW: Surprise surprise.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 19:07

Your second sentence. You don't say? Is that correct, that you don't believe that liquidation is the best route for any of us? Well blow me down with a feather, who'd have guessed?

Nobody said it was the best route, only that it is better than the arcane, (how many pages?) SoA.

As for "those on here..:". Have you noticed the percentage of postings that you're doing? As for "ulterior motives"... or "toughing it out.:", have you tried looking in the mirror?

You are however completely correct when you state the the SoA "..has not been negotiated."
What makes you think that the IoMG would suddenly start negotiating now? Have you seen any sort of announcement from IoMG that they are negotiating now? Of course perhaps they just want to keep you in the dark?

Once again you are showing signs of stress, your prose is degrading. You slag off DAG ("... unless it is completely impotent..") but you don't contribute, you attack it, and then you expect it to be coming up with a solution which you will assess according to your particular interests: How soon can your (recently) protected deposit be paid off in full?. I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to pay off your protected deposit at a rate faster than any of the depositors will get their deposits back.

You're not selfish? Give me a break.

And yes, in answer to your recent question elsewhere, I do think that you personally ought to fly over to the IoM and sort the situation out. Good luck.


You are correct, I should

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 20:10

You are correct, I should have said "I believe liquidation is the worst route" instead of stating, "not the best route".

"percentage of postings"...blah..."ulterior motives"..blah..."toughing it out.:"...blah..."looking in the mirror?"...[insert pic of budgie]...blah".

What makes me think the IoM will start negotiating now? Well, first of all I am in the dark and I have seen no Government missive. Secondly, as I think I posted elsewhere, I do not believe either party wants liquidation so I have a belief negotiations will happen. I see no contention in this statement.

"Stress"..blah..."'Impotent'...blah..."DAG"...blah..."don't contribute"...blah" same old same old.

This is interesting: "How soon can your (recently) protected deposit be paid off in full?. I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to pay off your protected deposit at a rate faster than any of the depositors will get their deposits back". Do you mean 'any of the depositors full deposits back', or just 'their (recently) protected deposits?'. If former I disagree, if latter then I agree.

"Selfish"...blah..."fly to IoM"...blah..."good luck"...blah"


Chris

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:36

Why dont YOU go and negotiate a better SOA ?

Get back to us all when you have got a good deal.


Negotiate a better SOA, belly up?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:52

I assume you mean I should shut up or put up?

Or do you actually mean I should fly over to the IoM and do it on my own?


Got it in one

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 04:25

Fly over to the IOM - a great idea you tell em Chris.

Just hurry up about it there's a good chap.


Got it in two, actually

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 06:08

For a moment there I thought you meant I shouldn't post on this site.


Divide and rule as a political tool

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:44

I cant get in to add a comment on Bills excellent post

Divide and Rule

However it says exactly why we should ALL pull together and vote out this shabby SOA.

Well said Bill.


Podather, or whoever responsible

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:49

It is a bit tricky to understand what you mean. If there is a negotiation after the papers have been put out for voting (in other words from last Mon onwards), it would only be possible for any terms to be amended in such a way as to improve what is on offer. It would obviously not be possible to subtract from the proposed scheme in any way, because otherwise some of those who had voted "yes" before the negotiation would want to change their votes to no, and that would not be possible. But I am not sure if that is what you are asking.

If you are asking if negotiations can ensure that the DCS/liquidation would be improved in the event of a "no" vote, that will obviously not be on the table. Can you clarify please?


To clarify, elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:12

My assumption is DAG's strategy team are negotiating an 'improved' SOA. The implication, unless I have misunderstood, is this negotiation is in the best interests of 'all' Protected depositors, regardless of their being partially or fully Protected.

If the above statement is correct, will DAG's strategy team/legal team demand from the IoM Treasury there is a pay-out of the first two cumulative 50K dividends within significantly shorter time frames than the timelines currently envisaged via SOA to all Protected depositors, in return for the expectation of the fully Protected depositors proxy vote, and make this conditional on DAG strategy team's acceptance of an 'improved' SOA and their subsequent recommendation for fully Protected depositors to provide DAG's legal team with their 'discretionary vote'?


To clarify, elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:39

Your assumption is incorrect. As far as I am aware, while there are various initiatives underway, there are at the present time no negotiations with IoMT about improving in the SoA. They are simply aware of DAG's position that it needs to be improved. The horse has to come before the cart -unless there is a substantial number of proxy votes given to the DAG, it is most unlikely that the IOMT would enter into any negotiations about the SoA with DAG.

Also your reasoning is defective. If your proposed "demand" were to be made, and it were to be (as you suggest above) a condition precedent for acceptance of the SoA, then if that demand is rejected by the IoMT then the DST would not "accept the improved SoA" (using your words) and the result would be that the SoA itself would be rejected and depositors would find themselves with the liquidation/DCS, an outcome that you claim is undesirable and which in any event would not furnish sub-50k depositors with faster payments than under the currently proposed SoA. So your proposed negotiating stance is not in least sensible.

Essentially you, Chris Watson, appear to have no idea at all how things work in the real world or else your question above is not intended to elicit an answer in the affirmative but is merey uncunningly contrived in such a way as to encourage sub-50k depositors to support the SoA.


Negotiating a better SoA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 19:59

I realise that there are provisions within the SoA that allow it to be changed, but I wonder the extent to which a person voting for or against an SOA would be able to challenge the lawfulness of a change, particularly if it had an adverse effect on them, no matter how small.

I hope that the DAG strategy of holding an undeclared hand will work, but there is still the risk of challenge at the sanction hearing for any number of reasons, including "improvements" to the SoA.

For example, say there was an amendment to provide a "better deal" for a currency depositor. If this meant a worse deal for the GBP holder he would be able to challenge the amendment.

Say there was a change that provide a better deal for those in a set-off position; this may affect other creditors so would be open to challege by them.

There is of course the risk of challenge at the sanction hearing for other "new" reasons

There will have to be extreme care given to "negotiated changes at this stage"


Good grief, elgee!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 20:14

If my initial assumption is incorrect, then why are DAG asking for our proxy vote? I do not understand. If the opposition will not enter into any SOA negotiations with DAG because they feel DAG has no mandate, what are we talking about?

Of course, such a starting position as you portray, runs contrary to what we have all read elsewhere. I therefore cannot, as you describe it, accept your version as true. What are DAG meant to do, tip a postal bag out in front of our opponents and count out the proxy votes in front of them? What are you suggesting, wait until all the votes are all in, trust there's no postal strike in the meantime, and start negotiating over breakfast on the day of the court case? I hope not.

If this was DAG strategy, why not dispense with the DAG legal team, save costs and just give up? How do you expect to engage with IoM Government if you believe you have no suffrage? Or is it DAG do not need the fully Protected vote?


Given your "ON TIME" (your capitals)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 15:03

...comment, how does this reconcile with "•A Scheme Meeting will be held 28 days post the initial 10 day period. It is proposed that the Scheme Meeting will be held on 19 May 2009", given that few appear to have received their documents?


Given your "ON TIME" (your capitals)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 19:09

lancara: can your secret lawyer not answer that question?


Assurances from DAG to <50k group

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:18

Chris
I would not only be surprised, but delighted, if you get a response from the DAG team giving the specific assurances you ask for. I don't think they can, because the DCS distributions are not as well defined as the SoA.
Lets wait and see!


Scottr

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:49

I think that the SOA can most certainly be improved for all classes of creditor. Improving the pay out for the fully Protected is also an improvement for the partially Protected. They would get up to 35K in far less than 90-100 days as currently on offer in the SOA (not 50K - my error, tried to correct but you posted too soon), or more, back sooner too.

Unless the fully Protected are engaged in negotiations we will have to 'wait and see', but I don't consider this good enough. I'd like to know what the fully Protected creditors on the DAG strategy team (I am assured they exist, and have not already been paid-out, or nearly paid out) are doing about this.


Voting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 13:02

Academic--I live in the Philippines and have not received forms yet--it usually takes 2 weeks by airmail--both ways--and -so I will have to print out from the site and post back--how many people are far flung like me?????


Many people

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 18:06

Many people Bobwin --- we are in China - no forms yet and could take 2 weeks to get to us - may be longer as the envelope sits in th post office waiting for someone to translate the English into Chinese!!

Anyone who is further away than Lands End or Dover should download and scan - send to Edwin Coe and post ( or as we are, courrier) to London.
Just do it ASAP-


Forms not yet received in Canada

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:37

I have made copies of the appropriate form from this website and will send them off early next week.
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4079

Remember, Mike Simpson says he has to receive the completed form by 15 May 2009 (that is, in less than 2 weeks).


Ditto

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 13:09

I live in Austra;lia - Hence in same boat. If nil by 4/5 will have to print and post.


Dont hang about print them out

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:27

Dont hang about print the papers out complete scan or fax them asap,
then post the originals.

I live far flung too.

DO IT NOW DONT RISK LOSING YOUR VOTE.


ditto

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 13:46

As yet they haven't even reached France!


Voting papers

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 18:44

Hi anrigaut

A pack addressed to my wife arrived here in the Lot last Thursday but nothing for me so far.


@france46

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/05/2009 - 07:56

Hi france46

It's beginning to look as though your wife got her pack by mistake (see recent posts on another thread)!

Or does her account have some characteristic which may have got her flagged as a desirable voter? Just wondering ...


ditto

  • Reddy
  • 04/03/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:27

Or Germany!!


ditto

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 14:44

Or England!!!


Received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 05:38

2nd May


Ditto

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 15:43

or Portugal


Not Received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 16:11

or Malta, Libya


Not received

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:35

or Spain


Not Received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:29

Or Austria


Not received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 20:33

Or Bahrain


Not received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 17:44

Or Kuwait


or Canada

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 04:08

But we have already faxed our vote into DAG - have you???????????????


Not Received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 22:25

Or Alaska


Not received

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 23:19

Or Florida


Maybe

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 18:08

Maybe - they haven't been sent !!!!! perhaps the post boy is off sick!!

Just down load and do it --

DON'T LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR FUTURE - HAVE YOUR SAY NOW


Does anybody know what

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 11:48

Does anybody know what exchange rate will be used for foreign currency account holders in the SoA or the DCS?


SoAScheme of Arrangement

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 18:31

SoA is 9th April, Liquidation is upon winding up - which will be around the end of May if the SoA isn't accepted.


@ jhas - exchange rates

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/05/2009 - 16:56

It was contained at the end of the explanatory statement , page 69 of 71
Has the exchange rate for all currencies for the SOA.

For the DCS , the rates have not been set but would be the mid rate on the date the bank is put into liquidation, if it happens it is likely to be the 25th May.