This website is run by and for depositors in the failed Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IoM) bank.
All material on this website is the property of KSFIOM Depositors Action Group ksfiomdepositors.org and its members, except some material that may be copyrighted by others and is used here.
Website Terms and Conditions --- Privacy Statement --- General Contact --- Media Contact
Site managed by netgenius
IoMG freedom of action re DCS v SoA.
Link to IoMG pink book published budget detail.
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/treasury/budget/2009/budget0910.pdf
extract:
"9. RESERVE FUND
In accordance with existing policy, in 2008-09 estimated investment income generated by the Reserve Fund and the Currency Account of £12.0 million is to be re-invested. However, £5.6 million of this income will be utilised to meet Interest charges on the Manx Electricity Authority £185 million Bond issue in 2008-09, and £11m has been earmarked for payment under the Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Early Payment Scheme. A further contingency sum of £94 million has been included in the 2008-09 probable expenditure pending Tynwald approval to a further Early Payment Scheme which will be submitted to the February sitting.
For 2009-10 the interest on the Reserve Fund will be split, with £3.6m being utilised to meet interest charges on the £185m MEA Bond, and £5.9 million being allocated to the General Revenue Account.
The Reserve Fund may be used to meet a proportion of any payment under the Depositors Compensation Scheme or under any Scheme of Arrangement.
It remains Government’s longer term objective to reinvest all the income into the Reserve Fund to achieve a level on the Fund equivalent to half of Government’s annual revenue funded gross spending when circumstances so allow.
The market value of the Reserve Fund at 31 December 2008 stood at £331.0 million or 75.6% of the 2009-10 objective of £437.8 million".
Read the Insurance cos affidavits if you have not already
done so. The substantial affidavits are preceded by a stream of !!!!!!!!!!. The others are merely introductory affidavits.
Notice-of-Motion-2009-02-18.pdf 30.12 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Not...
Letter-to-Court-filing-2009-02-18.pdf 25.15 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Let...
!!!!!!!!! Affidavit-of-Tim-Madigan.pdf 108.36 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...
!!!!!!!! Affidavit-of-Ralph-Angus-dated-18.2.09.pdf 302.21 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...
!!!!!!!! Affidavit-of-Jonathan-Hall-dated-17.2.09.pdf 284.46 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...
!!!!!!!! Affidavit-of-John-Hollis-dated-18.2.09.pdf 319.82 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...
!!!!!!!! Affidavit-of-Dean-Waddingham-dated-18.2.09.pdf 314.71 KB link:
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...
Now just how do you, personally, read these affidavits?
What are the bond holders companies saying? They are 30 per cent. High end depositors and bondholders are more obviously together 60 and more percent. Those covered by totally by the DCS are the balance, 30 to 40 per cent.
I believe that the IoMG has to come clean on the DCS obligation it passed into IoM law at the time of our disaster, their disaster, because they did not manage to protect out deposits. I believe this was due to their negligence. It becomes clearer and clearer that this was the case according to the detail I see being revealed gradually at present.
I believe their SoA is their attempt to evade the reality at our cost. That time has gone.
As more facts become available you are more and more able to make up your own minds. The question is what do we do about it? What happens now?
There is something not quite right in ‘the state of Denmark.’
And I leave you with that question. Post your comment.
@Tao, Insurance company depositors.
Can not understand why insurance bond holders are insistent on claiming under the DCS which only pays 50K, the life assurance companies have their own compensation scheme which covers 90%:
http://www.fpinternational.com/common/layouts/subSectionLayout.jhtml?pag...
Policyholder protection
For life assurance companies, the Isle of Man has the only statutory compensation scheme offered by any offshore financial centre. The Life Assurance (Compensation of Policyholders) Regulations 1991 provide up to 90% of an insurer's liability to the policyholder - in the unlikely event that a local insurance company should become unable to meet its obligations. This legislation is as protective as its United Kingdom equivalent.
Those tied up with insurance companies should be looking at using this avenue for claims.
Bonds - 90%
I am not a bondholder so have no possibility of recourse to a life company or IFA. If I were a Bond holder, having just read the above statement "in the unlikely event that a local insurance company should become unable to meet its obligations" on the Friends Provident web page I would immediately be consulting either a lawyer or whatever the life company watchdog is re this matter for their opinion (I would contact both).
That statement on the Friends Provident web page is pretty clear to me - if "a local" (which does not seem to limit the statement to only Friends Provident) insurance company on the IOM can't meet it's obligations then you can call on the IOM life company compensation fund up to 90%.
Surely someone in the Bondholders Group will want to fully explore this? I wouldn't take the word of an IFA or a life company receptionist - get proper advice. If it can be proven that this "pot of compensation cash" is available to the bond holders then that should help us all.
I don't have a printer at home here, but can I suggest someone prints off the Friends Provident page link now before it disappears.
kiwi38
Hi Fella
I have been saying for weeks that bondholders through insurance should be doing this, they are a sererate group to the rest of us . IFA/Insurance companies need to be taken through whatever means of action they can.
I will be glad when!! the day comes when this site is no longer the first thing that I need to go on when I go on the internet.
90% Protected ?
This only becomes applicable in the case of the insurance company going bust and depositors are covered up to 90%. In my case i would get 90% of what is still active and would not include funds with KSF. This is from the Axa helpdesk and not my read on it. Hope this is of some help.
90% Protected?
"local insurance company should become unable to meet its obligations"
It is the insurance company that has the obligation to the depositors, not the bank! Are the Insurance companies then indicating that they can meet their obligations to the depositors, or are they saying that their marketing literature is incorrect!
The contract has to be between the depositor and the life company, not the depositor and the bank. Otherwise what authority does the life co have to take a fee? If this is the case the life co has an obligation.
Why are they sponging off the bank scheme, they have their own, OR do they?
The 90% is only if the
The 90% is only if the Insurance Company goes bust.....not if the Bank they invested in goes bust...Thats the deal....
Can't have it both ways
That's fine, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. If the insurance companies maintain they did not go bust, only their bank did, they have the obligation to pay their bondholders 100% of their money on demand.
And if they are unable to pay, they are in default, and the depositors should be paid back from the insurance compensation scheme to which they are entitled.
This all sounds great for bondholders...
Because we are all loaded and can afford to start employing the services of IOM Advocates and European solicitors to take individual IFAs and Insurance Companies to Court...
I don't know what we were all worrying about!
@gasfuk: I'm starting to think the sooner the better.
As there is no consultation process in place, the court seems to be the IoMG's chosen arena for negotiation, the sooner the ridiculously vague result from the 19th is challenged the better.
The most polite interpretation I can put on the judgement is.......? No I can't come up with a polite statement. I'm awed that it's so vague. I know the DD had to go on holiday but......
I've virtually lost faith in the IoM legal system. I'm wondering how do you drag this case back to the mainland?