Open letter to Allen Bell - I am voting against the SOA

  • two time loser
  • 10/10/08 21/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 06/04/2009 - 11:33

6th April 2009

Open letter to:

The Honourable Mr. Allen Robert Bell, Treasury Minister, Isle of Man Government.

Dear Sir

I write to you jointly with the Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) and any other Isle of Man body concerned with the collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, (Isle of Man) Limited. (KSF IOM), in which I am a depositor, in response to your 4th affidavit dated 2 April 2009 in which paragraph 6 states:

“I would like to emphasize that I consider the proposals contained within the scheme (together with the payments already made under the Early Payment Scheme) to represent the Treasury’s best offer to assist those affected by the Company’s difficulties. In the event that the scheme is not approved in its current form by the Scheme Creditors and sanctioned by this Honourable Court, the Treasury will seek the immediate winding up of the Company”.

Well Mr. Bell, I’d like to tell you loud and clear that for my part that’s just what I’d like you to do and, by posting this letter on the Depositor’s Action Group website and circulating it to many other people I hope to persuade my fellow depositors to join me in voting against the SOA, to bring this about.

I have spent the week-end poring over the Scheme of Arrangement (SOA) and the House of Commons 5th Treasury Report on the Impact of the Failure of the Icelandic Banks, which has a considerable bearing on the matter. These documents can all be found on the DAG website for the benefit of anyone reading this letter who wants to struggle through them.

I’m a layman and not that experienced in these sort of affairs but I know a rat when I smell one!

I see the Treasury is seeking all sort of controls and restrictions on the freedom of the Scheme Supervisor to prevent him acting in a way that a liquidator could. It is obvious to me that the object is to inhibit and restrict the depositors, through him, investigating what happened, identifying parties who may be to blame and if so taking action against them.

• Let me remind you that it was on your watch that a loan of £557 million was made to KSF UK without security and we’re now to put ourselves in your hands again?

During a time when one would have thought those in charge would be extra sensitive to creditors concerns, because they are seeking votes for the SOA if nothing else, I am appalled that:

• £113,757 has been paid to directors of the bank since the date of the liquidation on 8/10/08 without any shred of explanation or justification. Possibly these same directors may have some responsibility for the collapse.
• It has come to light that several of the directors were members of the Regulatory bodies in IOM and therefore must have had a conflict of interest.
• £40 million plus interest has been repaid to David Whelan from KSF UK, in priority to our £557 million. Admittedly this may be part of the deal for him to buy certain assets off the bank but we all know that KSF IOM is intimately involved in this matter as it holds shares as security so, why not explain it to us?

I cannot understand why the Treasury is seeking all these controls and influence if they are acting in good faith. We creditors are owed something like 4 times the £180 million the Treasury is proposing to lend to the scheme. The Treasury is virtually assured of getting their money back in full with interest whereas we innocent investors get no interest and the larger depositors with over £50,000 tied up may well lose up to 40% of their money.

Then there is the Liquidator who, for example gets to select the representative to the Creditors Committee. Surely it is we creditors that should choose an independent person to represent us especially in a small island like IOM and when we already feel so badly treated.

I believe the Treasury has spent 6 months and well over £500,000 so far in producing the SOA. Who is paying for it? Who has been paying for keeping the bank as a going concern with some 35-40 people on the payroll these last 6 months? Who is paying for all the additional costs of the Liquidator Provisional and his team of advisors to negotiate the SOA? I guess it’s largely us creditors because most of it comes out of the pot available to pay us back.

What are you trying to hide?

You have already failed us so you need to work twice as hard to restore our faith. I have two suggestions for you.

Firstly, remove all the controls from the SOA so that the Treasury is in the identical position to the creditors and allow the Scheme Supervisor to act in the same way and with all the freedoms accorded to a liquidator. That way he can be said to represent the interests of all creditors equally and not be bound to give special treatment to a minority who may have got us into this mess in the first place.

If you can’t do that well here’s another suggestion which is going to get me and probably all the depositors, rock solid behind you. Guarantee us 100% of our money back just like every other country that is involved in the failure of the Icelandic Banks has done.
I have heard the suggestion many times that you seek a loan from the UK Government for such a cause but never any response from your side. The Treasury can have the security of the £557 million lent to the UK, for this loan. Guarantee me my 100% and you can have my vote and an SOA with as many conditions as you like but if it’s less than full repayment I’d rather have a liquidation and know where I stand.

The Treasury report calls for greater cooperation between the UK and IOM authorities and interestingly mentions the need for “greater transparency”. I don’t see this in the SOA as it now stands.

If you don’t get this SOA approved you will be the minister who has spent 6 months and the best part of £1 million in an attempt to restore your island’s International credibility and probably made matters that much worse.

In conclusion Mr. Bell you fail to convince me. Remember we both need 50 out of every 100 votes to succeed but you need £75 out of every hundred pounds to get your way whereas I only need £25 worth so, I’d go back to see if the Treasury can do a whole lot better than what you say is your best offer.

Yours sincerely

4.666665
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (24 votes)

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

SOA veto?

  • everhopeful
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 15:32

A good letter and you make some very interesting points and I am not happy with the SOA yet either. I hope the DAG's lawyers can point out to the court on April 9th the various conflicts of interest which you mention.

I read that the IOMG is already planning a GBP5M worldwide ad campaign to boost their reputation as a financial centre so it would be nice if we can counter this with same day but much much cheaper ads to tell the world what really can happen to their hard earned savings? How about a version of the usual share investment warning-

"REMEMBER IN THE IOM THE VALUE OF YOUR DEPOSITS CAN GO DOWN AS WELL AS UP BUT THEY ARE MORE LIKEY TO GO DOWN" ?


Any idea of Alan Bell's direct email address?

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 12:13

Any idea of Alan Bell's direct email address?


Allan Bell e-mail

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 14:22

I have reached him on this one. Allan [dot] Bell(?)treasury [dot] gov [dot] im


@Flower email address

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 12:24

Flower,
You could try this, she has always passed on my mails to Allan Bell.

Christine [dot] Clucas(?)treasury [dot] gov [dot] im


Do you have John Aspden's email address

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 13:02

The one I have ('john.aspden@fsc.gov.im') keeps bouncing back. Any input much appreciated.


Aspden

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 14:47

That was his addy--maybe he has changed it ---coward that he is

Try sending to info(?)fsc [dot] gov [dot] im


Many tks IceCrusher!

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 12:31

Many tks IceCrusher!


out of office

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/04/2009 - 13:20

All my emails to the IOMG get an out of office response.

Easter hols i suppose or just carrying out the usual evasion tactics.