Parental Guarantee - another set back

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 10/03/2011 - 20:24

Hi All,

I see the undernoted posted on the Bank Website today by Mike Simpson

10 MARCH 2011

Parental Guarantee

The ruling has been handed down in the Reykjavik District Court in the case regarding the parental guarantee. The Court has ruled that the parental guarantee is not valid. The ruling will be posted on this website once the official English translation has been received. We have two weeks in which to lodge an appeal and a decision will be made on this in the next few days once we have had time to consider the ruling.

This ruling is extremely disappointing and I know that many creditors will be outraged by it.

Contacts

The best way to make contact is to write to the bank or email branch(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im. If you need to telephone the bank, please use the main switchboard number +44 1624 699222.

Mike Simpson

Joint Liquidator

So not good news, but Parental guarantee was and is a long shot to my mind. Just need to wait and see what Joint liquidators say.

On another tack, I have finished my write up on Feb figures and updated my Table 11 accordingly. Have one major query that I would like answered or explained to me by the JLs before posting. Does not affect the estimates but I have not come across this problem since we began getting monthly updates. Have requested help from JLs but no response so far. although one was away for a few days and one has either gone or is going very shortly for a fortnight on business. If no word by to-morrow I will post on DAG and keep trying for an explanation.

Take care,

Gordon 45

4.875
Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (8 votes)

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

Telephone Recordings and the PG - optimism ?

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 07/04/2011 - 16:09

I know there's been a lot written here about the PG by people who know more than I do and maybe I haven't spotted all the points made, but my thought is this :

  1. The question of 'whether' the PG was used as a tool to get clients funds shouldn't be an issue at all. When I became a client the client advisor explained on the phone that investments were very safe specifically due to the PG. Normally these calls are recorded and they even tell you that when you start the call. The KSFIOM JL's should therefore have access to such recordings, constituting irrefutable evidence, and if they don't there must still be other documented examples, no?

  2. Given 1 above it seems impossible that there can be no accountability for these false statements : whether that lies with KSF in IOM , the UK, or in Iceland may not be clear but someone was telling porkies somewhere.

Whatever self-serving ruling Iceland's courts may make there can be no doubt that the KSFIOM product was marketted using false information. I see no way that companies can market products in this way with no accountability and therefore I am optimistic that the buck must eventually stop with one of them.


Directors responsibility and liability

  • TykeinSingapore
  • 12/10/08 22/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/04/2011 - 06:42

I have read many of the comments on this issue, some are very despondent about pursuing the PG issue. Very simply if you took the view that the PG was public knowledge (used in the KSFIOM literature and therefore by definition it was public knowledge) and was used in garnering deposits, then the KSF board have a very clear duty of care and cannot wash their hands of the issue. On this basis the PG is well worth further pursuit and also it then very clearly ties the Financial Authorities both in the IOM and the UK into the same culpability and duty of care accusations. To say that someone was not authorised to sign the PG, and then for a considerable time publicise the same guarantee and then hide behind the issue of lack of authority does not wash away liability as the Board and the Individual Directors have a duty of care which is not excused in law or by any other measure by incompetence or ignorance. Equally it does not excuse the FSA or the FSC as whilst they may be both incompetent and ignorant that is not a legal defence.


@Tyke

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/04/2011 - 08:09

Very valid points made above; my only concern would be this: Because something is in the public arena, must we be aware of it? More specifically, if I work as a manager or director of a large company, am I expected to be cognizant of any/all public promulgations made by any of the group's departments or individuals? I think it would be an onerous task to be aware of publications issued all over Europe, perhaps even in different languages etc. Do large companies employ staff whose job it is to monitor public proclamations?

It seems incredible to us that the KSF Board of Directors could have been ignorant of the PG, but then again, if the board was not even aware that such a guarantee was being discussed, would it then be 'looking out' for its subsequent promulgation? I'm left wondering what my own responsibilities might be for subordinates doing things without my knowledge; posting declarations of this, that, and the other, over any one of a thousand different 'public' internet sites of which I remain blissfully ignorant - and legally cuplable? Now I'm worried.

Ice


Culpability

  • TykeinSingapore
  • 12/10/08 22/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/04/2011 - 03:06

Ice, I understand what you say but I do think that culpability on this issue is absolutely inescapable. You cannot go around promoting a Parental Guarantee in your literature without liability. Absolutely the banks should have had a raft of compliance officers whose job was specifically to vet all literature, so should the the FSA and FSC. In a properly managed financial institution this would be the the norm as it should have been in the FSC and FSA. To argue any differently is absolutely incredulous, perhaps the bigger fish to fry here are the regulators. I am a Director of a large public company and know of the potential personal liability I carry, it is this same issue that no Director involved in this mess can plead ignorance on. I get briefed on liability and personal responsibility by our lawyers and internal legal advisers on a regular basis, when we publish a prospectus every statement has to go through verification and thorough due diligence. In the same way Financial Institutions I would guess have similar internal requirements as they are touting for depositors money, if they do not then the regulators have failed in a manner that I think would put them in the spotlight of massive damage claims.


@Tyke - culpability

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/04/2011 - 10:43

Hi Tyke, I am very pleased to read what you say here. Really, as I explained to 'follow-the-tao' in an email, I was soliciting answers as I simply did not know where one would stand in such a situation. If it is as you say - and I believe you - then these people should have been fully aware of their responsibilities - after all, they were in the business of acquiring a bank and the considerable assets of a several thousand depositors.

My gut-feeling is that there was little, if any, concern about the depositors as 'individuals' but great pains were taken to ensure they were convinced 'en masse' to leave their monies with KSF and thereby facilitate its success as an ongoing concern. As for FSC responsibility; I've mentioned elsewhere that if Aspden claims 'no requirement, no involvement' then why was the FSC holding the PG? And why did it not permit depositors to view the blessed thing? I think we are in the middle of yet another IoM stage-managed event and Aspden's public proclamations were made merely to engender an 'on-side' feeling amongst creditors when really it was a cover-up for the FSC's inadequate monitoring and failure to exercise due care with other people's money.


Culpability

  • Expat13
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 06/04/2011 - 16:29

The Isle of Man appears to be an irresponsible entity unto its own. It does not appear to apply the rule of law as do other Western democracies. I believe that any attempt to sue either the bank directors or the IoM regulator would be quickly opposed by the Isle of Man Government and its legal team. Like the old saying goes "Might is Right".I believe the only chance of success in sueing the bank directors or IoM regulator would be through the UK Courts and I don't know whether this would be constitutionally possible with the IoM having its own government..


Parental Guarantee

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 25/03/2011 - 17:22

Hi There,

Is no one commenting on the new appeal by the JLs with regard to the Parental Guarantee?

24 MARCH 2011

Parental Guarantee

I can confirm that, after consultation with legal advisors and the Committee of Inspection, we have lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of Iceland in respect of the ruling handed down by the Reykjavik District Court which rejected the validity of the parental guarantee.

It has always been the view of the Joint Liquidators that KSFIOM benefited from an enforceable Parental Guarantee issued by Kaupthing Bank hf. This view is shared by the directors of KSFIOM, a number of former senior members of staff at Kaupthing Bank hf ( including the former Group Treasurer) and most, if not all, creditors of KSFIOM. A guarantee dated 17 September 2007 was issued by Kaupthing Bank hf and signed by Ingolfur Helgason, the CEO of the bank in Iceland. It provides expressly that, as the parent company of KSFIOM, Kaupthing Bank hf ,

"...guarantees to discharge the liabilities of [its subsidiary KSFIOM] insofar as [KSFIOM] is unable to discharge such liabilities as have been validly asserted out of it's own assets...".

In reliance upon the enforceability of the guarantee the Joint Liquidators, on behalf of KSFIOM, lodged a "shortfall claim" against Kaupthing Bank hf. This claim was not accepted by the Kaupthing Bank hf Resolution Committee who referred the claim to the District Court in Reykjavik.

Given the significance of the guarantee and after taking Icelandic legal advice the Joint Liquidators sought an order that the guarantee was binding on Kaupthing Bank hf for the full amount of the claim lodged by KSFIOM. Alternatively, if it was determined that the guarantee was signed with insufficient authority to be binding, a claim was made for damages against Kaupthing Bank hf for the loss caused by its employee Ingolfur Helgason.

Unfortunately the District Court in Reykjavik has rejected both of the claims made by KSFIOM. In a ruling dated 10 March 2011, the Court held, in summary, that Ingolfur Helgason did not have the authority necessary to bind the board without the board being separately advised of and approving the guarantee. The Court further held that the evidence indicated that the Board was not aware of the guarantee. Secondly the Court held that KSFIOM could not succeed in its damages claim. They held that KSFIOM may have understood that Kaupthing Bank hf board approval was required before the guarantee would be binding and that in addition there was no reason to accept that it should be liable to compensate for losses allegedly due to Ingolfur Helgason's lack of authorisation in signing the guarantee.

The Joint Liquidators are very disappointed by the Court's ruling and in particular with certain factual findings upon which the ruling appears to have been based. Having taken further Icelandic legal advice and discussed the matter with the Committee of Inspection an appeal has been lodged with the Icelandic Supreme Court.

It is not possible to provide further details of the appeal process at this stage but a further update will be provided as soon as possible including an indication of the likely time frame within which the appeal will be heard.

Is this not god news in that the JLs still think there is a case to be answered?

Gordon 45


PG and the JLs Appeal

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 10:53

Although I have posted comments elsewhere in this thread, I consider this subject important enough to reiterate a couple of points and draw attention to some rather odd statements coming from the JLs.

As posted by Gordon 45 above: "It has always been the view of the Joint Liquidators that KSFIOM benefited from an enforceable Parental Guarantee issued by Kaupthing Bank hf. This view is shared by the directors of KSFIOM, a number of former senior members of staff at Kaupthing Bank hf (including the former Group Treasurer) and most, if not all, creditors of KSFIOM. A guarantee dated 17 September 2007 was issued by Kaupthing Bank hf and signed by Ingolfur Helgason, the CEO of the bank in Iceland."

I find this statement - coming after the ruling of the Icelandic Court - quite extraordinary given that evidence presented in that ruling shows that former KSFIoM Director Aidan Doherty demonstrated his awareness that a Parental Guarantee required the approval of the KSF hf Board of Directors, moreover, he also knew that such approval was never given. How then, could the '...directors of KSFIOM' share the view that KSFIOM benefited from a guarantee that was known by at least one of them to be invalid? The JLs make the point that the guarantee was signed by Ingolfur Helgason, CEO of the icelandic bank, but the truth is that Helgason was the CEO of the domestic branch of KSF hf and had no dealings with overseas accounts which were the province of his superior. Mr Doherty was also shown to be aware of that situation.

The JLs say this: The District Court in Reykjavik "...held that KSFIOM may have understood that Kaupthing Bank hf board approval was required before the guarantee would be binding and that in addition there was no reason to accept that it should be liable to compensate for losses allegedly due to Ingolfur Helgason's lack of authorisation in signing the guarantee."

However, the Ruling is made in much stronger terms: "Mention was made previously of an e-mail message from the plaintiff's CEO at the time, Aidan Doherty, indicating that he assumed that the defendant's Board of Directors would have to approve the guarantee for it to come into effect. He must therefore also have been aware that the bank's foreign activities were not included under the responsibilities of Ingólfur Helgason, but were the province of the Group CEO, Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson. Both gave the then CEO [of the plaintiff] legitimate reason to verify the validity of the guarantee. This he did not do, however." The ruling then goes on to say quite markedly: "As a result it is considered incautious to conclude that the plaintiff had been unsuspecting of Ingólfur's lack of authority in signing the statement." In other words, the plaintiff (by virtue of Doherty's dealings) knew only too well that as a domestic CEO of KSF hf, Helgason lacked the authority to sign the PG and bind the parent company to its contents.

I am not the only one to be concerned at these revelations - especially in regard to the JLs proposing an appeal. Apparently, the CoI have been approached to discuss this matter and I'm sure we all look forward to hearing why they consider an appeal to be a prudent course of action. The Icelandic Court Ruling is very specific and can presumably present all the evidence necessary to support its findings. Do the JLs intend to refute the assertion that Aidan Doherty knew of the requirement to obtain Board of Director approval for an all-encompassing parental guarantee? Will they persist with the nonsense that a single domestic CEO could bind the Kaupthing Group to such an enormous undertaking without but one counter-signature? I can hardly wait for all to be revealed...

Ice


"Wilful misconduct". Now I see your logic and

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 18:14

it looks very impressive.
Whilst some recent events have informed me the JL's are most likely up to the minute on comments on the site, have you formally given the JL's the benefit of your opinion?
Your understated comment about 'strange statements from the JL's' is direct to the point.
I hope the CoI are cognisant of what I believe is probably the wish of the majority here for justice to be seen to be done, even if that is at some cost. I realise that our members are outvoted on the CoI. Is there not a mechanism for putting out a dissenting opinion? There has to be some mechanism to try and hold auditors to book.
It looks very like time we could go to court. Doherty would we can assume be disqualified from serving at the least. And that saves us a bit of money at the moment. If he hasn't managed to debrief to the auditors after all this time one wonders why that would be, just what tasks is currently performing, at what level are they? Obviously Doherty was well up to date with his succession planning.
I can't imagine the appeal having a hell's chance of getting through. I'm surprised it was even allowed. On what grounds was it allowed?


Brass tacks

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/04/2011 - 03:46

The JLs say they are going to appeal this court ruling on our behalf - why? What's it it for them? Several here - Ice and FTT etc - say the appeal has little chance of getting through, so what's the point? Isn't this court case going to cost us and potentially cut into what returns we (hopefully) get back from the liquidation?

One of the earlier thread comments remarked about how the whole appeal process is "a nice little earner for the JLs" It's not their money, so why not pursue it etc as it adds to their fees. Hard to imagine the JLs really that altruistic....

Anyway, so far as I know, we haven't been asked about this appeal by the JLs. No idea of costs or timing etc. As Gordon 45 said a while back, the PG was always a long shot. I completely understand all the anger over the duplicity of the PG - and Doherty should be in the dock with all the others. But if we depositors think it's a non runner, shouldn't there be some mechanism to tell the JLs to drop it? Maybe the COI should be the window on that...


@Lostinspace. The JL

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/04/2011 - 05:22

@Lostinspace.

The JL statement states that they have consulted with the COI:

"I can confirm that, after consultation with legal advisors and the Committee of Inspection, we have lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of Iceland in respect of the ruling handed down by the Reykjavik District Court which rejected the validity of the parental guarantee."

There are differing opinions on the value of the PG as well as the likely success of the appeal. On paper at least if the appeal is succesful then it is worth a lot to us since it would include all the interest owed as well as any shortfall in deposits. Anrigaut posted the amount elswhere. Of course this would be reduced to factor the actual recovery from Ksf administration - a reason to follow the current fraud squad activity.

As to the success, well probably fair to say that with our treatment by the courts to date many of us do not expect much. However, I can see holes in parts of the reasoning for the initial ruling - based on assumption rather than fact in the case of Doherty and ignoring the accountability of the Company (ksf) for the actions of their apparently rogue employer. I suspect that the Company accountability angle and damages resulting will be the basis of the appeal now that the Jls and their lawyers understand where the Icelandic courts are coming from.


Like me I suspect most folks

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 04:42

Like me I suspect most folks are not sure if this good news or not and on that basis there is really nothing to comment on. Lets remember that they thought they had a good case initially. It is only good news if the costs are low and the chance of success is high ... risk versus reward. Otherwise it is another delay to persuing other potential avenues, if they legally exist and are likely to reap any benefit. The ruling as it stands for the damages claim effectively removes any accountability on the part of Kaupthings board ........ employees do wrong, not our fault and basically tells me what we already know.... the board were not fit to run such a high value company, which is why we are in this mess in the first place.


And when this little debacle

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 24/03/2011 - 07:15

And when this little debacle eventually gets into a court somewhere, how many of these individuals and entities will be sueable for damages? If for instance Stanford or the Tchenguiz Bors, or any Krapthing director is prosecuted for share ramping not only he, but his entire advisory team maybe become open to the question of damages.

As an aside are you all aware of the fact that Landbanki Guernsey have a similar problem with the guarantee signature? Which leads me to this, no matter what any of us think of the conduct of various regulators, governments and directors, at the root of this are a group of men whose greed, deciet and manipulation has been on a level that Bernie Madoff would be proud of. What is even worse is that they were supported by their government and it's Central Bank. We might pin this on the whole Hayekian/Friedman free market philosophy, Anglo-Saxon-Economics and it's "light touch" regulatory system (as was), but for those of us involved it's about these men, these faces and their duplicity, incompetance and greed. As I've said many times, it's a long list and a complex web.

Problem is of course at the speed this is going, I'll be nattering with somebodys maker by the time we get to the finish line!! Still never give up and don't be a victim.


Tchenguiz Bros win costs

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Crooks and criminals

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 21:42

This is worth reading just to confirm that the English courts will ultimately be guided by the power of the connections of the parties involved and NOT by any justice or equity.
It is absurd that if you default on your loans from a bank that you can actually sue the bank in question. To rub salt in the wounds of the innocent depositors with KSF (which we ultimately are!) we, the depositors, are actually forced to pay the legal costs of the defaulting party.

Remember we now also have to pay the legal costs incurred by Kaupthing hf in Iceland when they pretended that they did not know about the guarantee given by themselves to the depositors at KSFIOM.
Talking about bare faced lies!
The court in Iceland is obviously twisting every legal fact to suit themselves and unless the UK government puts pressure on the Icelandic authorities I fear that we will end up seriously out of pocket.
I am less sanguine about the chance of success than our liquidators.


Presumably these are costs

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 04:18

Presumably these are costs are what it took for the brothers T to persuade the court to hear their case in the UK. Think about it ...... GBP 0.5 Million in lawyers fees just to establish if a case can be heard. A small amount in Kaupthing Iceland terms but where does it end.


Is there any likely good legitimate reason

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 24/03/2011 - 09:11

why the likes of Mr Stanford would - in the days approaching the end of Krapthing- decide to borrow vast amounts of cash to buy its shares? I would suggest not.


I can't believe that he was

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 24/03/2011 - 15:40

I can't believe that he was not aware that being loaned money to buy shares was anything other than an exercise in share price manipulation. Like Tchenguiz he was in with the Icelandics up to his neck (primarily Bauger). The information published in the lawyer's letters supplied by former KSF employees must have been offered freely and therefore I can only assume he is still on friendly terms with them. It's the bank he is suing and not his apparent pals. The story that he was suing KSF was first published the day of the Tchenguiz arrests. With the Black report published and the SFO starting to get serious it was a bit late to blow the whistle - so seems like he is using attack as his best form of defence. Of course it could just be one big scam by him and his pals at Kaupthing to extract even more blood. If he truly didnt realise that he was being played then someone send him those warnings about letters from Nigeria before he loses a few million more.


Aspden shares depositors' dismay

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 21/03/2011 - 11:08

Latest from Aspden on Manx Radio here:

www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=50903
and www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=34374

The audio clip on MR is more revealing than the summary report - and worth a listen! He is clearly more on the defensive and starting to plead the "benefit of hindsight" so beloved of the IOM authorities.

Have sent comment below to Manx Radio and submitted same to isleofman.com (though the latter seem to go into a black hole). Comments to Manx Radio are not published online, but help inform them (we have good contact with them and they do seem to do their best to get the facts right).

My comments:
"It is encouraging to see that Mr Aspden, in the audio clip on the Manx Radio site, now recognises that “to the extent that it was made visible you could argue that ... the guarantee ... might have been reviewed by some people in a bit more detail”. The depositors would and do certainly argue that. It is interesting however that he doesn't suggest who those 'some people' might have been.

But no, Mr Aspden, it was not, as you suggest, a “nice to have but not a must have” guarantee at all; it was a 'must have' for the transfer of deposits from The Derbyshire (IOM) to KSF (without consent of the depositors concerned and with no possibility of withdrawal of deposits without penalty) at the time of sale of the former to Kaupthing, a sale which one presumes was overseen by the FSC?

And no again Mr Aspden, your understanding is wrong: it is made quite clear in the court ruling (which you should perhaps read more carefully) that the guarantee was not signed by a member of the Kaupthing board, but only by the CEO who was not a member of the board; that is precisely why it has been declared invalid."


isleofman.com comments

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 21/03/2011 - 14:46

My comments to the two articles relating to John Aspden's Radio interview on isleofman.com have now appeared, just minutes after I phoned them (having had no reply from an email sent yesterday asking what was happening).

I spoke with a very helpful guy who contacted the newsroom and returned to say the comments were awaiting moderation. The first comment was submitted on Saturday afternoon and the second this morning (Monday). He confirmed they had limited staff over the weekend. I suspect other comments are still 'awaiting moderation' and that by phoning I may have jumped the queue (at least for the second comment). So if you sent a comment and feel it has gone into a big black hole (as I did), I suggest you phone: +44 1624 641555.

I also suggested it would be helpful if a message could appear on the screen to confirm comments have been received and are awaiting moderation - and that in the event of rejection by the moderator the submitter should be informed. The suggestion was well received - we shall see.


I'm impressed again, my first comment appeared..

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 25/03/2011 - 02:28

I'm waiting to see my second comment which to summarise ..

asks why Aspeden is currently taking all the flak from the fraudulent signing when we had Aiden Doherty, Cashen and Gelling and the rest capable and charged with ensuring the validity of the guarantee.

It seems to me a very simple point. But I understand how those that screwed up, who were indeed negligent, might like the attention directed to Carrot_top. It obscures their responsibilty, And I would suggest that the IoMG has an interest in perpetuating this obfuscation.

My bottom line is that the directors screwed up negligently. What is the legal take on this?


Where are your comments?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 22/03/2011 - 16:56

Am beginning to think I'm fighting on my own on this. There is one comment (mine) to the first report and 3 (of which 2 mine) to the second.

The system seems to be working now, so how about it?

Remember, informed comments on the Manx Radio site help to inform them, but are not published. So to make your comments visible please (also) send to isleofman.com:
here: http://www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=34340
and here: http://www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=34374&c=pending

Thanks to all.


Re@comments

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 25/03/2011 - 05:14

I have submitted three comments three times over the past three days to both websites to no avail.

Ice


Somebody is watching. This always happens in the IoM...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 03:34

The IoM seems to be on a par with Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen etc.

An interpretation of what happens might be this...

Something embarassing happens for the IoM..
It just can't be ignored, everybody see the sense in the ovbvious criticisms..
The IoM public, at this point and for the forseeable future, have the attention span of butterflies.
The editors let the first wave of 'public' response through so they can claim they are 'independent'...
When the debate starts to hone in on the logical embarrassing conclusions.. IoM politicians start to feel embarassed and a curtain comes down. The curtain is closed off by the media, why and just exactly how.. well there is overt censorship and self censorship derived from the anticipation of criticism or sanction. The IoM economy economy is hardly posited on the moral highground.

We've been through this. My opinion is the IoM doesn't have a free press. They have a load of compromised hacks that try to break loose occasionally and inevitably get stamped on. Which IoM journalist wants to be a martyr, this is the IoM after all, there aren't many alternative employment opportunities. What about the only free voice on the IoM : The Manx Herald.

This editor of this paper wrote the definitive most detailed reports on most on all of the KSFIom story and they won't give him a Tynwald pass. Loosely, if I was at a protest I'd be shouting "Fascists". And before anybody suggests that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm in S.Am. And I have been doing a tour of ex-dictatorships, that is really one of the reasons I'm here. When the elite control the press it is very handy. And the IoM stinks to high heaven. The pass the buck to the UK, and the UK stinks, but the UK is relying on the self dfending hypocrisy of the IoM to protect itself.
Ugly isn't the word.

There was a comment on ManxForum , something about nobody ever being able to pin anything on Gelling, from a Manx. Who knows what the poster meant?

My argument at this point is, and I'll repeat it: The directors, Doherty, Cashen , Gelling, and who remembers the other, all should have known that a guarantee this important is normally checked off by the board and not the biro of the CEO of K hf on his way out of the building with a coffee in his hand. What exact experience did the IoM directors have? What were/are we paying for. I really mean this, just what exactly did they ever achieve (for us -not themselves)?

And the question of the moment: What does Mike and the team of PWC lawyers think? There is 70 M GBP on the line. Let's grab a few houses, reduce their pensions, show the IoM public that their judiciary might actually work occasionally (always) (I don't want to our old favourite Deput Deemster Corlett anywhere near the case, in my hunble opinion , with all due respect your honour, you've lost your moral and professional compass, possibly we might find the IoM equivalent of Balthazar Gazon?.. does one even exist?)

The IoMG puts up Carrot_top, which they are still assuming is legally bullet proof, wrong, in order to distract attention from their mates Cashen and Gelling. Remember who was a senior of the FSC (excusing himself on the FSC - Kaupthing agenda... but he was still a director. To my mind, with only a little pertinent here legal training, it would have been perfectly possible to know that the CEO of K hf might have been cavalierly acting ultra vires, and likewise !!!!!!!!!!! Aiden Doherty.

I repeat: What did we pay these guys for? Might they just, what a thought, and it is my conclusion, have been negligent?

We have the shambles of the direct upstreaming to Kaupthing UK...
and the farce of the parental guarantee...
what else is necessary. Where do they live, what are their salaries, what have the suffered, what do they owe?

I'm waiting to hear that Cashen and Gelling, not to mention Doherty, have just jumped off the IoM cliffs.
But what in fact is probably happening is that they are being counselled by Mike's PWC legal team.

Mike, that is Mike Simpson of PwC liquidators IoM, why aren't you more aggressively targetting the negligent?

All of you, looking over the bay pouring the milk on your cornflakes, are bastards. Yes I know that you have our money, wipe that snigger off your face Corlett I sense you allowed it.


FTT agreee with much of your

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 05:03

FTT agreee with much of your sentiment. Like most I would like to see Cashen. Gelling and Doherty held accountable, for where we are at, as well as Helgason who I suspect orchestrated this whole mess of a PG. However, if at the end of the day it doesn't bring us back any money, only satisfaction, what have we really gained. Sad as it maybe this is all about the money. Nothing will happen at this juncture anyhow until after the PG appeal is heard. Then, if it fails, I see the FSC as our only route of significant financial recompense, if and only if a case can be made. They (FSC) should be chasing these individuals to hold them to account and not us- but I expect that would unearth too many of their own skeletons for it to ever happen


@FTT/expatvictim

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 26/03/2011 - 14:21

I too agree with much of what FTT has to say in his comment above; I would however change the term 'negligence' to 'willful misconduct'. I rather like the following definition, especially the last line:

"Statutes and case law have adapted the term willful to the particular circumstances of action and inaction peculiar to specific areas of the law, including tort law, criminal law, workers' compensation, and Unemployment Compensation. A willful violation, for example, may mean a deliberate intent to violate the law, an intent to perform an act that the law forbids, an intent to refrain from performing an act that the law requires, an indifference to whether or not action or inaction violates the law, or some other variant."

Seems to me that Helgason must be guilty of willful misconduct for signing off the Parental Guarantee (what do you mean, I can't sign compensation in the event of a loss of £900 million, I am the CEO you know!) and Doherty is surely guilty of gross negligence at best for blatantly using this false instrument to deceive and cajole customers into transferring their deposits to KSF. There must have been others involved in this deception (conspiracy?) for it to have been promulgated and quoted so candidly throughout various financial media.

Ice

PS: willful adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious, and directed toward achieving a purpose. Some willful conduct which has wrongful or unfortunate results is considered "hardheaded," "stubborn" and even "malicious."


Guarantee

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 28/03/2011 - 17:43

Icecrusher.
I am afraid that whether the Kaupthing/KSFIOM executives were guilty of willful misconduct or negligence is really irrelevant as long as the Icelandic courts give priority to the interests of KSF and its Icelandic creditors and are willing to ride rough shot over the rights of the innocent depositors with KSFIOM.

As I mentioned before, after I read the summary of the judgement I felt really pessimistic that we will ever see justice in an Icelandic court.
Of course our lawyers in Iceland are upbeat as they will receive their fees whatever happens.


@brabander: Select the target!

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 29/03/2011 - 21:06

If you follow the logic and sense of the Icelandic defence, it is hard to fault their conclusion: Helgason was not authorised to sign or oblige the company to this guarantee. The most telling part of their finding is the logical conclusion that by virtue of the email messages going between Doherty and the KSF Group CEO, Doherty knew only to well that the authority of the KSF board of directors was required to sign up to this Parental Guarantee (as was done with the Derbyshire Building Society before it) and this critical element was omitted from the document. By sheer extension, Doherty could simply not have been ignorant of this fact, rather, he must have been complicit in the PG (unsigned or otherwise ratified by the KSF Board of Directors) being lodged with the FSC. Whether the Icelandics would find Helgason liable for cuplable misconduct is another matter entirely, but Doherty is within the realms of legal investigation and I'm sure there are many of us who would rather our money be spent on nailing this negligent nerd than wasting it pursuing a pretty hopeless case up North.

Ice


PG Select the target

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 07:16

Absolutely right!

Doherty should be in the sights. He clearly knew exactly what was happening and used the defective PG as a marketing tool as well as to placate the FSC who should have investigated the legitimacy of the PG in the first place. I understand that one of the criteria for holding key positions in financial institutions is to be a "fit and proper" person. Doherty has been proved as no such person. The JL's are wasting OUR money chasing around in Iceland. The problem is that lawyers and Liquidators always get paid first so by appealing they continue on a "nice little earner" with no risk to themselves so naturally they want to continue and will do so as long as they have OUR money in the pot. The JL's should dismiss Doherty immediately and bludgeon the FSC into placing criminal charges of fraud and deception against him. At least some justice would be done.

PS Don't hold your breath!


Just who the hell is "flying pig"? Where did he come from?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 20:46

I know now that this site is watched.

And who of those watching it who would not want to 'play'?

So with your advice "flying pig": "Don't hold your breath!" I choose to consign it to the partisan hopes of the negligent.
We are out of the jungle because some of us see the reason in honest behaviour. What seems to happen is the 'gamers' keep screwing up to such an extent that when they crash the system the fallout is so great that there is a leap forward.
We are in a historical moment when the gamers have the upper hand. The next crash is just round the corner. Nothing appears to be being learnt from the GFC just passed. The lunatics have held onto control of the asylum. But I for one don't shrug it off with a disinvolving ""Don't hold your breath!" Why even bother to comment?

If you wish to to elaborate, and I use that facetiously, your position I will of course listen. Until such times I maintain disbelief.


Who is Flying Pig?

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 22:57

Been here all along! Agreed a watcher and a fellow "in flight" depositor too. I have not commented lately but I have been waging my own war against several layers of officialdom in IOM and UK. I have been lied to and cheated like all of you and at one stage I was even threated with legal action if I didn't stop writing to a certain firm whom I considered were negligent. Even Simpson wrote to me and said that it wasn't his job to detect fraud even though I gave him and the FSC proof of it over two years ago. Neither of them write to me anymore and I am running out of stamps. I was in IOM briefly and the whole place is riddled with corruption of the worst kind so I have given up banging my head against a brick wall for the moment but my time may come and the facts are becoming public and the noose is gradually getting tighter. I just hope I live that long to see the people that stole from me get what they richly deserve.

I am sorry if my post caused offense but I don't really understand your comments

" If you wish to to elaborate, and I use that facetiously, your position I will of course listen. Until such times I maintain disbelief."

There again I am obviously not very bright or I wouldn't be in this mess.


PG and the JLs

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 08:23

Just some further thoughts; I would say don't be put-off by thinking that the JLs have 'done us proud' in their efforts to recover our savings - it serves everyone involved that more money is returned to the pot rather than less - and it certainly serves the JL's purpose. PwC are not doing this as a favour to depositors. The money coming back to us is ours - not the JLs - and it is coming back because mortgagors are repaying their dues - some of them are paying off their debts early to save on interest fees. The JLs are doing their job, fine, but that doesn't mean that keeping Doherty employed in the bank up until the recent past was the right or proper thing to do. The man's motives and behaviour were in doubt, and where there is doubt, there is no doubt (IMO) that he should have been removed from the bank until all aspects of this case are finalised.

Then we review the JLs comments posted on their web-site on the 24th March:

"It has always been the view of the Joint Liquidators that KSFIOM benefited from an enforceable Parental Guarantee issued by Kaupthing Bank hf. This view is shared by the directors of KSFIOM, a number of former senior members of staff at Kaupthing Bank hf ( including the former Group Treasurer) and most, if not all, creditors of KSFIOM."

How on earth does this JL 'proclamation' tally with the evidence that emails passed between Doherty and the KSF Group CEO show that Doherty knew that the Board's approval was necessary to enforce this guarantee and that approval never materialised? If Doherty knew, did he keep it to himself - or did all KSFIoM directors come to know of it? So which 'directors of KSFIoM' shared the view that 'KSFIOM benefited from an enforceable Parental Guarantee'? An unapproved PG is not enforceable and Doherty for one, knew that.


Cashen and Gelling were not just 'any' directors..

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 18:47

If Aspden was supposed to pick up on the 'provisional' character of the PG as signed off by the CEO K hf then it would be reasonable to expect C&G to be able to do so too.
This of course offers the defence of the fact the 'nobodywudhavnode'.
And Cashen and Gelling were not run of the mill directors.

And we have the other point : when the building is about to burn down you CHECK the insurance. Re-insure it?

Would it be reasonable of me to pick up a implied sense that Iceland judiciary might just have lost a little impartiality. Didn't we just feel the same with the IoM judiciary? When a pattern starts to appear we are drawn to reflect on it. Are we actually drawing the right conclusions? I don't have access to the legal advice being purchased on our behalf by the JL's, PWC IoM, PWC UK, and PWC Iceland. I don't know just how much the lawyers, whilst following their brief, think that their 'clients' screwed up.

It is possible, and totally reasonable and worthwhile, to keep on with such a cynical analysis. But the point of doing so is to eventually find some worth is such an analysis. The Icelanders rejected the obvious secondary suit of vicarious liability. But it all seems to too glib to me. The guarantee was an 'international' agreement. Personally I'd hazard educated guesses as to contractual detail under English Law. I would never hazard a guess as to detail on a potentially highly valuable and critical contract that would be very likely be adjudicated in a 'foreign' country ((at a moment of national crisis - we need to think just why and when the guarantee would be called on - or was Doherty really thinking of it as a piece of confetti? )) when I was totally unfamiliar with their legal system. I can't imagine accepting the signature of a guy that just flew in and was flying out again without consulting seriously. It is so ridiculous as to be obviously laughable, and in this case not just with the benefit of hindsight.

The longer you think about it the worse it gets.

What with the memorandum of understanding with the FSC, and now this, the manxes are starting to look gullible to the ma(n)x. Are we actually dealing with a people that are just too naieve to be let out alone? No, I don't think so, it just doesn't make sense. Somebody is being a litle bit negligent here.

A very important document, the PG, is being argued to be worthless. A lot of very important people (apparently) had oversight and I would argue responsibility (and were being paid and claiming expertise in this area) right up to the inappropriately nominally isolated FSC - standing at the IoM Treasuries right hand).

I notice that whenever the JL's think they might be coming under pressure to actually do something they post more.
And didn't we for once get almost a reasonable amount of information on the appeal, but of course, just when you would want to know more, the old chestnut of 'we can't say anything more at the moment' in tossed in. It strikes me that these people actually need our help in their everyday activities. I'm reminded of the our CoI guys comments on pushing for and getting currency hedges. These guys need our help!! They need transparency because they can't get it right on their own. They need to share the problem with us instead of resorting to try to hide it away to avoid embarrassment.

I believe Cashen and Gelling are the key. They are the Manx financial establishment, the crown of Manx creation. And they appear to have been totally useless in this instance. What an accolade, or, people can't get it right all the time. Were they just to busy with other things at the time and now regret that in this case they weren't quite as assiduous as normal? If only..? But more importantly what about their exact responsibility, knowledge and actions with regard to this issue. I really do hope there is not a Gilbert and Sullivan production going on on the island at the moment and they both are having some time to reflect how they might do something to improve the situation.

We might reasonably expect them to be lobbying with all their might to accelerate the plan the DST is supposedly putting forward (how is it going?) to put into place some sort of trust for advancing the safely anticipated dividends.

In a reasonable world if the guarantee cannot be resurrected then some serious questions are going to have to be asked. It does not look good.

No wonder Aspden was out their fronting it out saying 'well of course the guarantee wasn't relevant to his responsibilities'. He seems to be paid 250K for performances like this. But it certainly is relevant now. Why the hell was he holding it? If it wasn't his responsibilty why was he holding it?

There is more that can be said in response to the questions as to how useful it is keeping going with the legal action.
'Kicking the can down the road' comes to mind when I think of some players. Don't we just need more information to draw our own reasonable conclusions. If we are supposed to trust the liquidators how about they trust us?

No wonder a curtain came down so fast this time.

So what can done, after looking coldly and intelligently at the facts, at this point?

I do of course hope that we do win the appeal.


Tienes razon

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 10:09

La verdad FTT, tienes toda la razon. Comparto cien por cien con todo lo que dices. Estos sin verguenzas nunca van a admitir que nos han jodido bien. Yo creo que al final que cuentos lo unico que podemos hacer ahora es esperar la vuelta paulatina de la liquidacion. (Siento por la falta de abreviaciones, es que en este ordenador no las hay!) Que vayas bien!


JLs Icelandic Appeal: Wrong direction? CoI response please!!

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 06:10

Having slept on this and further to my comments above, I am left wondering what the Committee of Inspection have to say about this situation. We already know that the the JLs intend to appeal the decision, but it would surely be in all of our interests to know on what grounds they believe this to be tangibly possible - and this is where the CoI must come in.

Over one million Kronur has been awarded to the defendents (KSF hf) and I for one would like to know just how much more of our money the JLs intend to throw at this case - and I want to know (through the CoI) how they intend to pin the blame on KSF and its Board of Directors when from the evidence presented in the translation it appears blatantly clear the Helgason signed off the PG when he knowingly lacked the authority to do so AND Doherty knew only too well that to be the case yet continued to claim the presence of a Parental Guarantee (that ex Derbyshire depositors would have complete peace of mind) when he knew that without the KSF Board of Directors' approval, the document lodged with the FSC was nothing more than a worthless, invalid piece of scribble used solely to solicit and secure ex Derbyshire customer's savings to KSFIoM.

The JLs have (IMO) compromised themselves by having Doherty work alongside them at the bank (I've long claimed this) but given this revealing evidence from the Icelandic Judiciary reinforces that belief, and I truly wonder why the JLs insist on throwing more money at the Icelandic situation when they should be hanging Doherty by the fingernails for the truth before another penny goes into the hands of any Icelandic lawyer. It could even be worse than that; continuing the case against the Icelandics might just be intended to blow enough smoke around to keep depositors' eyes off the real offender(s) in this dreadful deception. Let us be clear: Derbyshire depositors were misled, and based on the revealing evidence of emails going between Doherty and the KSF Group CEO Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson, we were not unwittingly deceived, but deliberately sold a misconstruction: a sense of security, comfort, and confidence that convinced us to let our monies be transferred to KSFIoM. We were lied to, duped and dumped by Doherty and I'm sure we all believe that.

Come on, what do my fellow colleages out there think? Please make a comment and let's get an idea of the strength of feeling out there!

Ice


Yes Ice, you are so right.

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 10:28

Yes Ice, you are so right. And in particular, I too would like to see Doherty pinned down over this, and then nailed, but he never will be, he'll just be reprimanded a bit, if at all (for negligence) and then given a pay rise or something of that order. The FSC won't be held responsible either, for reasons they already gave. The Derbyshire started all this off by selling us out to KSFIOM with a dodgy PG and there lies the battle but time is ticking on.


derbyshire culpability

  • steve
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 31/03/2011 - 14:45

Yes Ice and others. I have always thought and wrote on this site that the Derbyshire should be held to account for misleading us into Kaupthing (as opposed to temptation). The Derbyshire, right from the off in October 2008, should have been vigorously pro-active in helping its loyal customers. They didn't. They ran away as fast as they could shaking their heads saying "Not us guv". There are some very thick skinned people still around and mentioned by name on this site. I have always blamed the Derbyshire as the principal culprits, but I will never forgive the IOM for treating us like a bad and embarrassing smell. There are still a few of us around. I just hope we live long enough to see justice done and to allow ourselves a brief smile of satisfaction.


Yes, Ice.....

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 08:44

This is more or less what i wrote a couple of weeks ago.
I firmly believe that the JL's are pursuing the PG case in Iceland in order to throw us off Doherty's scent. He is the one we should be after.
There is no doubt, is there, that the PG scam originated and ended in the IOM.

But how can we ever, ever get the man in court?
And how, if by some miracle we did, would we be able to prove our case in the IOM while the present shower of ...... are running the place?.


@Valentine PG and the JLs...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 11:59

Thanks Valentine; you know, the saving grace is that the case proves itself - no amount of wriggling can get the wiley worm off this hook - to even try and do so would hold the IoM up to to such levels of ridicule that even it couldn't maintain the illusion of credibility anymore. The JLs would need to bring the charge against him and the creditors need to oblige the JLs to do so. Pontificating is past, let's go - over to the CoI...

Ice


The Chief Wriggler in court?

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 14:31

Ice,

It's just occurred to me as I'm sure it's occurred to you and others that surely the key witness in any appeal that the JLs might launch in Iceland would be the man himself.

Would the JLs call him? What a stupid question.

So how can the Icelandic court i.e. the lawyers for the defence (Kaupthing hf) be persuaded to put the man on the stand?

Maybe that's the way to go.


He would surely be a key

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/03/2011 - 18:32

He would surely be a key witness for the defence!


...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 29/03/2011 - 14:14

...


HEAR HEAR

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 28/03/2011 - 15:03

Thanks Ice - brilliant pen as usual!

Cheers,

Mikepapa


Posted response on isleofman.com news item

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 08:34

I have posted responses to both of those links mentioned by Angela, but nothing appears. It's frustrating. Is there no confirmation e-mail sent by the site?


me too

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 15:27

I have posted too some i can see some i cant.


Great - bet we end up with

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 16:13

Great - bet we end up with half the debtors of Krapthing UK refusing to pay their debts now on the ground that Krapthing's practices caused them enormous losses. Bang goes our return.


@steveservas, exactlly the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 17:10

@steveservas, exactlly the point I was making last week Steve! If the Tchenguiz Bros win their case where does that leave the return? Now we have Stanford not only refusing to pay up, but wanting damages as well. Having said that not a lot of this is new, given that a lot of this was exposed in the Black Report.

What I can't grasp from the Stanford side is are they actually admitting they were involved in "share ramping"? If so that's a slightly dodgy thing to admit isn't it. What is evident though, is that Kauthing were up to their eyes in dogy dealing and yet again I ask what the hell were the FSA doing, in fact were the Luxembourg regulators doing as well? And to top it all what were the auditors doing? The smell eminating from Iceland gets worse and worse.


So our money (and that of the

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 21:28

So our money (and that of the Edge UK guys) was spirited away to Krapthing Luxembourg and lent to the likes of Stanford, so that he would buy the shares already held by the top brass in Iceland. And the sale proceeds would presumably be recoverable via some sort of constructive trust mechanism - assuming they can be located via the various offshore boltholes these scumbags were using. But no doubt a long and doubtful process, with the various liquidators having to question whether any exercise is justified bearing in mind cost. As expat said - what were the regulators and auditors of these entities doing???


Sami, glen07 & others who

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/03/2011 - 09:19

Sami, glen07 & others who have sent comments to isleofman.com,

No - there is no on-screen message and no email confirmation of any sort! I raised this with them on phone; got the impression they'd never really thought of that but would look into it. I insisted on the feeling of sending into a black hole and the point seemed well taken.

How long does it take? Undetermined - but seems to be anything from an hour or two (my post yesterday appeared rapidly) to for ever! They have only a skeleton staff for news at the weekend - and I fear comments sent then may never get loked at unless you prod them, as I did with immediate success.

All very frustrating, but if you want your comment published and it hasn't appeared within a day, I can only repeat what I said earlier: phone them politely and ask what's happened to it. The more calls they get, the greater the chance they will sort themselves out - maybe.

The number is +44 1624 641555.


isleofman.com comments still not working

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 24/03/2011 - 12:31

I tried posting at the weekend but they don't appear. Currently there are only two comments - Angela's and one other. I don't believe phoning them will help - it's a problem with their web site and they're obviously not very clued-up.