PG claim won by KSFIOM !

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 10/06/2011 - 20:36

We have been informed by our Icelandic lawyers that the appeal in relation to the parental guarantee has been won by KSFIOM. The Supreme Court of Iceland has ruled that the guarantee signed by the Icelandic CEO on behalf of Kaupthing hf was valid and binding on the bank. KSFIOM's claim was acknowledged pursuant to its claims before the Supreme Court, under Article 113 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The judgment was handed down today, 10 June 2011, and is posted (in Icelandic) on the Court website here: www.haestirettur.is/domar?nr=7446
The decision of the Supreme Court is final.

This is obviously good news, but it does nothing to change the fact that we have suffered years of uncertainty and doubt as a result of the dilatory performance of the very institutions and authorities tasked with our protection. We continue to call on the authorities to put an end to our waiting now by implementing the proposed loan trust [http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article=161]

KSFIOMDAG Strategy Team

4.954545
Your rating: None Average: 5 (22 votes)

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

How about individual claims for unpaid interest?

  • KSFIOMCRAP
  • 15/03/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Wed, 14/09/2011 - 12:24

Dear fellow depositors,

it is obviously good news that the parental guarantee is valid and that the WUC of KSFIOM can claim against the WUC of Kaupthing HF. This should help >50k depositors of KSFIOM to get more of their money back, potentially even a 100% revcovery.

But what does this mean for individual claims of individual KSFIOM depositors against Kaupthing HF?

For sure an individual claim from a KSFIOM depositor against Kaupthing HF is no longer possible if that claim relates to the amount of his deposit at KSFIOM as of 9 October 2008.

But what about claims for unpaid interest after 9 October 2008?

As I have not been able to claim unpaid interest after 9 October 2008 against KSFIOM in the Isle of Man I had submited an individual claim for this unpaid interest against Kaupthing HF in Iceland. The WUC in Iceland allows for such claims to be made.

The WUC had initially rejected my claim to which I objected. The WUC recently send me a letter saying if I do not withdraw my objection the case will be passed on to the District Court in Reykjavík and that I will be liable for legal costs if I dont show up at court or the court rules against me.

If my claim would have been for the balance on my KSFIOM acount as of 9 October 2008 I would have withdrawn my objection - this is what many readers here have done.

But as my claim is for unpaid interest after 9 October 2008 which I can not claim in the Isle of Man the situation is different.

Does anyone know what to do and/or has experience with this?


Situation re the PG

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/09/2011 - 09:32

For my response and follow-up to KSFIOMCRAP's post above, see the other forum where it was also posted: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/individual-claims-under-pg-...

I thought it might be helpful if I posted here a summary based on a reply I made recently to an email enquiry from another depositor seeking clarification on the PG and how it might work in practice.

Since it has been determined that the PG was given to the bank (KSFIOM) and not to individual depositors, any sums recovered under it will be paid (eventually!) to the Liquidators and included in distributions to creditors. For DCS claimants, any monies due would come via the DCS (as they do now for those partially protected depositors whose £50k 'compensation' has now been fully recovered by the DCS). The KSFIOM claim is lodged and is a global claim on behalf of the bank - and hence effectively on behalf of all the creditors. The claim is accepted in principle - ie KSFIOM does have a valid claim (as ruled by the Icelandic court) - but the amount will be subject to future negotiation between the Liquidators and Kaupthing Winding-up Committee.

No-one knows what the outcome of that will be, nor when it will be settled. But I don't see how that could happen until our liquidation has run its course because the claim is for the eventual shortfall. The latest (August 2011) updated list of claims on the Kaupthing (Iceland) website shows the claim as an unsecured claim (under art 113 of the Icelandic Bankruptcy Act) for the amount of 88.508.256.000 ISK, with the footnote: " The amount of the claim is contingent based on final shortfall between assets and liabilities at KSFIOM ".

Clearly the amount (about £450m) provisionally lodged by KSFIOM is way over the top and - as the JLs state in their latest Progress Report - will be adjusted (downwards) "to reflect the actual shortfall position following realisation of the Company's assets and the accrued rights of the creditors of the Company to interest on their claims under Isle of Man insolvency law".

Concerning unpaid interest, it is our understanding that, under IOM insolvency law, if and when all currently approved claims are fully paid out (ie 100% recovery of capital), those whose uncapitalised interest for the period prior to 9 Oct 2008 was capped (also under IOM law) will be first in line. This will probably be automatic (ie without need for making further claims), but we shall see if we ever get to that point. Only if and when all capped interest has been restituted will claims for interest post-Oct 2008 become possible.

The above is my personal understanding of the situation as it stands. It is not a legal view and I take no responsibility for its accuracy.


"Victory in KSF court battle"

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:50

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/victory_in_ksf_court_bat...

A ‘SIGNIFICANT victory’ is being hailed in the legal battle for compensation for creditors of the collapsed island bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander.

The Icelandic Supreme Court has upheld an appeal by the liquidators of KSF (IoM) over the validity of the guarantee offered by the parent bank in Reykjavik.

But liquidator Mike Simpson has warned that the court victory does not necessarily mean that creditors are going to get all their money back.

He said: ‘This is clearly a significant victory and is a major step forward in our attempt to recover money from the parent group for the benefit of creditors.

‘Kaupthing Bank hf is seriously insolvent, so this decision does not mean that the value of our claim is going to be paid in full, or that creditors of KSF (IoM) are guaranteed to be repaid in full.’

Mr Simpson pointed out that the winding up committee of the Icelandic parent bank Kaupthing hf had yet to give any indication as to the likely recovery and it may be some time before they are able to do so.

And he added: ‘Those creditors of Kaupthing Bank hf who objected to the validity of the KSF (IoM) claim may also seek to challenge the value of the claim, so it may be some time before the value of our claim is finally agreed.’

The KSF Depositors’ Action Group welcomed the news but called on the Manx authorities to set up a loan trust to pay the creditors in full now.

In a statement, the group said: ‘DAG naturally welcomes this decision, but notes that creditors have suffered years of uncertainty and doubt as a result of the dilatory performance of the very institutions and authorities tasked with their protection, and calls on the authorities to put an end to their waiting now by implementing the proposed loan trust.’

Depositors have so far received at least 73.6 pence in £1, following a fifth distribution of 12.5p in the £1 in April.

The final return is now forecast to be as high as 97p in the £1. All those owed £50,000 or less have received all their money back under the government’s depositors’ compensation scheme.

There was outrage in March when the Reykjavik District Court ruled that the parental guarantee was not valid, after concluding the senior official who signed the guarantee did not have the authority to do so.

It held that KSF (IoM) 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

But in their appeal, the liquidators insisted the parent was fully aware of the guarantee and for the requirement for it to be in place to enable Kaupthing to purchase Derbyshire Offshore.

KSF (IoM) went under in October 2008 after the UK authorities placed its sister bank in London into administration. It left some 11,000 customers owed more than £840 million.


A full guarantee is a FULL GUARANTEE

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/07/2011 - 02:15

There has been a lot of speculation on here about what exactly the Parental Guarantee means to us, so once again I dug out Doherty's Dodgy Dossier, and for what it's worth, this is how I see it.

In his letter to Derbyshire depositors of 20 November 2007 he says
" Kaupthing Bank h.f. .................. will provide a full parental guarantee in respect of customer deposits".

I am sure that any lawyer AT THAT TIME would have interpreted those words to mean exactly this : that in the event of KSFIOM failing and being unable to repay every depositor 100% of their PRINCIPLE, Kaupthing h.f. has undertaken to do so. In other words, if we were to receive 90p in the pound from the KSFIOM liquidation, Kaupthing h.f is obligated to reimburse every depositor the remaining 10p in the pound that he is owed.

I am sure that this is what the original Derbyshire PG was intended to mean, and what Doherty meant in his letter.

So, regardless of what percentage Kaupthing h.f. eventually recovers, and regardless of how far back in the queue we supposedly are, Kaupthing h.f. has undertaken to reimburse each and everyone of us up to 100% of the principle we had deposited in KSFIOM.

I believe that the COI should be urging the Liquidators to hold out for this position in any negotiations going on in Iceland. However, as EXPAT has said, it depends how good a negotiator you are.

So, do I see any chance whatsoever of Kaupthing h.f. fulfilling its obligation to us?

Frankly, no.


Incidentally, I should have added.....

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/07/2011 - 05:48

.....that it would be in the interests of IOMG to pursue the matter of the PG as well.

But can we expect them to do anythiing about it?
Absolutely not, apart from patting each other on the back.
We have more chance of expecting a one-legged duck to swim in a straight line.


@Valentine - straight line?????

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 03/07/2011 - 19:29

If you look at the Manx symbol it's composed of a three-legged (Trie Cassyn) person. So rather than the concept of the IOMG pursuing the matter of the PG having no more chance than a one-legged duck swimming in a straight line, I expect it'll be going round and round in circles and going absolutely nowhere. Sound familiar??


@glen07

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/07/2011 - 16:16

I've been thinking about that IOM emblem that you reminded us about , which I'm sure is steeped in history and nobility (If only the present regime had some of that).

I was wondering what would happen if you put the three legged emblem in the water.
Well, it would start spinning wouldn't it?
It would eventually be spinning so fast that it would disappear up its own arse, which is exactly what the Tynwald Select Committee did recently.


Three legged Emblem

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/07/2011 - 16:56

Thanks Valentine!

You made me LAUGH I needed that today visualising the threelegged man with NO brain disappearing up it own Orafice! ha!

Aurora


Does anyone know if the

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 08:09

Does anyone know if the ruling can be overturned on appeal, either by the WUC or another claimant?

Thanks, TonyC


Re the Icelandic Supreme

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 09:59

Re the Icelandic Supreme Court ruling on the PG - we understand that -

"it's final and non-appealable"

TD


PG Individual claims

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 10:02

Those who claimed as individuals against the PG appear now to be receiving communications from the WuC regarding maintaining your claim or not.
We are in the process of requesting the Icelandic team charged with filing those individual claims to 'withdraw' them as the ruling from the Icelandic Supreme Court (in English - http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.im/Files/IOM/20110615/KSFIOM_Supreme_Cour...) has been ruled in favour of the bank (KSFIOM)


Re PG individual claims

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/06/2011 - 19:24

Re withdrawing objections:

I've asked for clarification on this and await an answer, but to be on the safe side I would suggest that those who lodged their claims and/or objections on their own, without making use of our Icelandic lawyers, should email the Winding-up Committee to confirm they wish to withdraw their objection to their rejected claim, giving the claim number.

I have not received a letter, but have emailed my withdrawal anyway. Better safe than sorry ... !


Clarification re individual PG claims

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/06/2011 - 09:31

The matter has now been clarified by BBA Legal.

BBA Legal is writing to the WuB to withdraw the objections of all those for whom they (BBA Legal) lodged objections on 29 January 2010. This includes those who, like myself, lodged their own claims but asked to be added to BBA Legal's list after their claims were rejected in January. It does not (cannot) include those whose claims (whether or not lodged by BBA Legal) were rejected at a later date and who, on our advice to save further legal fees, lodged their own objections.

In response to my queries, BBA Legal inform us as follows:
"The WuB will probably seek to send a letter or e-mails to those that pursued their own claims and kindly ask whether they want to maintain their objection and if the WuB will not get a response within the specified timeframe the WuB will consider the objection withdrawn. There should though not be any liability for cost through a lack of response or action in that respect."

I would nevertheless suggest, to be on the safe side, that those who lodged their own objections should send a short reply to any letter you receive confirming that, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling that KSFIOM is entitled to claim under the parental guarantee, you wish to withdraw your objection.

Those covered by BBA Legal's letter need do nothing. I have a copy of the annex to their letter with the list of those included. Anyone wishing to check whether they are included can email me at DSTcontact(?)ksfiomdag [dot] com


Individual Claims

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/06/2011 - 05:21

I also emailed withdrawal of my claim and have received acknowledgement of same from the Winding-up Committee.


Hi There could you put up the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/06/2011 - 08:42

Hi There could you put up the email address of the Winding Up Committe Please..I will send them an email..

Thanks Aurora.


Aurora, I wrote to kari [dot]

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/06/2011 - 10:01

Aurora,

I wrote to kari [dot] olafsson(?)kaupthing [dot] com (the address in the letter some depositors received) and have just had a reply confirming the withdrawal of my objection.

Don't forget to include your claim number. You just need a short note of the sort:

"Ref Claim n° xxxxxxxxx

In the light of the ruling by the Icelandic Supreme Court that KSFIOM is entitled to claim under the parental guarantee in the winding up of Kaupthing hf, I hereby withdraw my objection lodged with the Winding-up Committee on [date]".


Letters to WUC re PG claim

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/06/2011 - 12:43

Thanks for the info much obliged I will do that! Will have to Dig out the paperwork

Aurora


Yep

  • Bromley86
  • 27/05/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 17:49

Google translation is a little clunky, but you were awarded costs (about £10k though, which I assume is less than you spent):

Judicial words:

Claim the claimant, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited, on the basis of statements of accountability 17th September 2007, described the dissolution of the defendant, Kaupthing Bank hf. is recognized as a claim of priority status under the 113th Article. Act. 21/1991 on Bankruptcy

Defendant pays the claimant a total of 2,000,000 kroner in costs in the district and appeals costs.


Priority status??

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 18:11

This is all very confusing. Indeed, DAG's Icelandic lawyer (who represented us for the individual claims, not the bank's claim in question here, but who clearly read and understood the judgement) first referred to it as a "priority claim". When we queried this, he confirmed that "the claim was actually acknowledged pursuant to KSFIOM‘s claims before the Supreme Court, under Article 113 of the Bankruptcy Act".

According to the claim form, priority claims come under art. 112, while art. 113 concerns "unsecured claims". ... ?

We saw the 2m kroner, but I was not sure whether it was supposed to include the costs of both hearings. Apparently it was (which makes sense). I don't know what was spent -but indeed, no doubt more than that.


Individual claims under the PG

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/06/2011 - 02:21

I ( like many depositors with KSFIOM ) submitted an individual claim under the PG when it appeared that the validity of the blanket PG for KSFIOM was in doubt.

The Icelandic Supreme Court has now decided the PG is valid for KSFIOM and hence it would appear that there is no point for individual claims to proceed ( they've already been rejected but there is scope to object to the rejection ).

In respect of the objection process I've recently received the following email from a Kari Olafsson:

" Dear sir or madam

Reference is made to your lodged claim in the Kaupthing Bank (Kaupþing) winding up proceedings on the basis of the so called “parental guarantee”, which was issued in September 2007 to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM).

The dispute regarding the validity of the said guarantee has now been decided in a final manner by verdict of The Supreme Court of Iceland in the case no. 201/2011 Kaupþing Singer & Friedlander gegn Kaupþingi banka hf. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the guarantee is valid and that KSFIOM is entitled to claim against Kaupþing in the winding-up proceedings.

With reference to aforementioned verdict we find no legal grounds for other creditors to claim against Kaupþing based on the same “parental guarantee”. We would therefore ask you to kindly inform us by the earliest opportunity and no later than 21 June if you want to maintain the objection against the decision of the Winding-up committee to reject the claim.

If you want to maintain the objection the Winding-up Committee will convene settlement meeting at earliest opportunity. Attention is drawn to the fact that if you (or your agent) do not attend the meeting, the Winding-up Committee shall refer the matter to the District Court of Reykjavík in accordance with Article 120 of the Bankruptcy Act no. 21/1991, as provided for in Article 171 of the Bankruptcy Act no. 21/1991. The dispute shall also be referred to the District Court of Reykjavik if it cannot be settled at the meeting. Please be advised that if the dispute is referred to the District Court of Reykjavik and you (or your legal representative) fail to show up for court you may be liable for costs, in accordance with Article 176 of the Bankruptcy Act no. 21/1991.

Respectfully,

On behalf of the Winding-up Committee of Kaupthing

Kari Olafsson

Legal Counsel

Winding-up Committee"

Given the decision of the Icelandic Supreme Court as regards the PG for KSFIOM I see no useful purpose would be served in my pursuing the objection process for my individual claim. However, I'm not clear from the above email whether I need to formally withdraw my objection by 21 June 2011 or by doing nothing my objection would lapse. If I do need to notify the Winding up Committee would a simple email response suffice ( there is no time to mail a letter from Hong Kong )

I'd be grateful for advice as I certainly do not wish to incur costs.


D RAM, given that I've had a

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/06/2011 - 09:45

D RAM, given that I've had a few emails asking the same thing the only response is that obviously you have to decide yourself, but the indications are that the very slim door that was individual claims now seems to be firmly shut. So it does seem that the time is over to continue. As I understand it you need to withdraw your objection.

Others may have a different view, so it's an individual choice really, but the consensus of those I have contacted is that if you pursue it will be inevitably be rejected, precendent is now that KSFIoM is a single entity, and all that will happen is that it will in all likelihood slow down any claim KSFIoM has.
.


>This is all very confusing .

  • Bromley86
  • 27/05/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 11:18

>This is all very confusing . . . According to the claim form, priority claims come under art. 112, while art. 113 concerns "unsecured claims". ... ?

IANAL, Icelandic or otherwise, but that's my reading of it. The law that pushed depositors to the front of the queue makes no mention of art. 113 but rather of art. 112.

http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/fr%C3%A9ttir/...

The original bankruptcy act:
http://eng.innanrikisraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/english/nr/6570

Taking a quick look at the K.hf assets/claims, which you guys will know more about than me, it looks like you'll only get a third to a fifth of the value of the guarantee when the dust settles. Better than no guarantee though.

@expat. Wouldn't it work this way?

KSFIOM pays out (say) 92%
KSFIOM submits a claim to K.hf for the remaining 8%
K.hf puts that in the pot with the other creditors.
K.hf pays out (say) 25% of claims, so KSFIOM gets 2% back
Total recovery by creditors of KSFIOM = 94%


Bromley86, possibly all

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 12:41

Bromley86, possibly, all depends on how good a negotiator you are! That's why making guesses at this point is a bit like crystal ball gazing, there's no defined route that I am aware of, hence it's not going to surprise me to see another court hearing to clarify things. However, on one point you made about getting back maybe a third to a fifth, yes again quite possibly, Kaupthing went broke so it's never going to have 100% of it's assets available is it. If it did in all probability it would still be trading, as it was it's commitments were not matched by it's assets to be simplistic about it, and it's Central Bank was in the same position so couldn't bail it out. Hence the UK closed it down. So in our case it's probably about a top up to get us as close to 100% as we can, you never know we might strike lucky and at least we have the chance to find out, which prior to this we didn't. By the way a 100% Parental Guarantee cannot possibly live up to it's PR if the parent goes broke, all a bit of a contradiction in terms really!
As I said, clear as mud, but I'd rather have 2% than 0% on the amounts those of us left have at stake.


It isn't 25% either - as

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 11:46

It isn't 25% either - as priority claims will be paid out 100% first - that leaves the general claims scrabbling about for the very small amount left....


Exactly.

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 14:00

Exactly.


Yep, made that point a few

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 17:53

Yep, made that point a few days ago, we should also add that talk of interest might be a bit premature given that rates have been as close 0% for the past few years as makes no difference. So aside from proving the legality of the guarantee (worth the entrance fee I'd have thought) the financial significance of this remains to be seen.

It'll be interesting to see how much the depositors in the Southsea do over time.


PG Ruling

  • Blades
  • 19/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/06/2011 - 19:32

Thanks so much to everyone who has been leading the fight to get the PG recognised.


Press release re PG ruling

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/06/2011 - 13:29

"Kaupthing IoM depositors claim Iceland court victory"

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 14:30

Another report here:

http://www.international-adviser.com/article/kaupthing-iom-depositors-cl...

Depositors in the Isle of Man arm of Iceland’s defunct Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander bank are claiming a victory in their battle to get all of their savings back, after winning an appeal in Iceland’s Supreme Court.

The judgment may be viewed on the Icelandice Supreme Court website here.

In a statement, the Kaupthing depositors’ group said it "naturally" welcomed the decision, but went on to reiterate previous criticism of the “institutions and authorities” that it said had failed in their duty to protect depositors in the first place, and called for implementation of a plan it proposes to reimburse depositors immediately which would be funded by the IoM and UK governments.

The statement added: .....


and another

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 15:19

and another ...
http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/international-investment/news/2078365/iceland...

Icelandic court upholds KSFIOM appeal

Depositors who lost money with Isle of Man-based Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander finally have confirmation that the parental guarantee issued by the bank is valid and binding.

KSFIOM Depositors Action Group (KSFIOMDAG) has been informed by its Icelandic lawyers that their appeal in relation to the parental guarantee has been won. The Supreme Court of Iceland ruled on 10th June 2011 that the guarantee signed by the Icelandic CEO on behalf of Kaupthing hf was valid and binding on the bank.

Depositors with the failed Isle of Man-based bank have always argued that it was the parental guarantee advertised in marketing literature that helped persuade them to deposit funds with the bank. KSFIOMDAG said it welcomed the decision, although it was unhappy about the length of time it has taken to get to this stage. "Despite the efforts of the IOM authorities to play down the potential value to creditors of the contested guarantee which, on their own admission, they did nothing to verify when it was put in place and widely advertised in promotional literature, we estimate that the now validated guarantee may eventually be worth 6 to 8 p/£ to creditors, assuming a pay-out of around 25% from Kaupthing," commented KSFIOMDAG.
.


KSFIOM Depositors' Claim Upheld by Court

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/06/2011 - 20:54

http://www.expatmoneychannel.com/content/ksfiom-depositors-claim-upheld-...

"Depositors who lost money with Isle of Man-based Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander finally have confirmation that the parental guarantee issued by the bank is valid and binding. KSFIOM Depositors Action Group (KSFIOMDAG) has been informed by its Icelandic lawyers that their appeal in relation to the parental guarantee has been won. The Supreme Court of Iceland ruled on 10th June 2011 that the guarantee signed by the Icelandic CEO on behalf of Kaupthing hf was valid and binding on the bank.

Depositors with the failed Isle of Man-based bank have always argued that it was the parental guarantee advertised in marketing literature that helped persuade them to deposit funds with the bank. KSFIOMDAG said it welcomed the decision, although it was unhappy about the length of time it has taken to get to this stage. "Despite the efforts of the IOM authorities to play down the potential value to creditors of the contested guarantee which, on their own admission, they did nothing to verify when it was put in place and widely advertised in promotional literature, we estimate that the now validated guarantee may eventually be worth 6 to 8 p/£ to creditors, assuming a pay-out of around 25% from Kaupthing," commented KSFIOMDAG.

The action group is now calling upon the Isle of Man and UK governments to implement the loan trust, which they believe is fully recoverable, and allow hard-pressed depositors to recover their funds sooner rather than later."


to Anrigaut/Icecrusher re - 'Parental guarantee' etc

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/06/2011 - 21:38

Hi There Folks,

A belated thank you Anrigaut for the great news re the 'Parental Guarantee'. I did see you your original posting but I was trying to finalise my thoughts on the May figures - which I now have.

Although it is brilliant news, I will wait till we see a posting by our JLs on the topic, and will still show no returns in my tables until we get something concrete re figures and % returns from the JLs based on the 'Winding up Committee' .

I agree that a figure of 25% recovery was mentioned some time ago, and I did work out some figures way back in the distant past. But I would not be willing to estimate a 6-8p/£ recovery at this time, although I sincerely hope the DAG are correct - it would be fantastic.

Would the DAG be willing to show how they come about this level of return in a posting to us all, so we can see where they are coming from. It would be helpful to see, if they are talking of around a 2p/£ shortfall = £18.1m. We know that a 1p/£ return from the JLs = £9.05m therefore 6p/£ = £54.3m and 8p/£ = £72.4m, both substantial sums of money. So it would be really important to know the rate of interest that would apply and how it equates to between £54m and £72m over the time involved?

I am in no way trying to put a damper on great news but it is important to know how the sums add up.

On a second point I see Icecrusher is still concerned on returns on the KSFIOM loan book, I thought the 10 'new largest loans equalled £113m. Icecrusher mentions around £100m owed from the 9 large loans out of £155.6m, and he is obviously right to be concerned. My own view on these loans and what is due back in total, takes a slightly different tack.

I have at present assumed a higher estimate of return on the loan book at 90%, that would leave a 10% for 'write off' or £41.6m, based on the starting figure of £416m. So if we take into account the current minimal 'write off' of £2.6m then take if off the £41.6m it leaves a total of £39m. if you then take this £39m as a % of the current £155.6m due back it comes to 25.06%. so in essence that would mean we could lose a further £39m on the loan book, or 25% of the balance still due and still get 90% back overall. And if only taken in relation to the current 10 largest loans with an average loan of £11.3m it would cover a total loss of around 3.5 large loans or say 3 large loans with something left over to cover any shortfall in the balance of smaller loans, and still bring in 90% recovery on the loan book overall.

But again all supposition on my part, so Icecrusher and others are quite correct to take a diferent slant from the one that I take.

Back to the May figures, I have finished my write up and modified my Table accodingly, but have tried once more to get the JLs to answer 2 questions I raised with them in March. One being on the total value of unresolved/unclaimedcreditors, which I think could have a slight impact on my thoughts on returns. I will see if I get anthing back from them to-morrow or Tuesday, and if not post my thoughts to everyone then.

As always,

Take care,

Gordon 45


'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/06/2011 - 11:20

'


@Gordon 45

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/06/2011 - 18:20

I see from your recent answers from the JLs, that my assertion of 9 larger loans has been confirmed - thank you for that. Of course, all the JLs then do is move a lesser-value loan up to replace it. There are now 67 mortgagors owing a total of £155.6m over a four-tier spread table, each tier with a defined value - the number of combinations that can therefore produce this result is few. We now have one loan of less than £10m in the new 'top ten' and I believe 37 loans in the lowest tier. The top nine owe us 2/3 of the remaining value of the Loan Book.

There was just one mortgagor who repaid his/her loan in May, and given the total repayment against the 2011 debt of £66K, it must have been very small. The bulk of May's poor return came from 2013 with a repayment of 1/2m.

I prefer your guess of the shortall (£39m to my £45m) NO losses would be even better, but hardly credible. I have to say that talk of returns from the PG seem amazingly presumptive; there is still at least three years to run through the bulk of this liquidation (if we're lucky) and still more than £155m to recover from the loan book alone - 2/3 owed by nine punters! I was of the opinion that the PG was a 'make good' arrangement - in which case it doesn't have to 'make good' until the last penny is in and could therefore be stalled ad infinitum. The Icelandic Supreme Court might have made a good moral judgement (= kudos/standing) but with no practical recompense forseeable. As for PwC and the 'fantastic' JLs, it simply doesn't matter to them - it's a job, nothing altruistic in that at all. Pursuing the PG was a win-win situation for PwC, work = money, more work = more money. KSFIoM has some money now - so better they raise their liquidation fees and grab a few extra million whilst everyone believes there's more to come...

There is an overriding expectation that the loan-millions will keep streaming in over the next three years or so oblivious to the financial climate and the rolling-over of deferred debt. Up until 31 May, some £62m had been repaid from loans due for repayment in the future - yet £58.8m is still due to for return this very year. Six months to run and £59m to come, is it likely? We could see half of this roll into 2012. You mention 84.95% on the year; but the fact is, that percentage (JL's guess) applies to the whole liquidation, not just this year; loans from previous years have been rolled over yet they don't count towards non-payment as long as interest is being paid. This suits PwC; it suits the IoMG; and it suits the Island's banks and those who make a living there. IoM politicians have spouted their suppositious high claims because it makes them look less dishonourable than they really are. Will they truly give a hoot in three, four - or seven years time if the creditors find themselves struggling to get 85%? This subject will then be even older-hat than it is now and trust me, no one will give a damn. I know this sounds 'gloomy' as Anrigaut tells me, but I didn't come down with the rain either - I was gulllible enough to get myself into this moronic mess, but I'm not lapping up claptrap now. We must continue to hope for the best of course, but fear the worst anyway - just in case.

I commend your diligent efforts to explain your insights to fellow-creditors, but I feel it is time for an alternative perspective to be aired. The objective descriptions and calculations are appropriate; but subjective lauding of PwC JLs is not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Those people are simply there to do a job and earn a living, end of.

Ice


Reply to Icecrusher

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/06/2011 - 19:58

Hi Icecrusher,

I do not often reply to your postings now, even when they concern myself, but based on your reply to one of mine I feel I should reply to your posting in this instance.

Yes it seemed likely that a large loan had been repaid in April and that is why I asked the question of the JLs. Their response was too slow to catch my posting re the May figures. But I did receive it shortly afterwards. I’m afraid I am not prepared to guess on that, as these loans as you say, have an important part to play on our future dividends and the % return we eventually get from the Liquidation. I think there is more than one loan below £10m based on the info given out by the JLs when they gave out the ‘new’ second set of 10 large loans. Perhaps the Progress Report due as at 9.7.2011 will give us more information.

I agree entirely with you over the PG. Good victory but means nothing until we get concrete information from the JLs. And as you say when will that be if the Winding up Committee decide to wait until our last pence is paid out in a dividend – 2yrs, 3 yrs or more.

Sorry to disagree with you over the JLs. They, I think, have shown a tenacity and ability to approach different aspects of the Liquidation as required. I.e. the KSFIOM loan book, the KSFUK situation and the PG. They will have a professional approach that demands they achieve the best for their clients (us) and they will have their own self-respect in relation to other colleagues within PwC and I am sure others in companies also involved in insolvency situations like E&Y, KPMG etc.

With regard to the loans situation this year, you are quite right to give your view on this as can any other person. You appear to take as you quote yourself (from Anrigaut) a ‘gloomy’ view – and you are right to do so if that is how you see it.

I would rather say, we have had £76.335m back his year so far, from £135m, inside 5 months and admit openly that there is no way that can continue – and I have said so – but one big loan back in April shows how a trend can be maintained. You are right to say we are still due £59m back from 2011, and you may be right in saying that half of that could be ‘pushed back’ into 2012. But if that is the case (hope not) If we take £135m - £29.5m = £105.5m. Then add the £16.824m already received early from later years (assume we get no more early returns this year) and you get £122.324m (I’d settle for that) as it is way above the £114.735m required to get back 84.95% this year.

And you say correctly that the 84.95% is the JLs guess over the whole of the Liquidation, but if that is achieved over the Liquidation we will then get, taking into account the expected returns from E&Y (KSFUK) a return of between 91.4% and 97.7% - I would settle for that right now – you and others may not, and that is your prerogative.

I don’t know whether ‘pushing back’ loans and receiving interest suits PwC. It might suit others as you say like IOMG, Islands Banks, Life Companies etc, but I would have thought that the JLs would prefer cash back from loans and less interest. But what I think the JLs have shown is acumen in the way they have handled different parts of the Liquidation – like KSFIOM, KSFUK and PG etc.

I agree entirely re IOM Politicians giving a hoot in 3,4,7 years time if we are struggling to get 85% back. But I don’t think it will take 7 years and I do think we will get above 85% now. I still think, at this time that 80% is a possibility by Dec 2011 and 90% by Dec 2012 – we will find out in due course.

Remember also, would you have accepted 73.6% way back in October 2008 as a recovery, or 80% or 90%. You might say no, as would perhaps some others, but I certainly would have said yes. It all depends on your circumstances and rightly so.

Do you think for one second our JLs would be quoting 84.95% lower estimate back from the loan book if they did not think they could achieve this. Do you also think they would be quoting 91.4% to 97.7% overall in returns if they did not think there was a better than even chance of securing this.

As regards being gullible or caught up in this horrendous situation – we all were, but I don’t see any ‘claptrap’ at this time – you do obviously. As regards fearing he worst, we are at 73.6% with, I think, a further net 3.225p/£ lying available for our next dividend = 76.825p/£ and counting. Unlike yourself I think we will get at least 90%+ from the Liquidation. But perhaps your more negative viewpoint will prevail – lets hope not.

And as you say it is time for an alternative perspective. I thought that is what all of us did, give different viewpoints where we feel we should as you have rightly done. I give out data to the best of my ability, and do worry that in doing that I may be misleading people (although never intentionally).

I am not sure if you are talking about me personally, when you say ‘but subjective lauding of PwC JLs is not my cup of tea I’m afraid’. Whether we like it or not these are the people whom we depend on to achieve the highest possible return for us all. They are professionals (like yourself) in their own line of work. They did not cause the collapse of KSFIOM. What they do does earn them a substantial living, but we need them on our side fighting our cause against others, and it won’t always be easy. So when they achieve I personally am happy to commend them.

And just to re-iterate to you once more, I have no special rapport with the JLs, no insight into what they do or when. I ask lots of questions to enable me to update tables and report my findings to all of you in the DAG. Some are answered, some part answered and some not answered. But I don’t give up and perhaps because of my type of approach to them I may have ‘earned’ some kind of relationship with them through my honesty.

But I close commending you for stating your views, please keep doing this as you are a bright guy with lots to offer the rest of us, but please stay above taking ‘digs’ (at me anyway) if that is what you were doing.

Gordon 45


Reply to reply - G45

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/06/2011 - 13:43

Hi Gordon,

Thank you for troubling yourself to provide this comprehensive reply; here's what I think:

I think that we can find agreement on many of the objective elements that are discussed above, but really disagree over the JLs. You ask that I stay above taking 'digs' at you, but in virtually all of your comments you (quite properly) make it known that your viewpoints may be off-beam and that others might think something different. Gordon, I am not taking 'digs' at you personally, but anyone who refers to the JLs as being 'brilliant', 'fantastic' or any other accolade will draw my opposition. If you go over your reply to me above, it is dotted with protective comments relating to the JLs. I know of your contact with PS, but really, could you not report the objective facts as good as you do without mentioning the 'fantastic brilliance' of the JLs? I have great misgivings, certainly of MS, because of the letters full of claptrap that he's sent me; he finds it difficult to answer straightforward non-contentious questions - especially regarding the £63.6m that they managed to lose on the collateral shares. I pushed him many times on the KSF UK delays - ongoing for nearly four years. He sent me more diatribe about holding out for the best deal for creditors, but then caved in to E&Y for £4m less than the minimum sum that he and the CoI claimed on the KSFIoM website; worse still, the JLs never considered it necessary to explain the how and why of this shortfall - they clearly thought that despite waiting four years, creditors were unworthy of an explanation from their brilliant pens. The intitial Creditors Report is full of mistakes - and the JLs have allowed most of those mistakes to be transcribed into every CR since the original. I've itemised the errors, but got no reply. As someone else has said, the JLs are not out there rounding up the money from reluctant mortgagors; those people can figure out for themselves that refinancing their loans elsewhere at lower rates is in their best interest and they don't need a 'fantastic' JL to tell them the obvious.

The JLs move the goalposts because they can, and believe no explanation to creditors is necessary. Did you read their 'methodology' for calculating high returns? I suggest you ponder over it and ask yourself the same questions that you pose to me above. I think it matters not one jot what they utter now, it will be forgotten over the next three years; just like many people cannot recollect what the JLs espoused four years ago. Why do you think that KSF UK adminstrators might increase their forecasts to match KSFIoM rather than KSFIoM downplay theirs to match KSF UK? This is a genuine question.

Thanks Gordon, and I'll stop knocking the JLs if you stop calling them brilliant and fantastic :-)

One last thing, we may or may not be 'bright guys' but intelligence is no defence against stupidity - as creditors of KSFIoM we have shown that to be true!

Ice


Comment on Icecrusher and Gordon 45 communications

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/06/2011 - 22:54

I think the term - "I agree to disagree" is the essence of the division of opinions about the JL's and quite frankly has been the case between many members and factions of DAG that developed along the way since the collapse of KSFIOM. Everyone is entitled to their opposing opinions and sometimes these differences can often be the trigger for effective or, indeed, not so effective strategies and action so not a bad thing anyway. Whether you "like" the JL's or "dislike" them, liquidators are a necessary evil when banks collapse and it wouldn't have mattered which firm was engaged to sort out the mess, they are very rarely seen as friends (in the long run) of any creditor. They're not there to take our moral side, just deal with the financial nuts and bolts of dismantling a company. In maximising our returns, don't feel it is out of loyalty to us but in order to maximise their takings and profit line from the job. It's called business - hard, non-emotional business. This can make you question their loyalty but I would say No 1 it is with their own company profit, secondly with raising the maximum return to us. I never expected them to act any differently than they did from the very start. That's liquidators for you. They're not "knights on a white horse" come to fight our cause and show emotional support or feel sorry for us investors. They're there to make money for their firm - plain and simple. I know you can question their tactics and decisions. What economic, financial, governmental decisions haven't I questioned in the past? However, as we said, differences of opinion are always going to arise even over the way the JL is handling our case. Look at legal decisions - one side (if not even both sides of a case) is always left unhappy with the decision in court and then they bristle at the legal costs for fighting their cause. We're never going to be "happy" with the JL's as they're eating into our investments as payment for the job they have to do on our behalf. Realistically we're never going to hail them as our champions but are they doing the best they can under the premise of what liquidators are there to do? Would another liquidation company do any better? As we all know unless you're actually an investor that has been through the last three years, no-one, other than DAG members, are really going to know our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual torture or sympathise with it.

So doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit on about the JL's, we have to put up with the liquidation process, which no-one ever emerges from feeling contented. Ice and Gordon - you have fed the complicated financial implications of the liquidation back to us less statistical members in a format which has given us understanding of what's happening with our investments( bad ones, though they turned out to be!) and allowed us to feel we've still got some autonomy left in our financial future and some hope for a decent return. So thanks to both of you guys and keep up the informative work, whatever you feel about the liquidators.

I have rarely posted jokes on the site but why not end with a couple?

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Liquidator walk into a bar. The Liquidator stops and says, "wait I think I am in the wrong joke."

Q: What's an insolvency practitioner?
A: Someone who arrives after the battle and bayonets all the wounded.


Gordon45, I'm sure you

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 10:10

Gordon45, I'm sure you already grasp this, but if a claim is succesful through the guarantee the intention would be to top up whatever is recieved through the liquidation process to a return of 100% plus one hopes interesat from the date of collapse. So if the return is 92% for instance, the assumption is that 8% is gained through the guarantee; if it's 98% return then it's a 2% top-up. However it's all in the presentation isn't it, so if it's argued that at present we are on about 77% (+ or - a drop) then we want 23%. In other words it's a negotiation by the Winding Up Committee that has to satisfy a lot of differing creditors needs and requirements.
So as Anrigauat says the market talk is that there is about 25% recovery at KWuC and there are still the priority creditors to deal with, so the amount is an unknown and will I suspect be for a while yet. However, the principle is to top up to 100% plus interest since Oct 2008. You also have to realise that there are creditors out the there who want their share to maximise and our share to minimise, so don't be surprised if there's another run through the courts!
In other words the good news is that there is a valid guarantee that can be claimed against, the indifferent news is that it's gueswork as to how much is available and how many ways it has to split!! And the JLs have won the right to make a claim, whether it's significant or not only time will tell.
Clear as mud Gordon, clear as mud!!!


To Expat

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 21:07

Hi There Expat,

Agree with everything you say totally. JLs have won the right to a claim, but whether it is for say 23% or 2% who knows, because again as you say there are some big creditors out there who will want our claim minimised. and yes it could involve more court action.

And even without that there is this big mess of fighting to get the 'missing' %, and what is it. Is it right now at say 23% or in 2, 3 or more years time when we get to the end of dividends from the JLs and we see the true shortfall if any, say 2%.. Yes and added to that is the complexity of interest, from 8.10.2008 or before that? And is it for what is allowed for under Manx laws or the true lost interest to us all. And then the rate of interest to be argued over.

And then the % return of what is owed. Will it be 25% of the total loss or what. No one knows this right now and it will take some time I think to get down to the nitty gritty.

So agree with you entirely and that is why my ongoing updates will be based on fact, guestimates based on what we know within reason and totally ignoring any thought of including returns from 'Parental Guarantee' until our JLs inform us of what we will get from this source, or at least the agreement of our claim value and interest value on which to make a prediction.

So don't hold your breath,

Gordon 45


Hi Gordon, yes I think I gave

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 21:47

Hi Gordon, yes I think I gave up holding my breath a long time ago, it's become more of a morbid fascination as to how the various threads pan out. Watching the story of how all this unfolded in the first instance; what has been learned from it and what hasn't; who will emerge next as a bad or good guy in all of this. So many things to keep the interest up, but never hold your breath!

To all intents and purposes the numbers stay fairly on track; the unkowns are much the same as ever and the returns seem closer to 100% than drifting away from it. I think you do a wonderfull job explaining things to people about the numbers, I'm sure it is difficult to follow the JLs statements for many, so it's good of you to take the time. And yes I'd suggest totally ignoring any ideas of the PG returns until somebody can quote facts and not hopes or even educated guesses. And never forget the vultures that hover around the Kaupthing carcass are numerous and avaricious. There's still quite a story to unfold on that score I suspect.

Take care
Steve


Won't hold my breath.......just yet!

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 23:55

I agree that the COI and the liquidators have done well to fight for our cause and the decision, by the Icelandic Supreme Court, to honour the parental guarantee is the right one and at last, members of DAG, especially investors in the Derbyshire Building Society, have had a moral victory. The financial recompense is yet to be seen and I agree that will take legal haggling and certain creditors are going to try and minimise our claim. Only time and dexterous negotiations will reveal the final outcome. With regard to how this affects us, in the end, a saying springs to my mind :-

It ain't over till (or until) the fat lady sings

I'm not going to "what if" it to death. Think we've all been through enough emotional torture over the whole sorry mess and I'm going to have to , as in any liquidation, leave it in the hands of the liquidators and the COI to optimise our return from the "carcass", as Expat calls it, of the KSF/KSFUK/KSFIOM debacle. I'm through beating myself up to death over this affair. I appreciate Gordon's time and effort in providing guesstimate spreadsheets to give us some inkling ( and hope for) of eventual returns and anything on top of that, as regards parental guarantee, is a most welcome bonus. It's now a waiting game..........as it always is any liquidation. That's the most frustrating part of it all for us. The issue never seems to resolve itself and go away, whatever the result, whatever efforts, campaigns or moral victories are lost or won. It's heads down and get on with life and appreciate all that DAG members do to try and get the best result.


Potential value of PG

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 10:55

Hi Gordon 45,

In reply to your questions:

Our estimates were based on a 25% return from K hf (which we understand from Icelandic sources is still the market expectation, though there is as yet no official estimate) and a KSFIOM recovery of 92-98% and thus a shortfall on capital of 2-8%, which would yield 0.5 to 2 p/£ from the PG. At a very rough guess - based on a back-of-an-envelope calculation which I no longer have to hand - we added around 5.5 p/£ for the interest component. So our (gu)estimate came to around 6p/£ for a 98% recovery, with the higher figure allowing for a larger shortfall (sorry, I replied a bit fast on that to Ice).

However, these are very rough ball-park figures intended essentially to allow us to counteract the efforts of the IOM authorities to play down the potential benefit of the PG after its initial rejection in March. They were not intended to be used in any detailed estimates of expected return to creditors - and you and right to be extremely cautious on that.

We (and the JLs) are clearly a long way from having anything close to accurate figures, particularly with respect to the interest component. The initial KSFIOM claim (£460m) represented the shortfall at the time of the claim and will obviously be revised downwards significantly. Agreeing the amount of the claim, including the basis on which the interest will be calculated (at what rate, compounded or not, over what period(s) etc) will involve hard negotiation between the JLs and the WuC.

So, while we would still "expect" the PG to be worth between 6 and 8p in the £, it seems definitely premature to include anything on this in your calculations.

I hope that helps.


Interest component of claim under PG

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/06/2011 - 15:49

Re. your reference to the 'interest component" ( guesstimated in your posting at 5.5p/pound ).

Hope I'm not being thick but I'm trying to get it clear in my own mind what would be included under the "interest component" of the claim under the PG.

Is it that the "interest component" would include the "deferred interest" not recognised by the JLs from our original submitted claims plus interest on this "deferred interest" and interest on the "amount admitted for dividend " ( by the JLs from our originally submitted claims ) from 8th October 2008 until all of these amounts are paid to us ? [ if my understanding is correct then it would appear to be a very tedious process for the JLs to calculate the "interest component" for the each of us thousands of claimants and then to amalgamate these into the consolidated claim under the PG ].

Grateful if somebody could shed a bit of light on this issue for me, thanks


@D RAM

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/06/2011 - 19:16

Can't cope with this properly now as I just left for a week's holiday.

But basically I understand it would be for whatever interest would become claimable in the liquidation once the agreed claim is fully paid (representing the liability of KSFIOM to its creditors). And that, again as I understand it, would be 1) that part of the uncapitalised interest at 8 Oct 2008 that was excluded from the agreed claim due to interest-capping and 2) interest from 8 Oct 2008 onwards. The basis for this claim will no doubt be subject of some hard negotiation between the JLs and the WuC. But should presumably be on the lines you suggest. I don't think we need worry ourselves unduly about the work involved for the JLs _ it's their job after all and will just need a good computer program, once the basis has been agreed.

As expat says, too soon to be trying to guess the details. Our guesstimate was just a ball-park figure to point out to IOM authorities that the PG may have significant value.


@Anrigaut

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/06/2011 - 00:21

Thanks so much for your clarification.

Have a good holiday. You thoroughly deserve it for all of your splendid efforts.


To Anrigaut - re value of PG claim

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 15:32

Hi Anrigaut,

Thank you so much for the reply, most appreciated. I was not trying to cause you or your colleagues in the DAG any problems. My apologies to you if any one thought that. It is just me being driven to predict as accurately as I can what we might expect in overall returns from the JLs.

Fully understand your views re counteracting the IOM authorities.

Thanks again,

Gordon 45


No problem G45 - I quite

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 16:24

No problem G45 - I quite understood!

It's just that on this one it simply isn't possible to be anywhere near accurate for now- as you will see also from the comments now posted by the JLs on the bank website.

However, while it might turn out to be wrong, our 'guesstimate' was not in any way deliberately exaggerated.


a island in my sea of confusion

  • FingersCrossed
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/06/2011 - 08:05

Gordon 45, you are a island in my sea of confusion, my deepest thanks to you for all that you do to keep us up to date with your marvelously clear thoughts, and your respect for alternative views.


KSF depositors claim victory ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/06/2011 - 16:30

http://www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=36756

KSF depositors claim victory after Supreme Court of Iceland ruling

Date Posted: 11/Jun/2011 16:55

DEPOSITORS of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man are claiming that they have won a legal appeal in Iceland to have a parental guarantee upheld which is binding on the bank.

KSFIOM Depositors Action Group said today that the Supreme Court of Iceland ruled yesterday (Friday) that the guarantee signed by the Icelandic CEO on behalf of Kaupthing hf was valid.

KSFIOM's claim was acknowledged pursuant to its claims before the Supreme Court, under Article 113 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The judgment was handed down on Friday and has been posted (in Icelandic) on the court’s website.

Depositors say the decision of the Supreme Court is final.

A spokesman for the Action group said, “We naturally welcome this decision, but note that creditors have suffered years of uncertainty and doubt as a result of the dilatory performance of the very institutions and authorities tasked with their protection, and we call on the authorities to put an end to their waiting now by implementing the proposed loan trust.

“Eighteen months after KSFIOM's claim under the guarantee given by its Icelandic parent bank Kaupthing hf was first rejected by the Kaupthing Winding Up Committee, a decision upheld by the Reykjavik court of first instance earlier this year, justice has finally been handed down – by an Icelandic court.

“Despite the efforts of the IOM authorities to play down the potential value to creditors of the contested guarantee which, on their own admission, they did nothing to verify when it was put in place and widely advertised in promotional literature, we estimate that the now validated guarantee may eventually be worth 6 to 8 p/£ to creditors (assuming a pay-out of around 25% from Kaupthing).

“All the more reason for the Isle of Man and UK governments to step in now with a (fully recoverable) loan, thus allowing hard-pressed depositors to recover their funds sooner rather than later.”


Parental Guarantee - Court Costs

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 11/06/2011 - 10:04

Great news as regards recognition of the validity of the Parental Guarantee and well done to all who fought on our behalf. However, presumably there have been considerable costs involved in taking this matter through the Icelandic Court system. If so, have such costs been awarded to us ?