PRIMARY RISK: Protecting our GBP 600m in the UK. Collective, powerful initiative needed.

  • LifeSavingsGone
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 25/10/2008 - 06:49

I do not understand our position regarding the GBP 600m in the UK, and judging by the responses from EY UK and the responses handed to Mike Simpson on 20th October 2008*, it does not appear that anyone representing KSF IOM has any reasonable or satisfactory understanding of our position in the UK. This makes me v nervous.
(* refer http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/444?q=node/499 "Meeting with Mt Simpson")

I see this as our primary risk area and accordingly we should leave no stone unturned in establishing all of the facts and protecting our interests in the GBP600m in the UK. My previous post refers.. (Previous posts have been copied here because I feel that this is a separate matter that warrants new and urgent attention)

"Pardon my ignorance, and apologies in advance if this question has already been answered, but does anyone properly understand where we stand regarding the GBP600m in KSF UK? I don’t understand those issues but it sounds prejudicial to KSF IOM depositors disadvantage, in which case surely we can litigate and force the matter into the open. Surely KSF UK liquidator, ING and UK Government cant hide behind “sealed” court papers and confidential court proceedings. Why are the court papers sealed? Who had the papers sealed? Who is hiding what? Smells v fishy. If there is any scope, Im sure we could get serious momentum from KSF IOM DAG behind an urgent interdict / court application to open the papers. Are we being back-ranked in any way behind other creditors? Are we being prejudiced in any way? Have all the facts in KSF UK been fully disclosed to us? What is the story behind Mike Simpson not being given access to certain information? Is it constitutional, fair, equitable that Mr Simpson must “work within the confines of the UK court order”. (In my book Mr Simpson's scope limitation alone is a prejudicial act against IOM depositors).

Are we a preferred creditor? How does the ING deal work? We need to see the deal agreements and all information. As one of the biggest depositors in KSF UK we are a stakeholder in that process and have a right to know, participate, drive and have some degree of control over the UK KSF liquidation.

If we are being prejudiced in any way, or if our interests are not being pursued to the fullest extent possible, I propose that move immediately to get an interdict / court order to unseal the court papers, obtain full disclosure and fair treatment, protect our interests.

Refer: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/444?q=node/499
Mr Simpson was unable to reply to most of these questions as the court papers in London relating to the administration of Kaupthing UK are sealed. The liquidator has been denied access to these papers. When asked the reason for this he replied that it was “an interesting question as it is without precedent....

reply
Fri, 24/10/2008 - 20:26 GMT — mikeinfrance
KSFUK sealed papers
The key to your initial question is, I think, contained in your last paragraph. ie because of the sealed paper situation nobody,it would appear, can find out. The treasury announced that the ING thing was done with £2.5Bn of taxpayers money....My own theory is that the UK govt. is now trying to recover 100% of KSFUK's assets using the sealed orders to avoid anyone finding out what they're up to. This is definitely a situation which the media needs to investigate!

reply
Fri, 24/10/2008 - 20:25 GMT — cande
RESPONSE FROM EY (KSF(UK)) - TODAY
Dear Sir

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited (In Administration)

We refer to your recent communication, and understand that you are a customer of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (KSFIoM).

We have been contacted by the provisional liquidator of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited in relation to payments which may have been forwarded from that entity to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited (in Administration) (KSF) but which may have failed to reach their ultimate destination.
The administrators of KSF are currently working on identifying and locating any such payments. Once these payments are identified and fully investigated then the status of each such transaction will need to be determined. As the administration is in an early stage it is not possible at present to give an indication of the likely timeframe that this workstream will take.

We wish to note that you are a customer of KSFIoM. As such, any future correspondence should be directed through the provisional liquidator/liquidator of that company.

reply
Sat, 25/10/2008 - 07:12 GMT — LifeSavingsGone
Fobbed off

With all due respect, the response from EY UK is a B&^%h!t response.

Particularly the last paragraph "We wish to note that you are a customer of KSFIoM. As such, any future correspondence should be directed through the provisional liquidator/liquidator of that company."

We are being fobbed off and are going to lose our shirts on this UK issue.

Time has come for depositors to incorporate KSF IOM DAG, - get a proper corporate structure going, take control of KSF IOM, and start kicking some collective butt in the UK. Perhaps Mr Simpson should provisionally lead the process, but this needs to be a collective, powerful initiative and we need to make sure that KSF IOM DAG is not paid lip service, put some heavy resources, litigious pit-bull lawyers behind this issue.

We have some v powerful legal resources contributing Pro Bono to this DAG. Perhaps we should call on this DAG forum to pledge a small portion of their deposit to ensure that our interests are safeguarded (subject to proviso that funds are applied super efficiently).

I am going to set this up as a separate topic to test views, get consensus, traction. THOUGHTS??

0
Your rating: None

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

FSCS UK And Our Money

  • JayC
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 10:18

Hi DAG,
I received email reply from FSCS today for an inquiry i sent about all the frozen asset junk. In the email they gave their phone number so i called.
The Rep that came on the line gave me the usual runaround but he said that the UK depositors were supposed to receive their compensation by the end of November. I pushed more about the UK compensation scheme (i.e. is KSF IOM considered one of the depositors that will be fully reimbursed?) and without answering he basically said no. KSFIOM is an arm of the Icelandic bank just as is the UK branch. The KSF UK branch was in default and the assets were frozen (or you could say "confiscated").

I asked some more about this and what happens with the "confiscated" money if the UK bank and depositors are already planned to be compensated. The answer was very shocking and upsetting. He said of course he can't speak specifically but usually when an "asset" is confiscated it is used to compensate for damages. And continued that of the many creditors/liabilities KSFIOM depositors would not likely be near the beginning of the line for repayment.

These UK FSCS and Treasury guys are a really work of art. Freeze the money, seal the paperwork, put up a "polite" face to brush everyone off, and wait it out. Being a USA citizen i hear a lot about the huge losses people had back in the 1930s, it's a really sh**ty feeling to have it actually happen to me.

I think we should all join in on the legal actions. There was some news on www.iomtoday.co.im about the Icelandic Gov legal action. We should send our DAG contact info to them or a list of our members. I’ll try to contact and join that Hoppers Legal Action firm. I’m just not sure if my deposit amount will be enough for them to add me in.

Unbelievable.
JayC


Our money, not yours E&Y

  • ianhkhi
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 04:20

You're so right.

Time to play hardball with Ernst & Young in London. Shouldn't we all, everyone of us , write or call and tell E&Y that if any one of them (the whole firm) puts a single finger anywhere near our money .... (fill in the blanks).

Contact email/address/tel no. for E&Y please?


They are all being polite and avoiding giving a straight answer.

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:43

The money is now in the hands of the liquidator. KSFOIM depositors are (possibly) creditors but the money is no longer 'theirs'.


Lets not split - see current strategy debate

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:48

Guys, have a read of the strategy debate going on right now. E&Y are out of scope, PWC are the people we are talking to. As is happening.

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/815

Mat Walker


Strategy vs Thinking End-Product

  • LifeSavingsGone
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 15:34

Hi Mat

I have read the strategy node/815. Good work and good co-ordinated effort.

BUT:
I can not rest until I personally understand how the 555 million pounds in the UK works. I have scoured this site, and I all I hear it that papers are sealed and that we have to direct our enquiries through PWC IOM to EY, and that EY is fobbing off enquiries.. No one really seems to understand where we stand on the UK matter, which makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I would like to see and understand (or have someone else see, understand and clearly explain on this forum):

The agreements in terms of which ING acquired Kaupting Edge UK.

The relationship between Kaupting Edge UK and KSF UK (including all cross guarantees, collatereal arrangements)

Were there (are there) loan accounts between Kaupting Edge UK and KSF UK?

Did KSF UK control or have any rights (through collateral agreements, credit support agreements, guarantees, otherwise) in KAupthing Edge or to the Kaupthing Edge assets that were transferred to ING?

Were any of KSF UK's rights, collateral affected when Kaupthing Edge creditors were replaced by the UK Treasury as a creditor in terms of the ING deal?

Did KSF UK substantively control Kaupting Edge? (these inter-group relationships are usually very complex an inter-twined with all sorts of cross – guarantees, collateral arrangements etc etc and substantive control is often different from the legal form)

Assuming that there was a relationship between KSF UK and Kaupting Edge UK, has the KSF IOM's position been altered (prejudiced) in any way by the ING deal?

Has the UK Treasury improved the position of UK depositors relative to IOM depositors through the ING deal? [I think the answer to that one is obvious]

UK Treasury as sole creditor in KAupting Edge is able to control Kaupting Edge. UK government has already demonstrate that they are able to nationalise the assets of KSF UK and can therefore dictate policy in KSF UK (if they so choose).

UK Treasury is in a position to cherry-pick, dictate who gets what in the final distribution.

UK treasury is conflicted as controller and creditor of Kaupthing Edge , KSF. By entering into the ING deal they have entered a position of conflict. UK Treasury is Running with the Hares as well as Hunting with the Hounds.

The UK government's actions to date have preferred one class of creditors over another, and have been prejudicial to KSF IOM.

I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that this is illegal.

I guess that this is the reason for all the secrecy, sealed papers.

I think end product: I want answers to these questions. Having a delegation speak to PWC to speak to EY who politely tell us to go get F*&^ed doesnt do it for me. If your initiatives get there - great - but I dont see anyone understanding our position properly, - we need to understand our position before we can start protecting our interests - and I am not going to rest until I an assured that our (my own) interests are properly represented and protected. Please make sure that these questions form part of your strategy. If you need any help please Email me. Irrespective, we need to get proper understanding, answers - fast.


KE/KSFUK/KSFIOM

  • DXB
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 16:54

LSG,
Some observations on your post:
1) I understand KE was the internet banking business of KSFUK. It was a separate business unit, not a separate company, so a lot of the complexities you mention don't quite arise. (There may have been cross-subsidies between the various business operations within KSFUK, but there wouldn't have been any 'intra-group' guarantees, loans or security/collateral as such.)
2) The transfer of KE from KSFUK to ING was effected by means of a statutory transfer. This was lawful in that there was an Act of Parliament authorising the transfer order.
3) I am not sure hiving off KE to ING prejudices KSFIOM, since all that this seems to have done is substitute one set of creditors of KSFUK (the KE internet depositors) with another (Treasury). There is nothing to date to suggest that Treasury will be paid out ahead of the other creditors of KSFUK. (Happy to be challenged on this point 3.)
4) As noted previously by others on this site, there isn't a large vault full of banknotes at KSFUK with a stash of GBP 550m belonging to KSFIOM. In transferring the funds to KSFUK, unless the funds were placed in a segregated account or otherwise ringfenced, the funds would have become KSFUK's and would have been on-loaned etc. All KSFIOM have are a debt (with KSFIOM as creditor and KSFUK as debtor), which may or may not be covered by KSFUK's asset base.

Two points flow from all this (and again, I am happy to be corrected on these):
i) In guaranteeing the KE deposits, Treasury have effectively preferred one group of creditors, but (A) HMT are expressly empowered to do so by legislation, and (B) the only persons 'prejudiced' are HMT (who step into the shoes of the KE depositors) - not KSFIOM, as KSFIOM is left pretty much where it would always have been (i.e. a general unsecured creditor). (The 'preference' is therefore not detrimental to anyone other than Treasury.)
ii) If the above analysis is correct, then the issue shifts from being a strictly 'legal' one to one of policy: Is it fair that depositors in KSFIOM are not afforded the same degree of protection, particularly when the funds appear to have been moved with a regulatory intent to 'protect' them?

I should point out that I am a depositor and stand to lose a significant chunk of my savings in this debacle. My main point in providing the above analysis is that the legal argument for the 'return' of 'our' GBP 550m isn't as straightforward and clear-cut as it might appear.


KE e KFSUK

  • Mandy_Italy
  • 13/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 17:03

They are not separate companies
"Kaupthing Edge is a trading name of Kaupthing Bank hf and Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd.
The number 875949 refers to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd's registration with Companies House in the UK. "


Taking note of your questions

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 15:55

"The UK government's actions to date have preferred one class of creditors over another, and have been prejudicial to KSF IOM."

We believe that MAY be true and we are pressing the appropriate authorities to look into exactly what has happened with any assets that were in KSF UK when the the UK government commenced its actions.

"I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that this is illegal. I guess that this is the reason for all the secrecy, sealed papers."

Almost certainly incorrect. Not even the government that caused this mess would knowingly do something overtly illegal and then attempt to crudely cover it up with sealed documents. Sealed documents automatically attract attention and that is something someone knowingly carrying out an illegal act would wish to avoid.

"UK Treasury is in a position to cherry-pick, dictate who gets what in the final distribution."

We've already mentioned that we believe that it is unlawfull to show preference to any group of unsecured creditors over another so this statement would appear to be incorrect.

"I would like to see and understand (or have someone else see, understand and clearly explain on this forum):
1) The agreements in terms of which ING acquired Kaupting Edge UK.
2) The relationship between Kaupting Edge UK and KSF UK (including all cross guarantees, collatereal arrangements)
3) Were there (are there) loan accounts between Kaupting Edge UK and KSF UK?
4) Did KSF UK control or have any rights (through collateral agreements, credit support agreements, guarantees, otherwise) in KAupthing Edge or to the Kaupthing Edge assets that were transferred to ING?
5) Were any of KSF UK's rights, collateral affected when Kaupthing Edge creditors were replaced by the UK Treasury as a creditor in terms of the ING deal?
6) Did KSF UK substantively control Kaupting Edge? (these inter-group relationships are usually very complex an inter-twined with all sorts of cross – guarantees, collateral arrangements etc etc and substantive control is often different from the legal form)"

KSFIOM was a completely separate entity to KSFUK and appears simply to have been anther depositor within that bank. As such I'm not sure that points 1-6 are directly relevant to our enquiries. What the relationship between UK entities is has no bearing on where our deposits went. What has a bearing is what the government did with the deposits in KSFUK and that is something we're chasing,

The questions surrounding the £555m have been asked and are continuing to be asked of the relevant people and authorities.

"but I dont see anyone understanding our position properly"

Who do you think doesn't understand our position that you think should?

"Please make sure that these questions form part of your strategy"

They are and they have been since we first found out about the deposits in London.


KSF IOM and KE IOM

  • brennajm
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 18:11

Could somebody tell me what is likely to happen to my euro savings with Kaupthing Edge, Isle of Man? I had GBP with KSF IOM and an equivalent amount in euros with KE. Nobody is addressing this - that I have seen so far. Could this be because everybody is concentrating on UK citizens being robbed of their money? I am not a UK citizen but I have equally been robbed.


I share that confusion, but

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 18:44

I share that confusion, but apparently it's just a trading name. British in Jersey, working in sterling, and everything I have relating to my a/c has been referring to KEIOM, although my deposits went to KSFIOM.

Still, who owns Jaguar or Land-Rover these days?


Everything

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 18:15

ALL funds are in the same situation, there is no difference between currencies. Also, there is no diffference between nationalities here, we're all in the same boat. We're concentrating on the 'British angle' because we're focusing on the British press.


UK assets are GONE

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 17:58

>>"The UK government's actions to date have preferred one class of creditors over another, and have been prejudicial to KSF IOM."

"We believe that MAY be true and we are pressing the appropriate authorities to look into exactly what has happened with any assets that were in KSF UK when the the UK government commenced its actions."

Any funds that are siezed by the respective subsidiaries of the Iceland banks will be distributed to the creditors.

Each jurisdiction will treat the assets and creditors according to its local laws and apply it to its local assets.

You would not expect the depositors in Germany, UK and Holland being able to claim against assets that were held in the IoM at the point of winding up.

Iceland has responsibility to cover any shortfall, but it has refused to do so.

So don't expect the UK administrators to pay IoM creditors until the UK creditors have been fully refunded first.


What??

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 18:24

That's not the case. UK insolvency law does not take account of the location of the creditors of a UK company that goes into liquidation, all unsecured creditors get paid out with equal priority.


Taking Note of Your Questions

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 17:10

Not sure whether this helps but have a letter dated 3 May 2005 from Aidan Doherty with S&F IOM address saying
'On Thursday 28 April 2005, Singer & Friedlander announced to the London Stock Exchange a recommended offer fpr its shares made by Kaupthing Bank. We are enclosing a message from Tony Shearer CEO of S&F which is fairly self-explanatory.
The message from Tony Shearer was from S&F Group plc with the London address. It said 'I an writing to tell you that a cash offer for S&F Group plc by Kaupthing Bank hf has been received & recommended by the Board of S&F. Subject to agreement of shareholders and to a number of conditions including approval by the FSA in UK and other regulators in Iceland and IOM this will result in the acquisition of S&F Group PLC by Kaupthing Bank hf. Kaupthing Bank already holds approx 19.5per cent of the issued share capital of S&F Group Plc.
S&F Group plc was acquired by Kaupthing Bank in July 2005 but name of S&F IOM Ltd was nor changed to Kaupthing S&F IOM Ltd until 2 Jan 2007.


Diver Thank you for all your

  • LifeSavingsGone
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 16:25

Diver

Thank you for all your efforts.

Any contract or right or change in rights in KSF UK must have an effect on our rights as depositors.

Having KAupthing Edge distinct and separate from KSF UK is very convenient, expedient from a KAupting Edge depositors and UK Treasury perspective - but I cannot believe that there are no contractual links between KSF UK and Kaupting Edge, and If KSF UK has foregone any rights in Kaupthing Edge, then we have been prejudiced.

We need to find where our cash is , and if there is any missing , find out exactly what manoeuvrings occurred, and whether any of these actions have diluted any of our rights or cash.

All I know for sure at the moment is that some UK creditors have their money and I don’t.


Contractual links

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 18:32

There can't have been contractual links, because both KSF UK and Kaupthing Edge were the same company until recently.

A company cannot form a contract with itself.

The relationship and rights of Kaupthing Edge vs KSF UK were specified by law on 8 October 2008. To summarise, for a transitional period of six months ING has access to the records, computers systems and things of that nature in order to administer the Kaupthing Edge accounts. They also acquired temporary rights to use the 'Kaupthing' trademark. The administrator must give priority to assisting this process. In return, ING pay the costs of the administrator/KSF UK in making this happen.

This only prejudices the interests of KSFIOM depositors in so far as it causes initial delay because the administrator has to sort out the Kaupthing Edge bit first. It does not prejudice the funds that KSFIOM had deposited in KSF UK.

Other than that, read DXB's reply above. It is all absolutely correct.

Finally, the court papers cannot have been sealed as any part of a government cover-up. Only the judge can seal the papers, and he will have had a valid reason for that.


Sealed papers

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 19:21

Cold dose, there has been much discussion regarding the so called "sealed papers" but, for those of us with little or no legal knowlege, can you give us brief insight into what exactly is meant by this term.In my mind I just see some papers in an envelope with a wax seal or something,but I don't really understand the implications.Who, for example, does know what's in these papers,and who would have prepared them in the first place ? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on all this.


Sealed papers

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 19:44

In centuries past, the seal was indeed a wax seal - to check that nobody had broken the court's order and looked at the papers.

Today it just means they are kept secure and they won't allow you to look at them.

The court papers are the background papers relating to the request. They would be similar to the court papers for KSFIOM's provisional liquidation, which you can see here: http://www.fsc.gov.im/ViewNews.gov?page=lib/news/fsc/kaupthingupdate2.xml

The papers would have been prepared by the parties in the case or the court.

Courts do routinely seal papers, normally the sensitive information is relating to the personal lives of individuals (in divorce or family proceedings) or company trade secrets (e.g. in commercial courts), but can also be government secrets.

There is a general rule that justice must not just be done, but must also be seen to be done - sealing the papers is against this, so the courts would want a proper reason.

The sealed papers will remain sealed forever - unless the court agrees to overturn the sealing order.


Differential Treatment: UK Edge vs IOM depositors

  • LifeSavingsGone
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:06

Cold-Dose, thank you for your input.

In the US, the separate treatment of Edge creditors from the rest of us depositors would not be allowed.

US Treasury re-capitalise their banks by subscribing for preference shares*, which ensures that all classes of creditors are treated equally (i.e. that the Edge creditors are not treated on a preferential basis to the rest of us).

I am asking these awkward questions above in the hope that we can bring pressure on the UK government to resolve this issue quickly. If this differential treatment issue becomes enough of a hot potato issue, hopefully UK Govt will want to wash their hands of the issue by settling us on the same basis as Edge depositors.

PS The fact that Edge was part of KSF UK only increases my concern that we have not been treated on the same basis as Edge depositors. (Apologies for my initial misunderstanding that they were separate – thanks to all for straightening that out.).

  • Pref shares are high yielding, convertible into Ords and are issued on reasonably favourable terms to US Treasury. US Treasury would be expected to profit handsomely on these prefs and their conversion rights when the market turns.

PS> Could a UK liquidation lawyer please explain whether this differential treatment is permissible in the UK?


Preference shares

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 23:36

The US actually nicked that idea from Gordon Brown - the UK was the first country to move to recapitalise banks by purchasing preference shares.

Note that in both cases it was only some banks that they were intervening with - the big banks who would topple the entire system if they were to fail.

That aside, KSF UK isn't directly comparable. The governments took preference shares in banks that were quoted public companies. KSF UK was a private company with a single shareholder.

As for the US not permitting separate treatment - they have special bank insolvency rules that US assets must be used to pay US depositors before any foreigners receive any money... and the US receiver can also try to grab foreign assets as well!

At least the UK gives all creditors equal rights to the remaining assets of KSF UK, whether the creditor is KSFIOM or the UK Treasury.


Dont think a pref share subscription wud work

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 23:47

Of course the main problem with KSF IOM being "saved" by preference shares is that it is likely that all of the depositers would flee once they got there money back and they don't really have any other way to make money.
Also it only made about £5M a yeah so it wouldnt be able to pay a reasonable coupon rate, and would have no chance of paying back the capital


Aside from which...

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 00:12

Aside from which the problem wasn't a lack of capitalisation, it was a lack of liquidity. And, specifically now in the case of KSFIOM, bad debt (namely some £550m stuck in a UK bank that's in administration)

Different things!


Yes cold-dose agreed but now....

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 00:18

Yes but it is a lack of capital now, as there may only be pence in the pound paid on the assets when realised unless there are intervening events.


Agreed, and capital would

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 00:22

Agreed, and capital would have to be funded with an injection of capital.

KSFIOM would not be able to have a capitalisation problem incidentally, because it's a private company and therefore doesn't have a market capitalisation (i.e. total price to purchase all the shares). Its capitalisation would always be a steady £5m.


Well cold-dose I hear u but...

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 00:39

Well what I am saying if that say a further £500M of prefs were issued, and assuming subscription at par the capitalisation would increase to £505M.
It wouldnt have a market cap clearly, but the issue of prefs would increase the issued capital ;-)
I don't think there would be any problem in KF waiving their pre-emption rights lol


Yes... bit of an extreme

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 20:30

Yes... bit of an extreme example though? :)


cold-dose - Extreme situations required extreme measures ;-)

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 20:34

I wish someone would come up with a rescue plan that could be sold as a "investment" rather than a donation


True, true... it does have a

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 20:45

True, true... it does have a certain political advantage!


E&Y

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 04:39

Address
Becket House
1 Lambeth Palace Road
London SE1 7EU
Country
England
Phone
44 20 7951 2000
Fax
44 20 7928 1345
Website
www.eyi.com

Cant find an email address
But what good will it do anyway?
What are we going to threaten them with?
They hold all the cards. ( and our money)


Hidden Agenda

  • Relentless Posse
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 03:57

The whole process should be transparent.
Gordon Brown needs to give answers.
This could damage the Labour movement in the Uk for years to come


And Jersey cares about me

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 17:57

And Jersey cares about me even less than IOM, UK or IS ... if it wasn't for the people here, I'd be completely on my own without a clue where to start and what to do.
The only way these things work is when you can find, and apply pressure to, someone's self-interest.

BTW, the Labour Movement in the UK is damaged already according to everything I've read ;-)


Get real

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 17:51

The UK has a duty to protect UK savers. IoM is not in the UK, therefore nobody in the UK Gov will give a **** about IoM depositors.

Uk voters won't either, quite the opposite.


Get Real

  • Ormus
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:39

IoM is a Crown dependency and the UK has a constitutional obligation to uphold its interests internationally, even if it has to take second place to the primary interests of the UK itself. So they should give a flying **** about us.


Dawes

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 19:51

All weekend you have been the voice of doom in this forum, do yourself a favour and just get it over with!!!


Just trying

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 20:29

To counter the strange thinking that's going on. Particularity the Poll where everyone is blaming the British Gov. Maybe that makes peopel feel better but it isn't going to get anywhere.


Protecting our funds

  • srcoates
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:40

I would welcome a more structured approach to this forum with daily reporting and analysis from the leadership with clear indications on where our efforts are to be applied. At present it seems to me that everyone who has an idea or a contact gives us all an e-mail adress with the result that it is inundated with our mailing. This may be productive in some cases but reading the post from Matt Walker (yesterday) which reproduced a mail he recived from a journalist, it would appear counter productive in other cases.

If we have some good legal representation we could become more proactive in recovering the seized funds with a better and more organised understanding of the hurdles we are up against (I do not underestimate the prodigious amount of work the core members of this forum have got through) and yes I would be willing to pledge a portion of my deposit to fund this.

In summary I believe that a structured approach utillising the resource of DAG members may in the long run prove to be the way to go. How does anyone else feel?

With time on my hands, but having no legal or IT skills but am willing to be an office boy to those that have (no smart alec suggestions thank you).


Count on me

  • Relentless Posse
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 03:59

You have good point - go for it and set up strategy to present to this action Group