Questions for Mike Simpson LP - for March 9th 2009

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 26/02/2009 - 06:40

Dear all,

Please post your questions here for the biweekly call with Mike Simpson, Liquidator (provisional) of KSFIOM.

Please note that there were a lot of questions that came in after the list was closed on the preceding Friday, so if your question missed the cut, please post again - and also please don't wait until the last minute to post!

Regards

frog

4.8
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (5 votes)

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

Number to call

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 15:52

What is the number for todays call please


Final list of questions for Mike Simpson - call on 9th Mar 2009

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 18:25

Dear all,

Here is the final list.

General Questions

  1. What is the current cash balance for the bank?

  2. How much interest has been earned so far?

  3. Any news about the KSFUK deposit from E&Y?

  4. What is the latest status on the sale of the loan book and any other interest in the purchase of the bank?

Open Questions

  1. Can we have a breakdown of the type and quantity of individual depositors/entities?

  2. Can we have a breakdown of the balance sheet in multicurrency (£, $ and Euro)

This Week’s Questions
1. Could you ask if MS will please put the list of web addresses he put in the Jan 30th update in a more prominent place: perhaps here http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/3989? Failing that, could he put them on every update from now on?
2. Also, if he would be kind enough to put a DAG contact email address, which we could supply? When will the LP's costs become available?
3. How many bank employees are still on the payroll. As the accounts are now all reconciled and the bank is not functional will this number be drastically reduced this month?
4. During the UK Treasury Committee Hearing, when John Aspden was asked about the status of the £550 million transferred from KSF Isle of Man to the UK branch, he mentioned he had received a 2 page email the previous Friday from, I believe, the FSA. 
 Since the UK Treasury Committee Hearing was nearly 3 weeks ago, has Mike Simpson discussed the details of the email and now has a better understanding of situation regarding funds in the UK?
5. Can we ask for exact amount of in-flight funds, which were in the UK before being returned
? Can we get sight of the in-flight legal opinion he obtained some months back?
6. SI-1674 gives E&Y 6 months (the “transitional period”) in which to complete two transfers comprising the “Overriding Objectives” [ORO – SI Art 21(2)]. The two transfers were to result in ING becoming banker for former UK “Edge” depositors. On Feb 9th 2009 ING announced that the relevant transfers were complete [http://www.ingdirect.co.uk/kaupthingedge.asp].
Does this imply that the KFSUK Administrator (E&Y) is now at liberty to perform its other duties in administration, and thereby enable KFSIOM to make application for transfer of Depositor funds?
7. Is there an update on the Kaupthing UK’s statement of account?
8. Mr. Simpson in his Affidavits has several times mentioned that it may be necessary to obtain UK Court Sanction of proceedings in the UK related to recovery of KSFIOM Assets. Is he concerned that this may NOT be forthcoming in a Scheme of Arrangement, whereas given the full powers of a liquidator there should be no problem?
9. Given the apparent fulfillment of the SI-1674-stated “Overriding Objectives” on February 9th (according to ING), is the UK Administrator now at liberty to consider dealing with the KFSIOM Depositor Funds? OR does E&Y have to apply to the Treasury for permission to continue normal administration of KFSUK and the payment of creditors now that the ING -transactions appear complete? Or must they wait for the lapse of 6 months willy-nilly?
10. Can Mr. Simpson, as Liq Prov KFSIOM get a response from KFSUK to the effect of what is the likely time-line to completion now that the ING ORO appears complete?
11. Assuming E&Y are at liberty to proceed with the ordinary administration of KFSUK, could the shareholders of Kaupthing HF-Holdings UK claim priority over KFSIOM depositors?
12. The IOM Government has said that they will pay for all costs involved in arranging the SoA. Can MS inform us of the costs incurred to date by KSFIOM/PWC in providing information to IOMG/Alix Partners? Can he also as an officer of the Court, ascertain what the ruling is on repayment of these costs to KSFIOM from IOMG? Can he also inform us when this repayment will be made?
13. Regarding the four eyes is MS holding information back for a specific reason as to the whereabouts of the four eyes at critical times of KSFIOM. If so what are the reasons. It should not be difficult to ascertain where they were at ‘critical’ times. There are also rumors that that certain Directors are trying to change minutes of meetings regarding there presence at critical times, can he confirm these rumours are true or false.
14. Has MS researched the legal aspects of offsetting the Kaupthing hf Parental Guarantee against the debt owed to KSFIOM by Kaupthing hf, as discussed in the last Q&A “A: The legal aspects of this haven’t been researched yet but if it is legally possible, then this would be done.
15. In light of: 
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/evidence-bells-browns-and-g...
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb33.html#1
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb31.html
Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. October 2008, and now showing on KSFIOM’s statements, is truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK, RBS or any other bank. Does the LP now consider liquidation to be in the safest interests of the depositors, whom he represents?
16. PwC stated about 2 months ago that the directors were to make a statement regarding their deposits and withdrawals. Strangely that has never happened. Can he say why the directors have not made any public statement following the demise of the bank?
17. Have any of the directors claimed a bonus for the last financial year, & if so how much?
18. Can Mr. Simpson confirm that there are no voidable preferences to creditors, or related parties, including KSFUK, showing up on the accounts? If there are any such, how much value is involved?
19. In some jurisdictions the Liquidator/Scheme Manager in a Scheme of Arrangement cannot pursue void (-able) preferences through the courts within a Scheme, whereas he/she can as a fully empowered liquidator. If a Scheme of Arrangement is selected on 9 April or thereafter, what will be his powers under IOM Jurisdiction and is he sure that all such assets will be traceable and recoverable, if necessary through the courts?
20. On the issue of Creditor Voting is it true that BOTH: 
(a) A majority of all creditors in number AND
(b) 75% by total value is required; 
to ensure the Scheme passes muster.
21. The UK FSCS Consumer site now shows that as at 27/2/2009 2200 UK Depositors have received compensation, but that there are still more. Does Mr. Simpson know how many UK Depositors there were?


E&Y will have still worked on

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 08:55

E&Y will have still worked on realising assets. As the 2nd largest creditor surely we have ased how much cash does KSF UK currently have and what % of total liabilities does this represent. This would give an indication of how much they may be able to pay out in a forst tranche payment.


Web addresses

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 08:10

Could you ask if MS will please put the list of web addresses he put in the Jan 30th update in a more prominent place: perhaps here http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/3989 ?

Failing that, could he put them on every update from now on?

Also, if he would be kind enough to put a DAG contact email address which we could supply?

Thanks


UK COURT RATIFICATION OF PROPOSED SCHEME

  • Wombat761
  • 30/01/09 20/03/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 04:13

Q 6. Mr. Simpson in his Affidavits has several times mentioned that it may be necessary to obtain UK Court Sanction of proceedings in the UK related to recovery of KSFIOM Assets.
Is he concerned that this may NOT be forthcoming in a Scheme of Arrangement, whereas given the full powers of a liquidator there should be no problem?


VOID(-ABLE) PREFERENCES

  • Wombat761
  • 30/01/09 20/03/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 04:01

Q1 Can Mr. Simpson confirm that there are no voidable preferances to creditors, or related parties, including KSFUK, showing up on the accounts?

Q2. If there are any such, how much value is involved?

Q3. In some jurisdictions the Liquidator/Scheme Manager in a Scheme of Arrangement cannot persue void (-able) preferences through the courts within a Scheme, whereas he/she can as a fully-empowered liquidator. If a Scheme of Arrangement is selected on 9 April or thereafter, what will be his powers under IOM Jurisdiction and is he sure that all such assets will be traceable and recoverable , if necessary through the courts?

Q4. On the issue of Creditor Voting is it true that BOTH :
(a) A majority of all creditors in number AND
(b) 75% by total value is required ;
to ensure the Scheme passes muster.

Q5 The UK FSCS Consumer site now shows that as at 27/2/2009 2200 UK Depositors have received compensation, but that there are still more. Does Mr. Simpson know how many UK Depositors there were?

Thanks


Latest questions for Mike Simpson - call on 9th March 2009 4pm

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/03/2009 - 14:56

Dear all,

Here is the latest list of questions - feel free to add some more before I send this off late tonight.

General Questions

  1. What is the current cash balance for the bank?

  2. How much interest has been earned so far?

  3. Any news about the KSFUK deposit from E&Y?

  4. What is the latest status on the sale of the loan book and any other interest in the purchase of the bank?

Open Questions

  1. Can we have a breakdown of the type and quantity of individual depositors/entities?

  2. Can we have a breakdown of the balance sheet in multicurrency (£, $ and Euro)

This Week’s Questions
1. When will the LP's costs become available?
2. How many bank employees are still on the payroll. As the accounts are now all reconciled and the bank is not functional will this number be drastically reduced this month?
3. During the UK Treasury Committee Hearing, when John Aspden was asked about the status of the £550 million transferred from KSF Isle of Man to the UK branch, he mentioned he had received a 2 page email the previous Friday from, I believe, the FSA. 
 Since the UK Treasury Committee Hearing was nearly 3 weeks ago, has Mike Simpson discussed the details of the email and now has a better understanding of situation regarding funds in the UK?
4. Can we ask for exact amount of in-flight funds, which were in the UK before being returned
? Can we get sight of the in-flight legal opinion he obtained some months back?
5. SI-1674 gives E&Y 6 months (the “transitional period”) in which to complete two transfers comprising the “Overriding Objectives” [ORO – SI Art 21(2)]. The two transfers were to result in ING becoming banker for former UK “Edge” depositors. On Feb 9th 2009 ING announced that the relevant transfers were complete [http://www.ingdirect.co.uk/kaupthingedge.asp].
Does this imply that the KFSUK Administrator (E&Y) is now at liberty to perform its other duties in administration, and thereby enable KFSIOM to make application for transfer of Depositor funds?
6. Given the apparent fulfillment of the SI-1674-stated “Overriding Objectives” on February 9th (according to ING), is the UK Administrator now at liberty to consider dealing with the KFSIOM Depositor Funds? OR does E&Y have to apply to the Treasury for permission to continue normal administration of KFSUK and the payment of creditors now that the ING -transactions appear complete? Or must they wait for the lapse of 6 months willy-nilly?
7. Can Mr. Simpson, as Liq Prov KFSIOM get a response from KFSUK to the effect of what is the likely time-line to completion now that the ING ORO appears complete?
8. Assuming E&Y are at liberty to proceed with the ordinary administration of KFSUK, could the shareholders of Kaupthing HF-Holdings UK claim priority over KFSIOM depositors?
9. The IOM Government has said that they will pay for all costs involved in arranging the SoA. Can MS inform us of the costs incurred to date by KSFIOM/PWC in providing information to IOMG/Alix Partners? Can he also as an officer of the Court, ascertain what the ruling is on repayment of these costs to KSFIOM from IOMG? Can he also inform us when this repayment will be made?
10. Regarding the four eyes is MS holding information back for a specific reason as to the whereabouts of the four eyes at critical times of KSFIOM. If so what are the reasons. It should not be difficult to ascertain where they were at ‘critical’ times. There are also rumors that that certain Directors are trying to change minutes of meetings regarding there presence at critical times, can he confirm these rumours are true or false.
11. Has MS researched the legal aspects of offsetting the Kaupthing hf Parental Guarantee against the debt owed to KSFIOM by Kaupthing hf, as discussed in the last Q&A “A: The legal aspects of this haven’t been researched yet but if it is legally possible, then this would be done.
12. In light of: 
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/evidence-bells-browns-and-g...
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb33.html#1
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb31.html
Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. October 2008, and now showing on KSFIOM’s statements, is truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK, RBS or any other bank. Does the LP now consider liquidation to be in the safest interests of the depositors, whom he represents?
13. Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. October 2008, and now showing on KSFIoM statements, is truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK, RBS or any other bank.
14. PwC stated about 2 months ago that the directors were to make a statement regarding their deposits and withdrawals. Strangely that has never happened. Can he say why the directors have not made any public statement following the demise of the bank?
15. Have any of the directors claimed a bonus for the last financial year, & if so how much?


Questions for MS

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/03/2009 - 11:43

Wow frog- you should get a job on one of the teams----good stuff and in depth!

I would vote for you for sure.

Congrats

Bob in Davao


new question

  • wood
  • 12/10/08 30/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/03/2009 - 20:19

In his Written Answers to MPs on 26 Feb 2009 Ian Pearson, UK Treasury, said: " In line with usual constitutional arrangements, the Government will represent the Crown Dependencies in its negotiations with the Icelandic authorities. The focus of the negotiations is to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of creditors.
--The IMF Stand-By Arrangement to Iceland, agreed on 19 November, includes Iceland's commitment to "ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of depositors and creditors of the intervened banks"."--

In light of Pearson's answer, does MS know how the IoMG is monitoring these discussions on Iceland's IMF loan obligations?
If he does not know, would he find out?
Finally, if he does know, what arrangements are in place for him to receive information from these discussions?


Questions for Mike Simpson

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 20:34

Can MS provide detail as follows?

1) PWC costs to date?

i) If costs to date are not available then can we have costs at the latest date available e.g. 28th Feb, 31st Jan
or 31st Dec?

ii) If above not available the amount of invoices raised by PWC in connection with KSFIoM in provisional
liquidation and the amount that has been paid?

2) What is the approval process for the payment of the provisional liquidator’s invoices?

3) Tell us what his and Mr. Spratt’s hourly charge out rates for KSFIoM in Provisional liquidation are?

4) How many people from PWC are currently working on the KSFIoM? (An estimate of the number of full time people will be fine. So let’s say a working week is 37.5 hours and on average 4 people work 18 hours a week on the case then that is 2 people full time) And what is the average charge out rate for these staff?

5) The amount spent to date on legal and other professional fees?

i) If costs to date are not available then at can we have costs at the latest date available e.g. 28th Feb,     
   31st Jan or 31st Dec?

ii) If the above are not available then the amount of invoices received to date in connection with legal and
professional fees and the amount that has ben paid?

iii) If possible a breakdown of legal and professional fees to date e.g. “inflight” advice, IoM legal
representation, legal advice on CoD’s etc?


Ally, This has been asked

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/03/2009 - 14:36

Ally,

This has been asked before (but not in so much detail). The response was that the costs have not been presented to the court yet - so there is effectively no costs applied to the bank - Yet.

The court will request the costs and negotiate with the LP. It is indeed odd that they can be working for 4 months on a promise of being paid.... maybe that is the question - When will the LP's costs become available?


KSFIOM staff

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 21:41

Please also ask how many bank employees are still on the payroll. As the accounts are now all reconciled and the bank is not functional will this number be drastically reduced this month.


LOL Ally

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 21:35

LOL Ally, I see what you mean by just a couple of questions for Mike S.


Please post your questions for Mike Simpson

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 17:12

Dear all,

The list of questions will close very soon, so please enter your ones here (also the ones that were entered too late for teh last call).

Regards

frog


Questions which missed deadline for 23 Feb

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 20:39

posted by Mike

Frog

Maybe this is too late, although this question may also have been put to Mike Simpson previously. But during the UK Treasury Committee Hearing, when John Aspden was asked about the status of the £550 million transferred from KSF Isle of Man to the UK branch, he mentioned he had received a 2 page email the previous Friday from, I believe, the FSA.
Since the UK Treasury Committee Hearing was nearly 3 weeks ago, has Mike Simpson discussed the details of the email and now has a better understanding of situation regarding funds in the UK?

.............................................
posted by liebenk
hi

can we ask for exact amount of in-flight funds which were in the UK before being returned
can we get sight of the in-flight legal opinion he obtained some months back

..............................................
posted by Wombat761

UK Statutory Instrument (SI) 1674 (2008) & Duties of KFSUK Administrator (E&Y)

SI-1674 gives E&Y 6 months ( the “transitional period” ) in which to complete two transfers comprising the “Overriding Objectives” [ORO – SI Art 21(2) ] . The two transfers were to result in ING becoming banker for former UK “Edge” depositors . On Feb 9th 2009 ING announced that the relevant transfers were complete [http://www.ingdirect.co.uk/kaupthingedge.asp] .

Q1. Does this imply that the KFSUK Administrator (E&Y) is now at liberty to perform its other duties in administration, and thereby enable KFSIOM to make application for transfer of Depositor funds?

The UKFSCS announced on 23 January [http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/] that it had completed compensation payments to 1000 KFSUK ordinary (non-Edge) depositors, but that it had discovered there seemed to be 7000 more! To the extent that UK FSC refunds ordinary and Edge depositors it becomes a creditor of KFSUK [SI #1674 Art 16]

SI -1674 Art 27(1) provides that during the “transitional period” (ie for 6 months from 8/10/2008) there were to be no other payments or disposals with UK Treasury Consent, and any such shall be deemed “null & void”. SI-1674 Art 27(2) says that no “RELATED PARTY” may exercise any right of set-off or combination of accounts (whatever that is).. in relation to debts owed by KFSUK without Treasury Consent. Para 27(3) defines a related party as any member of the Kaupthing Group that is NOT A SUBSIDIARY.

Q2. Is KFSIOM a subsidiary of KFSUK? [ It is noted that Aiden Doherty in his first Affidavit refers to them as “Sister” companies, yet Tony Shearer in his evidence to the TC in Parliament states that in Singer & Friedlander times, what is now KFSIOM was a subsidiary of what is now KFSUK!

If KFSIOM were in law a subsidiary of KFSUK, then SI-1674 Art 27(3) plus SI-1674 Art 27( 2) appears to allow KFSUK to pay debts owed to KFSIOM without reference to the UK Treasury!

Q3. Does this provide a “loophole “ for Mr. Simpson to make application for repayment of the depositor funds held by KFSUK?

Q4. Given the apparent fulfilment of the SI-1674-stated “Overriding Objectives” on February 9th (according to ING), is the UK Administrator now at liberty to consider dealing with the KFSIOM Depositor Funds? OR

Q5 (a) Does E&Y have to apply to the Treasury for permission to continue normal administration of KFSUK and the payment of creditors now that the ING -transactions appear complete?

Or must they wait for the lapse of 6 months willy-nilly?

AND

Q5 (b) May the Liquidators Provisional of KFSIOM, make any such application and are they considering any?

Q6 Can Mr. Simpson, as Liq Prov KFSIOM get a response from KFSUK to the effect of what is the likely time-line to completion now that the ING ORO appears complete?

Q7 General: Assuming E&Y are at liberty to proceed with the ordinary administration of KFSUK, could the shareholders of Kaupthing HF-Holdings UK claim priority over KFSIOM depositors?

......................................................
posted by TERENCE STEVENS

Wombat
I think the general theme of your questions is in a very key area. Having listened to Mike Simpsons briefing today I add comments below:
Q1. SI -1674 Art 27(1) provides that during the “transitional period” (ie for 6 months from 8/10/2008) there were to be no other payments or disposals with UK Treasury Consent, and any such shall be deemed “null & void”. SI-1674 Art 27(2) says that no “RELATED PARTY” may exercise any right of set-off or combination of accounts (whatever that is).. in relation to debts owed by KFSUK without Treasury Consent. Para 27(3) defines a related party as any member of the Kaupthing Group that is NOT A SUBSIDIARY.
Was answered by Mike to the effect that Article 27 was aimed at Iceland withdrawing money. He said that there would not be a problem with KSFIOM, or so I think I heard. I thought originally that it was aimed ats KSFIOM. It could have been as part of the Law of Unintended Consequeces, though from ministers utterances and the fact that Pearson said on 6th Nov that KSFIOM must stand in line behind other creditors ( notably including a Cats Charitity according to the Manx Herald) I am not sure how Unintentional that was.
Q2. Is KFSIOM a subsidiary of KFSUK? [ It is noted that Aiden Doherty in his first Affidavit refers to them as “Sister” companies, yet Tony Shearer in his evidence to the TC in Parliament states that in Singer & Friedlander times, what is now KFSIOM was a subsidiary of what is now KFSUK!
If KFSIOM were in law a subsidiary of KFSUK, then SI-1674 Art 27(3) plus SI-1674 Art 27( 2) appears to allow KFSUK to pay debts owed to KFSIOM without reference to the UK Treasury!
I think that this was answerd in that in that KSFIOM is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaupthing Holdings, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaupthing hf. So in this sense both companies are “sisters”
Q3. Does this provide a “loophole “ for Mr. Simpson to make application for repayment of the depositor funds held by KFSUK?
So probably not. But nice try.

Q4. Given the apparent fulfilment of the SI-1674-stated “Overriding Objectives” on February 9th (according to ING), is the UK Administrator now at liberty to consider dealing with the KFSIOM Depositor Funds? OR
Seems we are just waiting for them to come up with something, the rest as to what exactly is going on is behind closed doors, according to Mike S. But I would have thought this speecific point needs to be made again – maybe next briefing
Q5 (a) Does E&Y have to apply to the Treasury for permission to continue normal administration of KFSUK and the payment of creditors now that the ING -transactions appear complete?
Or must they wait for the lapse of 6 months willy-nilly?
Did not see an answer to that. But as it stands we must wait for them to come back to us, although this is worth raising again
AND
Q5 (b) May the Liquidators Provisional of KFSIOM, make any such application and are they considering any? All these answered above I think.
Q6 Can Mr. Simpson, as Liq Prov KFSIOM get a response from KFSUK to the effect of what is the likely time-line to completion now that the ING ORO appears complete?
Q7 General: Assuming E&Y are at liberty to proceed with the ordinary administration of KFSUK, could the shareholders of Kaupthing HF-Holdings UK claim priority over KFSIOM depositors?
General comment

I think that focus on these basic areas is a good thing and the more the better. The Transfer Order is one of the most undemocratic form of “legalised expropriation” that has ever been placed before and given the nod by parliament. The real history of this so called legal action goes back to the Banking Special Provisions Act which completed its passage through parliament in February 21st 2008. It was ostensibly bulldozed through on the back of the need to legislate for the nationalisation of Northern Rock. But Darling said then that the Act contained more “general provisions” for other circumstances. Although the Conservatives opposed the bill on ethical grounds (correctly) the general provisions which enabled HMG to seize and liquidate KSFUK were never debated. The big issue which was before lawyers, is notwithstanding this, did the Treasury act illegally or not when it seized KSFUK?. I have not seen a real answer to this yet.


Q's for Mike Simpson

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 17:54

Q1. The IOM Government has said that they will pay for all costs involved in arranging the SoA. Can MS inform us of the costs incurred to date by KSFIOM/PWC in providing information to IOMG/Alix Partners. Can he also as an officer of the Court, ascertain what the ruling is on repayment of these costs to KSFIOM from IOMG. Can he also inform us when this repayment will be made.

Q2. Regarding the four eyes, is MS holding information back for a specific reason as to the whereabouts of the four eyes at critical times of KSFIOM. If so what are the reasons. It should not be difficult to ascertain where they were at ‘critical’ times. There are also rumours that that certain Directors are trying to change minutes of meetings regarding there presence at critical times, can he confirm these rumours are true or false.

Q3. Has MS researched the legal aspects of offsetting the Kaupthing hf Parental Guarantee against the debt owed to KSFIOM by Kaupthing hf, as discussed in the last Q&A “A: The legal aspects of this haven’t been researched yet but if it is legally possible, then this would be done.”


Why have we not received this?

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 13:48

According to The Companies Act 1931, the LP must receive a "statement as to the affairs of the company in the prescribed form verified by affidavit, and showing the particulars of its assets, debts, and liabilities, the names, residences, and occupations of the creditors, the securities held by them respectively, the dates when the securities were respectively given, and such further or other information as may be prescribed or as the official receiver may require."

Q: Why have we not received this when the Law prescribes it.?


tsunamivictim, I've replied

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 13:52

tsunamivictim, I've replied in your forum topic,

"no official receiver" therefore PWC are not under any obligation as yet to produce the report.

Sorry!


Tarnished Reputations - Question for LP

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 11:05

In light of:
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/evidence-bells-browns-and-g...
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb33.html#1
http://www.mecvannin.im/pabyr/pb31.html

Does the LP now consider liquidation to be in the safest interests of the depositors, whom he represents ?


In the Mount Murray Affair,

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 11:49

In the Mount Murray Affair, QUOTE:

"The Commission strongly defends its use of the word "corruption" in the Part One Report, finding that what happened over Mount Murray went "way beyond simply accidental or inadvertent maladministration".

It rejects a submission by Treasury advocate Andrew Corlett that there were great dangers to the Island's international reputation in the use of the word "corruption" as "inappropriate and unjustified", since it implied that irregularities should be "suppressed" in the interests of the Island's reputation.
Mount Murray Inquiry"

Q Is this the same Andrew Corlett who is our Deemster? This person implies that irregularities should be supressed in the interests of the Islands reputation? He defended Bell who the Commission describes as Corrupt. Can we ask for him to be changed ?

Q How do we know nothing similarly corrupt took place here and that such high persons as Andrew Corlett are not helping to "supress irregularities in the interest of the IOM reputation" again??


idea

  • dans le merde
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 11:18

IF inflighters pledged to pay a significant amount from their stolen money stuck in London,into the DAG legal fund,and IF ALL other depositers supported the idea would it be possible to unblock the funds?
This way everybody could benefit and as he is supposed to be working for the benefit of all of us,if we as the DAG tell him this is what we want is it possible?

Does anybody who isnt an inflighter think this is a good idea?


Question for LP 9th March, re In-flight Transfers

  • algarvian
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 10:29

Re Inflight Transfers:

Please confirm that funds regarded as In-Flight at 9th. october 2008, and now showing on KSFIoM statements, are truly held by KSFIoM and not by KSFUK,RBS or any other bank.


QUESTION FOR MIKE SIMPSON

  • everhopeful
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 03/03/2009 - 14:15

I understand that the DCS was increased from 20K to 50K per depositor last October but that this is only valid for 1 year? If this is the case, does Mike Simpson know if there are any plans to extend the expiry date so we don't miss out on the increase in the event the Liquidation+DCS route is chosen and completion takes us past the first expiry date? Irealise this is not the PL's decision but the IOMG.


everhopeful, re expiry of DCS £50K guarantee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 01:17

As you can see from the following paragraph extracted from the Depositors' Compensation Scheme (DCS) guidance notes, if the DCS is activated BEFORE 23rd October 2009 the £50,000. maximum guarantee will remain in force even if payout hasn't been completed. If you wish to read more, go to this link-
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc//guidancedcs.pdf

"It should be noted that under the current scheme on 23rd October 2009 the maximum
level of compensation will reduce to £20,000 for ALL depositors. In other words, if the
DCS is activated in the first 12 months of the Regulations, the higher sum for individuals
will apply irrespective of whether it may in reality take more than these 12 months in
which to fully pay out this higher sum. If a Participant defaults after 23rd October 2009
then the maximum compensation for all depositors will be £20,000."


everhopeful

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 16:31

Hi undone,
Terminology is important here and having asked an IOM advocate on this, it is important to note that the revised scheme is operable from the 8th October 2008 for 12 months - ie 8th October 2009. It was amended on the 23rd October 2008, but that does not mean it runs until 23rd Oct 2009.


DCS Validity

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/03/2009 - 14:10

What a wonderful compensation scheme the IOM has--" It has served us well" said T Brown.

I have to agree that it has served the IOMG well since I can find no reference to it being used(I believe it was introduced in the wake of the BCCI collapse in1991?).

Their kneejerk reaction to raise it to 50,000 was , it is now clear, to stop a run on the other banks.

The small print would go unnoticed for a while as banks could claim that 50,000 was the level and wait until October 09 before advising customers that it has now been reduced.

Maybe I am being cynical and the IOMG will extend the 50,000 deal----or maybe not?

Second guessing the devious tactics of the gang members is like trying to win the lottery.

They are all in it together and covering each other and sometimes telling porkies that contradict written evidence.

I always believed that if you are going to lie, you need a damn good memory---I believe and indeed hope that these twisters will find their comeupance(not sure that is the correct spelling)Spell checker please Ng)

Regards to all

Bob in Davao


Question to Mike Simpson re searching for depositors

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 03/03/2009 - 13:46

The bank's website has information on its first page about the state of the bank.At the bottom of the page viewers are directed to "Important customer information..." which leads to Mike Simpson's page for Important Customer Information and Updates.

Given that we are always wondering where all the depositors are who have not registered on DAG, could we ask Mike Simpson to put a link on his page 2 directing them, should they get to that page, to both of our websites? Not only do we need to get greater numbers involved but we have moved into a situation where the DAG will require more funds for both legal and website fees. As the response has not been great so far, given the potential number of depositors and the funds at stake, we should be doing more to direct depositors to the DAG website. There are already Kaupthing Edge and Internet Banking Log Ins on his site.

Could Mike Simpson be asked if he knows the number of depositors who have been notified officially that the bank is in provisional liquidation? All, most, or only when they get in touch?


Link of DAG on MS updates on bank site

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 19:59

Mike Simpson's update of January 30 on the KSFIOM website has information and a link to the DAG website, but this is the only time it has been included. Can MS please include DAG contact info on all further updates.


QUESTIONS FOR MIKE SIMPSON

  • everhopeful
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 17:11

1) Creditors are supposed to be paid out pari passu unless they are secured
creditors so why is preference being given to repaying one set of creditors of KSF
UK i.e. Edge customers by transferring their accounts over to ING bank, to the
detriment of KSF IOM depositors?

2) Ernst & Young (" E&Y") as the court appointed administrators of KSF UK have
been told to focus exclusively on sorting out the transfer of Edge customers to
ING bank first, which they have been doing for the last 4-5 months.
Why aren't they also working simultaneously to determine how much of KSF
IOM's deposit with KSF UK will be recovered?

 Why has the Provisional Liquidator of KSF IOM still been unable to get any  
 answers from E&Y in this regard after almost 5 months and the sale of KSF IOM as 
 a going concern has been effectively blocked because potential buyers have no  
 transparency on amounts receivable from KSF UK. This is totally unfair and 
 consequently we are suffering considerable hardship.
 all suffering considerable hardship and uncertainty.

Application to IOM Compensatiom scheme manager

  • JKay
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 00:46

By the rules, a depositor should apply to the compensation scheme manager not later than 6 months from the event. This date brings us to the 7th of April - just before the court hearing ( or more or less the same date).
Does it mean: 1. that we have to apply in time and to whom?
2. or does it mean, that we have to wait for the courts decision, which might mean that we cannot apply anymore to the Compensation scheme manager, as he will reject an application after 6 months of the event.
This rule is included in IOM Compensation Scheme on their site.
Can it be clarified to us, please?


The Event

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 08:52

Hi JKay,
I think you will find the 6 months relates to when the scheme to which you are referring, is triggerred, and as yet no scheme has been. Claims I don't think can be made until a Scheme Manager has been appointed and the necessary forms sent out to all potential claimants. There is if you read further on a clause which allows claims up to 18 after the event, at the discretion of the Scheme Manager, after all some people living in remote parts of the world may not recieve their claim forms within the 6 months


Compensation Scheme manager and 6 months

  • JKay
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 03/03/2009 - 23:14

Thanks, Tricky Dicky!
This is clear now.
JKay


@jkay: I think you've got the hang of this now.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 03:53

Why do you think they hired Gelling?

They are 'on track'. If we wish to block them we have to gear up a degree or two.

Tell me what really motivates your question?


Questions for Mike Simpson

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 19:18

Simpson didn't answer the following Questions:

Q: Could you tell us to whom you speaks (or e-mails) in the UK Financial Services Authority? How senior is this person? Do you know if this person is the one who spoke to the IOM FSC regarding the transfer of £550,000,000? If you don't know this, could you contact the person and ask him? If the person says "not me" could you ask for the name of the person involved? If the person says he can not disclose the name, would you please ask "and why not?"
A: PWC are speaking to the UK FSA at various levels, Mike Simpson is not aware of who was involved in the recommendation in the FSC or FSA. Who did this isn’t relevant to the discussions he is having with them.

BUT it is relevant to us -- that's why we asked the question! Please would he now answer

Q:. We understand that you, as Liquidator provisionally are still not allowed to see the sealed Orders of the Court on 8 October. Can you still not tell us why your hands are being tied? Can you tell us whether you have asked WHY it was considered necessary to seal the orders and WHO in the Treasury asked for them to be sealed?
A: The information as to who wanted them sealed and why is likely to be contained in the sealed documents. It has been indicated to Mike Simpson that this will not affect payments back to KSFIOM.

We are entitled to know at least WHO asked for the Order to be sealed and the reason WHY the request was made. Would he please now answer the question

Q: we want '4 eyes' to swear affidavits for the next court hearing; is Mike Simpson empowered to ask for this?

Q: can we have the names of all directors & non executive directors, together with all other interests they have on the Island (past as well as recent involvement in the FSC, directorships or non executive directorships of other financial institutions, councellors, involvement in the IoM government,.... ).

Q: has MS interviewed the directors & is there a record of the interviews?

Q: can he say why the directors have not made any public statement following the demise of the bank ?

Q: have any of the directors claimed a bonus for the last financial year, & if so how much ?


In our last set of questions

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 14:01

In our last set of questions we asked if you can confirm that one or both of the 4 eyes was on the island at all times, in the 6 months before October 8th, as is a requirement. You replied that you could confirm there were times when neither was in the office during office hours.
I therefore repeat the question: were there any times in the 6 months leading up to October 8th when BOTH the 4 eyes were not on the island.
Thankyou/


If the Directors are still

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 14:48

If the Directors are still being paid then I'm sure that they can put an affidavit together confirming that they met at all times their regulatory requirements. Obviously, if they didn't then an affidavit won't appear any time soon.....


I wonder if we can request an

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 15:36

I wonder if we can request an affidavit from them confirming that one of them was present on the island at all times? If they are not prepared to do this...there we have the answer and more fuel to our case.


Directors

  • Norm
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 13:09

I don’t know whether this question has been asked before but I would like to know whether any of the Directors of KSFIoM were depositors with the bank and did they withdraw funds prior to 8-October. If so, on what date(s) and did the withdrawal comply with the terms of their accounts.


John Cashin

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 13:34

I know that John Cashin was a depositor as he told me so himself.
( on the other hand the directors told me my money was safe and protected)
I believe the question was asked before and the answer was that no directors had made withdrawals


There is a rumor that both

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 13:55

There is a rumor that both Cashen and Gelling pulled their deposits one week before it crashed?
If this was true, then the answer that neither directors had made withdrawals was incorrect/lie?
Maybe we should ask the compliance officer to confirm/deny this?


Directors making withdrawals

  • brokemanx
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 21:04

I asked my MHK (member of the House of Keys) about this possibility soon after the bank ceased trading and I had found out John Cashen's potential conflict of interest. He assured me that a liquidator could recover any money withdrawn by Directors within the three months preceding cessation of trading. However, I have no specific legal reference to this.


@Tsunamivictim- withdrawals.

  • Hampnew
  • 22/01/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 14:32

the compliance officer was a chap called Sean McGroggan, (+44 1624 825427 if you want to contact him), he used to be compliance officer at Skandia who you will know are also tied up in this.
There is also a rumour that he pulled out his deposits the week before.
Funny how he dissappeared as soon as the doors were closed. Would have thought he would be the first persons services that PL would have secured.
Also funny how the FSC are now allowing him to run compliance at Nationwide, based in the very same building!

I can understand your disbelief.


Hampnew

  • lifesavings
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 15:47

You don´t know what you are talking about! Most of what you said is poppycock! Where do you get your false rumours from!!! Save your consipracy theories for a more appropriate forum. Please!


lifesavings.......

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 00:48

some of what Hampnew has stated is fact and the rest is fair comment and rumour. This is what we need to read on this forum as it might just gel with some tiny bit of information held by another DAG member. Please do not discourage others from making postings such as this. As for conspiracy theories............you could infact be the compliance officer in question, masquerading as a depositor??!!


PwC stated about 2 months ago

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 17:54

PwC stated about 2 months ago that the directors were to make a statement regarding their deposits and withdrawals. Strangley that has never happened. If they made an official statement then the conspiracy theory would go away. Whilst they do not, and whilst certain directors sell properties in what some might say is a liquidation process the thought will remain that those in the know got out early and left everyone else to sink.
Bearing in mind one is a government official serving on the very same FSC that made the decision to allow the transfer of £550m one would expect a full and unambiguous statement fom Cashen as to his involvemtn from january through to October.


I dont know how much/little

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 15:59

I dont know how much/little is "poppycock" but Hampnew is quite correct that he is now with Nationwide and they sre in the same building that KSFIOM was based in.
About the rest I dont know . As you say it is rumor.


I wonder if the LP already

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 15:33

I wonder if the LP already knows about these transfers but is unable to release it? How can we find out the truth and not only the company "spin"?


How can we find out?

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 01:12

We could find it out fairly easily if the bank had been put into liquidation as it should have been almost 5 months ago.

But since one of the principal conditions of SoA is moratorium on legal action against the Company the IoMG will do everything in its power to replace the liquidation with their scheme.


Bells and Gelling got caught once..now am SOA cover up.

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 02:33

No wonder they want to foist an SOA and moratorium on us!! The information I posted in the "BeLLS CORRUPTION" forum shows he has already been found guilty of corruption once and that The Deemster defended him by saying ore on less, that it was Ok so long as the reputation of the IOM was preserved.
Check the links I posted.
Then its all very apparent.!


I originally posed the

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 13:53

I originally posed the question. From memory, they had removed about 10% of their deposit over the proceeding 12 months.

It was answered 2 or 3 weeks ago if you want to check through.