Questions for Mike Simpson LP - for week of Jan 12th

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 13:09

Please post your questions here for Mike Simpson so they can be collated in time for the next call which is scheduled for the week of Jan 12th.

0
Your rating: None

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

QUESTION FOR MIKE SIMPSON

  • benchar
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 19:37

RE : Legal action bought against the withholding of "IN FLIGHT FUNDS "

What is the up to date situation regarding the class action taken by Gregg Latchmans WRH,where was this action bought ie IOM or in London ?
Have those individuals involved in this class action had their funds credited back to their accounts,as for those not directly involved in the legal action.Or has the on going legal action prevented you from doing so.


All funds were put back into

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 11:24

All funds were put back into the accounts as per Mike Simpson's bulletin in Nov/Dec


*Call in details for call Monday 12th Jan 4pm GMT*

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 12:22

Listen only Participant joining details from PWC:

Primary dial-in number: 0844 8000920

*Note: Some locations may be unable to access the primary dial-in number. If you are calling from one of these locations, please use 01296 311 652 to join this conference.

Passcode: 215 972#

As previously I will arrange for these details to be posted on the Bank's website but would appreciate it if you could circulate the listen only details

https://cossprereg.btci.com/prereg/key.process?key=P3BC93BBV

We will again make a copy of the call available on the Bank's website after as soon as we are able after the call


Any feedback from todays conference call ?

  • frozenrover
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 19:16

For those of us unable to listen to todays call would someone be kind enough to
post Simpsons responses to the questions raised

Many thanks


Here it is

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Questions for Mike Simpson

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 10:59

Dear all,

Here is the distilled list of questions for the call on Monday. Call details for 'listen-in" will follow this mail. Still time to add ones!

Regards to all

  1. Bond; Can the LP set up a method on the bank site to allow the depositors to show their interest in leaving their money in the bank in some form of bond if a bank restructure/nationalisation or other scheme of arrangement is possible (much like the FSCS did on the Icesave site in the UK?
  2. Is it possible to have a breakdown of customer deposits which shows those with under £50K and those with over £50K rather than over & under £1K as in the previous breakdown we received ?
  3. Can Mike Simpson give any idea of the likely size of such "costs" and whether or not there would also be costs involved for depositors claiming directly from the liquidators?
  4. Does he agree that anyone expecting to recover more than 50K from the liquidation should avoid claiming under the DCS (even if this means waiting longer to get any money)?
  5. what they will be doing about EUSD applicants. I have provided KSFIOM with the authority and details to exchange details with the French Tax Authorities (rather than pay the witholding Tax), on interest earned from the KSFIOM acct. I assume this is being followed through, but only for interest earned up to 8th Oct 08, as we apparently cant earn interest from that date as the bank 'no longer exists' except for receiving income from loans. Is interest accruing on the accounts after 8th Oct?
  6. When will we know how much money KSFIOM will be able to get back from the UK or at least a rough idea ?
  7. Can we have a report on what the second liquidator provisionally has achieved so far, and for how much longer will his services be retained ?
  8. Are there any ongoing negotiations re KSFIOM between the IOM, UK and Iceland?

  9. What are the LP costs todate?
  10. 
How much interest has been earnt on moneys 'secured' by him and his team?
  11. 
How many short listed expressions of interest are there now?
Does he have a prefered party yet?

  12. What are the current directors of the bank doing during this period of uncerntaincy?

  13. What decisions are being made by the directors (if any) on a day to day basis?

  14. What is the new total sum now under his control?
  15. 
Is there a new indication of getting funds back from KSF UK? I.E
  16. 
Will he commit to a minimum weekly update on the web page,wether he has anything to tell us or not? (this will assist all those who are desperate for any update.Even if it's just to say, we ARE doing something for all depositors)
  17. Last time you asked about the whereabouts of all the inflight monies and why it has not been added to the "cash recovered" figure.It must amount to a large amount perhaps over £100mil.where is it??
  18. Payments either via liquidation or bank restructure: Would the payments be made in the deposited currency? If not, what currency would it be and how would the exchange rate be calculated? What exchange rate will be used IF payments are made in Sterling? and is there enough foreign currency assets to cover the foreign currency deposited in each currency?

Listen only Participant joining details from PWC:

Primary dial-in number: 0844 8000920

*Note: Some locations may be unable to access the primary dial-in number. If you are calling from one of these locations, please use 01296 311 652 to join this conference.

Passcode: 215 972#

As previously I will arrange for these details to be posted on the Bank's website but would appreciate it if you could circulate the listen only details

https://cossprereg.btci.com/prereg/key.process?key=P3BC93BBV

We will again make a copy of the call available on the Bank's website after as soon as we are able after the call


QESTIONS FOR MIKE SIMPSON

  • benchar
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 18:49

Thanks frog for the email you sent me related to the question I wanted raised.
You stated you understood the question,but not the reason for the Question.

I am aware that the "In Flight" funds were added back to the account,I recieved a letter from Simpson stating this,and it is shown on my statement as being
re-credited.This is only a book entry and the money was re-credited the same day it was removed retrospectively.The money was removed from the account early monday 6th Oct and was not in my account when the site shut down arround midday Thursday 9th.So how simpson can show the money back is the account on 6th Oct is inacurate and ficticious,in fact illegal.
THE POINT OF THE QUESTION :- Legal action is being taken ( I did not join ) to protect the "IN FLIGHT " funds and force simpson to comply with the laws related to these funds ( 3 seperate actions )My question is simple ----What does he know about the progress of these legal actions and what does he now believe the likely outcome will be and where are these actions being bought ie IOM or in London.
I Believe this to be a very valid question which required a specific answer as at last "conference " the phone was dropped and strangley no answer given to the related Question about "in Flight" funds.
In flight is still a very serious current issue,irrespective of Simpsons false account entries and still requires VERY serious action and answers to be resolved.
As with this issue the LAW is very clear and Simpsons actions have so far been Illegal and he must act within the law or be forced to do so.


Money in bonds

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 10:58

Sorry if this has not yet been decided or I have missed the decision but where do bond holders fit into the scheme of things? I have posted on Skandia board & check "Bonds" regularly but there seems to be no activity on either!

Thanks again for everyone's hard work, it is appreciated, whatever the result no-one can say we haven't tried!


@Cypheath

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 12:24

I'm afraid I don't understand what your question is - could you clarify?


Hi frog

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 13:24

Sorry if I've confused the issue. Probably not the right place to ask. Assume if SoA "Bond" holders money will be addressed but not if DCS is triggered. Just not heard anymore except for <£50K or over >£50K which is irrelevant to bond holders unless included in DCS as well as SoA.

Just seeking info but don't know best place to ask this ?


To cypheath.. bond holders

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 15:49

Hi cypheath
Probably not the right place to answer either.. but I expect you'll find it if I put it here :-)
The DCS doesn't help bond holders in Life Company wrappers as the Life company only qualifies for 20k compensation.. However, this basically puts you in the same position as large depositors and you will get whatever proportion of the assets are recovered eg. 70p in the £ or whatever it is from the liquidation of the bank.
An SoA will also give you the same thing.. but the hope is that an SoA will deliver a larger return of the banks assets.
The IoM government must lodge a proposal for a SoA with the court on Thursday at which point it will become public knowledge and we will all be able to judge whether it might provide what they say.. Hopefully, it will also give more clarity on timing too.
Hope this helps..


Thanks Nixi

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 16:35

As you say, just have to wait and see if a proposal for a SoA is lodged. Thanks again to everyone for all their efforts.


Sorry - can't help you here -

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 15:32

Sorry - can't help you here - the DCS isn't the LP's responsability - although I did think that bond holders were included in the 1,000 GBP payment.


Questions for Mike Simpson

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 05:40

Question 15 - Is there a new indication of getting funds back from KSF UK ? ie (and that is where it stops - is something missing ?)


Not really

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 12:25

I think the question is complete - can't understand where the i.e came from....


Another question regarding DCS

  • timeout
  • 22/10/08 22/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 22:04

Frog,
This question is linked to question 4 above:

Question: Can the LP clarify whether someone claiming under the DCS but expecting to recover more than 50k from the liquidation is safe in doing so or are they waiving their right to receive any additional recoveries from the liquidation over time?


This I understand is

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 12:33

This I understand is contained in the T&C of the compensation scheme itself. The answer is that there is no risk here, The 1,000 UKP would be recovered from any distribution from the bank separately.

Either way, I'd strongly suggest anyone getting legal/financial advice which is independent from either the IOM Government or the JLP to be sure if concerns still exist.

BTW, I do not plan to claim on this at the moment.


Frog: I think timeout was

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 13:41

Frog: I think timeout was asking about the DCS and not the 1000 GBP (EPS). But I think the answer is the same. As I see it any risk would come from the costs involved (the DCS would be recovering funds on your behalf, plus any costs of the DCSitself). This was the sense of my question (included in the list).


missing questions

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 13:59

Hi frog... only 2 of my 5 questions seem to have made the list (2 & 7) Any reason or did they just get missed ?


Can you re-post them - I

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 14:27

Can you re-post them - I can't find them.


frog...re-posted questions

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 17:02

3 questions:

1) What would be the total amount which the DCS would be obliged, under the current scheme rules, to pay out to all eligible KSFIOM depositors in the (hypothetical) event that the bank had no assets to distribute ?

2) When will the audio recording of the last conference call be available on the KSF website, as promised in the 19th. Dec. Update ?

3) I refer to the "Payment Details Update" form. It is stated that Beneficiary name must be same as account holder. Can this be clarified since "account holder" could mean either KSFIOM account holder or receiving bank account holder. If it is indeed the case that a KSFIOM depositor cannot request to have a payment made to an account not in his name then why is this so,since it could solve a problem for those whose only sterling account was with KSFIOM ?


OK, I remember them. The 1st

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 17:21

OK, I remember them.

The 1st one is regarding the DCS which is not down to PWC, but the IOM Government.

  1. The audio recording of the last call is already on the bank site (has been for some time)

  2. I'll add that one.


Frog Can you please post a

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 21:10

Frog Can you please post a link to the audio recording as I've been unable to find it

My 1st question is not about the DCS as such... I could have asked it in a different way but that would have been much more complicated. Basically I am trying to get a total for the max amount which the DCS would have to pay out. This equates to the total number of all those depositors with £50K or more, multiplied by £50K plus the total value of accounts held by depositors with under £50K then there are the businesses, not to mention insurance companies... all very difficult to put into a question. My question in its original form can only be answered by Mike Simson as he has the overall breakdown of accounts. The committee has estimated this figure to be anywhere between £208M and £420M, based on little more than guesswork. I believe that we should be given a reasonably accurate figure,so please ask the question. If the IOM govt. has the figure then they can only have got it from PWC. ...Thanks, Mike


Here it is

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 12:30

Last call: http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4034

With regard to your second point - isn't that a bit academic? We know there is about 110M UKP ready for distribution and we are waiting on the 370M UKP from KSFUK (after offsets), the 10M UKP from Khf (after offsets), and the remainder in the loan book. This make the question rather irrelevant as the amount that the DCS would have to cover would always be a moving target.


frog..thanks

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 13:08

Frog many thanks for posting the link to the audio files

Unfortunately you don't sem to understand my question or at least the point of it.I am after the total amount which the DCS would have to pay in the event that the bank had NO ASSETS to distribute. This can only be calculated if you have a complete breakdown of all accounts.Knowing that figure would make it much easier to then calculate how much the DCS would have to pay out in the event of any bank payout between 0% and 100%. Ally has suggested to me that they have already tried to get this figure and failed, hence their guesswork.This is another attempt to get this figure during the conf. call. I hope you will the question to the list.

question again:

1) What would be the total amount which the DCS would be obliged, under the current scheme rules, to pay out to all eligible KSFIOM depositors in the (hypothetical) event that the bank had no assets to distribute ?


I believe I do understand the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 14:11

I believe I do understand the question, but can't see the point to it - What use is this information? It surely is just for interest as it has no real value. Also the LP would not be administering the DCS.

There is a question (2) which does ask for a <50K and >50K breakdown which may help if you want to calculate the DCS liability upon some percentage of the bank payout on liqudation, but then it would hardly be accurate.


I believe it is very

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 14:48

I believe it is very relevant. I have also been asking for this info for ages.

We have had a few facts confirmed already:-

1) 30% have less than 4K
2 I think I recall this correctly - 25% have 1K or less

If we know the distribution - ideally we need to have deposits amount plotted against number of depositors, the the area under the graph gives us what it will cost the IoM and the banks should there be no recovery by Simpson - now it is very easy after that to draw a line at 50K on the x axis and substitue recovery values from the liquidation and the cost to the DCS.

We have had figures fom 60/100 to 80/100 been suggested as possible recovery figures - with deposit distribution information we can see exactly how much could realistically be asked from the IoM to get Kaupthing IoM on its feet.

Let's face it, we know that if there is no need to sell the loan book, and that say 30/100 was recovered from the UK then it may well be worth the IoM to just make a cash injection to bring the bank back to life - and then recover it's outlay from London.

Let's be honest, we know nothing from Simpson after 4 months of admin, and we still don't really have the DCS fully clarified.


I've explained the point of

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 16:54

I've explained the point of the question to Mike Simpson before the call today and he understands what is the information you are looking for and also was aware of the complications of the calculation but he said he would look into this - hopefully it will be either on his next web update in a couple of days (along with a balance sheet).


If Simpson cannot provide a

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 17:15

If Simpson cannot provide a full statement of depositor distribution at this point in the proceedings, then one wonders how Alix are able to determine the point of balance for the bank. Simpson of all people should know the point of the question, and moreover, Simpson should after his period of office be able to say exactly what the depositor base is and how it is distributed, and perhaps more importantly, he should be able to tell exactly what the shortfall is at this point of time - effectively "Frog, we need to see 45/100 back from the UK or a cash injection from others of GBP247M and it would pay fees, and allow for release of an interim dividend of X/100 in one month".

I am very grateful for your efforts, but I get the distinct impression that Simpson is just humouring you -


Well I think he can get the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 17:20

Well I think he can get the info, he wouldn't have it to hand as he really isn't that bothered about the DCS payments - only the IOM Government would be.

Key thing here is that he understands what you are looking for and he said he will go get it and put it on the update he is preparing on the site - we'll wait and see.

I can't see any reason why he would withold information that he is legally able to provide - what would be the reason for it?


Board of directors

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 18:03

Sorry to labour the point guys but all this communication should be coming via the Board of Directors of KSF. From my email i know many of you are convinced. Please, please, brief diver and all to use the board of directors as the communication fulcrum between us and IomG and Simpson. They cannot afford to withhold info from us or gloss over. They have a legal duty to uphold.
Brief, but I'm in transit.


Ramsey - well an IP address

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 18:13

Ramsey - well an IP address paints a thousand words....

I think you are right, I think that Simpson who is authorizing the payment of these merry men should have them at the conference call answering questions, and posting answers on the website.

But he won't, and they won't because they will let too much slip.

I wonder what all of these questions quickly printed out and sent Recorded Delivery to the directors, jointly and severally would produce? Probably a few quick resignations -


It's nothing to do with the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 17:55

It's nothing to do with the DCS - This bank is capable of substantial dividends to depositors. He will know at the moment to at least one decimal place what the bank's potential return is given the various scenarios that are open to him. Simpson will be covering his back 100% bearing in mind the wholesale ( or should that be hole-sale?) dissatisfaction at his feasance or lack of it to date - he will have had offers back on the loanbook, and will be able to say to the Court and Alix/IoM what each one would return to depositors.

Ask yourself a question - if Mr Simpson has all this information at his fingertips, why are we having to question him to get it? He knows that there are more than a few of us having kittens here, and it is totally with his remit and capability to let us know some possible results, yet his updates on the website are pitifully inadequate, it even took him two months to realise that there were Visa Debit cards floating around and to advise that they couldn't be used.

Again, please understand that this isn't a criticism of what you are achieving - far from it, but in looking back at the file and documents I had from a little rabbit hutch sized company about 5 years ago, in the first week I received more information than Simpson has disseminated in 3 months ( I still didn't get any money back, but at least I knew I wouldn't) - I'd also add that in my case, there were various allegations made about director conduct, and the Administrator was keen to nail the directors to the floor if he could have.

Frankly I think that Mr Mike has had his hooter put right out of joint by Alixs' appointment - after all, he should be able to do pretty much the same thing (assuming he hasn't spent his whole life on the IoM and has handled Administrations of businesses larger than the local corner shop).

Still, before I open the gin, put "Unchained Melody" on the CD player and prepare to disembowel myself with the Dyson, perhaps what the nice man from Alix has achieved will make the lack of progress by PWC seem unimportant.


frog.. question

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 14:26

frog.. your comment "the LP would not be administering the DCS" is not relevant and tells me you don't understand the point of the question..so be it . I give up !

question 2 is mine also.


I'm aware of this. But the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 15:39

I'm aware of this. But the issue here is that DCS doesn't cover all depositors (Bond holders, corp accounts) - and has two rates still - the 50K and 20K rates, so how would you be able to make the extrapolation? Also it wouldn't take into acount joint account holders (one account but 100K payment). This is why I can't see how you can get meaningful info from it unless you had the full depositor list.

I'm also aware of where question 2 came from.


Questions for Mike Simpson

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 13:50

It may already be covered by 14 above based on cottesmore's submission, but I would like to know the total amount now recovered by MS from all sources.

Thanks and best wishes,

Mike


Yes it is - I'll amend to ask

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 14:30

Yes it is - I'll amend to ask what has been recovered since Oct 8th (the cash balance) for clarity)


Totally Unconstitutional

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:48

How on earth can an educated person like Simpson consider it right to be giving out this information to a select few. He really should be careful or take a good look at his PI policy. What authority does he have? He is only a provisional liquidator. What gives him the authority to give out such information and potentially breach data protection regulation or take the place of the Board of directors?

This information and all the work should be delivered by the Directors of KSF.

Guess it typifies the total sham that the Iom creates through its lack of intellectual capital and ability to make up the rules to suit themselves!! Very sad indeed.


I'd hazard a guess that the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 12:06

I'd hazard a guess that the directors won't tend to take many phone calls.

Whilst I agree with your assertion that the directors who we are paying should be answering questions, you don't stand much chance of getting them to do so.


He checked with PWC legal not IOM

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:58

Simpson got the go-ahead from PWC lawyers and not IOM gov. I think that PWC is a pretty reputable company, and wouldn't let him divulge any info without their accord.

Frog (instigator of this question/answer session) is yet another example, like Diver and Co, who is actually putting his words into action, and working for us all. You have a lot of suggestions, why don't you go ahead and act also?

You really have it in for these banking managers. I think that your grudge goes much deeper than them simply heading a bank that went under. Did you used to work there and got fired or something?


Huh?

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:57

I'm not at all clear what you are asking here?


many thanks Frog

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:45

Many Thanks frog


Question 5A

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:33

what is happening about the issue of tax/information for all other authorities outside UK and EU + assume they issue tax certifcates?


OK, added

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 12:22

OK, added


In order to ask this question

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:41

In order to ask this question correctly, can I clarify? - are you asking when the bank will issue tax certificates? Is that the normal route for non-EC countries?


2 questions

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 23:12

Can Mike Simpson tell us the following:

1) What would be the total amount which the DCS would be obliged, under the current scheme rules, to pay out to all eligible KSFIOM depositors in the (hypothetical) event that the bank had no assets to distribute ?

2) Is it possible to have a breakdown of customer deposits which shows those with under £50K and those with over £50K rather than over & under £1K as in the previous breakdown we received ?


Recovery costs in case of liquidation?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 19:22

The DCS regulations (reg 16(5)) mention the "costs of recovery of sums received by the Scheme Manager" which would be retained by the DCS from any money recovered by them (from the liquidators) on behalf of depositors having claimed under the DCS.

Can Mike Simpson give any idea of the likely size of such "costs" and whether or not there would also be costs involved for depositors claiming directly from the liquidators?

Does he agree that anyone expecting to recover more than 50K from the liquidation should avoid claiming under the DCS (even if this means waiting longer to get any money)?


Tax Information

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 16:02

Can you find out from PWC, what they will be doing about EUSD applicants. I have provided KSFIOM with the authority and details to exchange details with the French Tax Authorities (rather than pay the witholding Tax), on interest earned from the KSFIOM acct. I assume this is being followed through, but only for interest earned up to 8th Oct 08, as we apparently cant earn interest from that date as the bank 'no longer exists' except for receiving income from loans.
The other question from the above is I assume those who have opted for the witholding tax, that will still need to be paid to ......? by 'the bank' under prevailing tax laws.
This could become a complex issue, not only EUSD but all the other depositors with accts all over the world with different tax authorities and regimes.


Thanks for raising that...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 16:50

...the Spanish tax year has just ended, so will shortly be having to pay tax on interest "received" (are you listening Mr Darling?)


I will ask the question about

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 10:44

I will ask the question about whether interest is accruing on the accounts post 8th Oct, but the tax position surely will not be able to be answered by him - that, you will need to ask your local tax advisor.