questions to ponder

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 19/10/2008 - 23:01

A lawyer I know wonders why, if the IOM bank really is solvent (or would be were it not for its deposits trapped in the UK) the directors decided on liquidation rather than receivership. Anyone want to speculate?

He also wonders what is the advantage to depositors, as opposed to shareholders of the bank, in postponing the liquidation as is being mooted, since if assets could be recovered from the UK and elsewhere they would be recovered by the liquidator in the liquidation in any event. Anyone want to give a view on that?

0
Your rating: None

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

I don't know how all this

  • rallison
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 06:09

I don't know how all this works. If 'winding up' is completed, does that mean we then have no claim to anything other than whatever assets remain? If nothing else, I would welcome finding out my fate sooner rather than later, so that the sleepless nights might stop.


Our aim is to return 100% of depositors savings

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/10/2008 - 23:49

Any time that can be gained by adjourning the liquidation gives a chance for other matters to come into play and positively affect us. Amongst these options, as has been discussed at length elsewhere, is an IMF loan to Iceland. It would be expected that the terms of the loans to be agreed with Iceland will be dependent upon the requirement for Iceland to honour it's various parental guarantees. There are a range of other benefits to be expected from gaining more time but as I say these were discussed elsewhere. There are thousands of peoples lives at stake here and more time is needed to affect a rescue, re-instatement.... call it what you will. Our aim is to return 100% of depositors savings, not piecemeal offerings after a hasty fire sale.

WE ARE ARGUABLY IN THIS SITUATION DUE TO AN OVER HASTY REACTION FROM HMG LAST WEEK. LET US NOT GET DONE AGAIN BY A HASTY WINDING UP THIS WEEK.


Receivership

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/10/2008 - 23:05

There is no administration process under Manx law.

If the liquidation was to go ahead, it could result in assets of the bank having to be realised in the short-term for less than they would otherwise have fetched in normal trading - the 'fire sale' situation.


Wind-up Order Delay

  • VikingRaider
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/10/2008 - 23:54

Who in the IoM govt should we email to request a delay?


the IOM government is very anxious to avoid liquidation

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 00:13

Vikingraider, this has been requested by us firstly through Mike Simpson Of PWC, he confirmed that it was not in is his remit and to contact the FSC. A letter was e-mailed to John Aspen, Chief Executive of the FSC on the 17th Oct. The letter was written and e-mailed by bblair of this site. As yet no reply as to his (John Ashden's) reaction or undertaking with regard to the request. The link to the letter and this whole discussion is linked here

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.netgenius.co.uk/?q=node/142

Note that at a meeting with KSFIoM Depositors group on the 18th Oct' Allan Bell IOM Treasury Minister stated that:

" .... the IOM government is very anxious to avoid liquidation and that the liquidator is fully aware of this. An early liquidation would prejudice the best possible outcome for depositors."


court hearing

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 00:34

Is it in the FSC's interest to liquidate the bank ? If so why would that be? If not shouldn't we be OK ?
Seems strange that the FSC hasn't responded to the letter of 17th.


hope to get some feed back today Monday 20th

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 00:52

Letter of 17th went late on Friday so hope to get some feed back today Monday 20th


impartial

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 02:16

How can Aspen give impartial advice when the FSC are a party to the winding up proceedings? In fact, I do not think he can give advice in any event. Or did you not ask for advice?


FSC and IoM Government

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 02:40

The FSC have a statutory duty (in this case the relevant bits seem to be "securing an appropriate degree of protection for the customers", but also "supporting the Island’s economy" and "safeguard the reputation of the Island"). They position will be based upon that.

The Isle of Man Government and the Treasury Minister will be acting in the ultimate best interests of the voters of the island.

It may well be the case that the actions that are in the best interests of these two bodies are also the same actions that are in the best interests of the depositors.


it may be

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 02:51

It may be, but there is no good reason for supposing that it is.


Of course

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 02:55

And that possibility has to be strongly considered as well.


Of course

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 04:23

Should we therefore follow the adage to keep our friends close and our enemies closer?