Re: AFFADAVIT FROM A GROUP OF DEPOSITORS 180209

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 19/02/2009 - 16:06

Looking at the 40 votes cast (at the time of writing) it would appear that I'm in the minority whan it comes to my opinion of this affidavit but I'm going to say it anyway.

Putting this forward as an affidavit was a bad idea. It doesn't surprise me at all that it was done but this was not in the best interest of depositors....not even close.

The IoM authorities have had all those 'demands' in front of them for months and not acted on them why would they start now? This document has, potentially, given the Deemster the 'out' he needs to bow to the requests of the IoM authorities and grant yet another postponement of the liquidation. This will help no one.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary there are clearly still depositors who believe that the IoM will pull a rabbit out of the hat or 'bow to depositor pressure' and magically produce a single pathway to recovering 100% of our funds back - this won't happen. All legal advice received to date point to the fact that liquidation is the safest way to proceed NOT an SoA and that is what we should have been going all out for...no olive branches, no conditions, no 'we'll consider an SoA if you do this' they've known all of this for 3 months!

The IoM have had more than enough time to put together a scheme that was acceptable to depositors, they chose not to. They have known all along that the information they were providing in this set of affidavits was inadequate to depositors and yet they still went ahead with their pathetic submissions. This was our opportunity to stand up to them and say, 'that's it, no more!' but it looks like we've wasted it. If they get the postponement they want, we're just further away from getting anything back and with nothing to show for it.

Time to face a stark reality...this is NOT a negotiation. The IoM will NOT put more money into the fund. The IoM are not suddenly going to say 'ok...sorry about all that, here's the perfect SoA you’ve wanted all along’ …all they’re trying to do is to cover their very exposed backsides, they have no interest in getting more money for us – face it now or later the choice is really up to each depositor now.

It is now up to depositors to put themselves in the best possible position to get as much of the funds back as possible using ALL routes available. Liquidation was and is the ONLY option that keeps all those routes open.

Ask yourselves why the IoM wants a scheme so much? Is it really because it’s ‘best for depositors’? Is it because they’re simply scared of having a ‘failed bank’ (which is what liquidation would mean)? I doubt it. They want a scheme specifically to avoid what could possibly happen under liquidation – action against the FSC, the directors and anyone else on that God forsaken island that had a hand in this mess. If this is the case (and clearly I believe it is) why would they give us the scheme we want? Answer – they won’t. As a result, any postponement will not produce any better result for depositors via a SoA but just delay the return of funds to those who are now desperate.

I really really hope I’m wrong in this, and I hope the Deemster sees through all the garbage and liquidates the bank…it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately I don’t think that will happen. If we get a postponement and we simply end up liquidating anyway because the IoM yet again fail to come up with anything acceptable then this submission to the court will have played a major part in prolonging the suffering of an awful lot of people for nothing. I hope people think about this the next time they put together a document like this.

4.1
Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (60 votes)

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

What a diffeence a day makes;;;

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:04

I do find it incredible.....it was nothing but pats on the back ....recent comment after recent comment..Bravo...well done.... and now its the opposite....demonised......even Diver only hit hard after the fact which surprised me.....Personally it was totally as expected......by 1300 I was sure of the outcome (Yes bit late I know ) ......
My point is....Well Im just not surprised , it was obvious how things would go and Diver was right.....
Mind you I still dont understand why Diver opted for Liquidation....he is a large Bond Holder......I keep asking this question but cannot get comment.....DSC gives nothing to Bondholders so why would any Bond holder or Life company go that way......and as 30% of deposits are via life companies.....surprise ..surprise....SoA it is....

Ok..I am tryng to stir things up a little but I do wish I could get comment on this....


I think it is clear why Diver

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 06:20

I think it is clear why Diver is for liquidation. Under the SOA as it stands we lose some of the avenues to pursue 100% return. He sees it as the option that gives a better chance of 100% return.

With the type of amount I expect Diver has in his bond, then he would recover 20k (or 50k for that matter) from either liquidation or the SOA long before a non bond holder with say a 50k deposit gets their full 50k back under either scenario.


I do find it

  • Jerome.broke-in...
  • 14/10/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 05:41

I do find it incredible.....it was nothing but pats on the back ....recent comment after recent comment..Bravo...well done.... and now its the opposite....demonised......even Diver only hit hard after the fact which surprised me.....Personally it was totally as expected......by 1300 I was sure of the outcome (Yes bit late I know ) ......
My point is....Well Im just not surprised , it was obvious how things would go and Diver was right.....
Mind you I still dont understand why Diver opted for Liquidation....he is a large Bond Holder......I keep asking this question but cannot get comment.....DSC gives nothing to Bondholders so why would any Bond holder or Life company go that way......and as 30% of deposits are via life companies.....surprise ..surprise....SoA it is....

Ok..I am tryng to stir things up a little but I do wish I could get comment on this....

The point you miss is that though Bondholders do not benefit from the DCS the will benefit from the proceeds of a liquidation in the same way as any depositor.

For example if you have a bond of 100,000 GBP and there is a 60% recovery you will get 60.000 GBP.

Though of course smaller Bondholders are in a worse position.


I do not agree...Bonds again...and SoA maybe better.

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 08:39

I do not understand it that way at all....Diver as a large deposit and if they liqiadate he will only get the 20K/50K divided by the number of depositers in that bond...basically nothing......without years of legal action...
.
If they go 'Modofied SoA there can be written in a change to allow Bond holders to get the same as retail depositors ...

Thats why I asked Dive to explain aswe all know he is adriving force with a big deposit and knows what he is doing, I still need to understand his logic.

By the way I also have a very large deposit.....Via a Bond. My Insurance Company have written to me with similar remarks and as of Tuesday felt the only way togo for Bondholdes is a 'Modified' SoA......Maybe they got their way...!


Bond Holder in liquidation

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 12:03

Chipmunk, I'm not a bond holder but worried by you comment that you have been advised by your insurance company that you would receive virtually nothing in liquidation. While it is true you would receive virtually nothing under the DCS you as would all creditors (companies, wholesale depositors, charities and direct retail savers) would receive the same % of recoveries under the normal rules of liquidation. If the liquidator recovered 50% of our total 850mln you and all bond holders would receive 50% of your money.

Please clarfiy with your insurance company. Either you didn't understand them or they are misleading you in order to push you towards a SoA. If you can get a statement in writting that would be useful.


Scheme of Arrangement

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:20

It seems the DAG needs its own scheme of arrangement. Who can propose a nice, simple one, so as to get DAG matters back under control?

I cannot speak for any of the teams, committee, core etc., but I think the London team have been doing the sensible thing, which is to take and act upon the advice of their lawyers. Their lawyers are a good reputable London firm with genuine experience in precisely this area. This is always the sensible thing to do - it is what large corporations always do and it is even what lawyers themselves do (everyone knows the adage - "the man who acts for himself has a fool for a client").

However qualified members of the DAG might be, no-one who is personally involved (that is each of us) is capable of taking a (i) realistic and (ii) objective and (iii) fully informed view of the relevant facts and law and, probably most important of all, of (iv) bringing experience to bear upon it. Moreover, the more personally involved each of us becomes and the more detailed knowledge is acquired, the harder it becomes to make rational decisions as to the best way to jump at any given point in the proceedings. It you look upon the steps taken by a party in legal proceedings as a long series of choices, there will be many many paths that can be taken from start to end, and many of those will lead to an unfavourable outcome. If you can afford it, you make a single choice at the outset -you appoint a competent lawyer - and you leave as many as possible of the remaining choices to her/him and his/her chosen counsel(s). If you are bright and industrious, it will always be the case that you know your case better than your lawyers, but if things work as they should do your lawyers will always know better than you how your case should best be handled.

That, in summary, is what I think the London (legal) team have been doing.


Repeat

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:33

The London Team were informed of the letter and content and were happy, sufficient that it was included with the DAG affidavit. Yesterday the London Team seemed to have more control over our letter than the affidavits being submitted by "our" lawyer.

I believe this letter is a red herring. The issues are communication andconsultation, if you want funding and to be able to claim to speak for a group you must communicate and consult.


Further info

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:27

Are you aware of the amendments to the order apointing the LP to establish a "provisional liqudiation commitee"?


@manx-person: No I'm not aware. Please....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:37

as you are obviously aware, would you give detail.
Thank-you in anticipation


PL Committee

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:35

Manx-person is a timetable for this given and do you know if the rules on elections/composition are the same as English law.


PL Cttee

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:47

There is secondary legislation the 1934 insolvency rules from memory which I think governsthis, although I don't have a copy to hand.

I don't know if its the same as the UK


Further info

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:33

No, I have not seen a copy of the order. Do you have one?


Further info

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:05

Are you also aware that the IOMG T are in fact "only" a direct £2M depositor, not a £10M depositor?

I wonder why details on the important issues haven't been posted here.

The IOMN Journo was sat next to me, and was looking for guidance for a story - who was there from DAG to help - the above fact would have sold more IOM Newspapers they would have welcomed some comment.


IOMG - £2M or £10M?

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:49

Manx-person - this is the first I have seen of this issue so apologies if it has already been covered elsewhere. Where did this info come from? I thought I read either a comment or possibly even an affidavit from Alan Bell stating that the IOMG would not reclaim their £10M until all depositors had 100% of their money back under an SOA? Was this £10M really only £2m? Seems hard to believe Bell would not know the bank account balance, or get it wrong by £8M (maybe £10M made for a better story?).


IOMG - £2M or £10M?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 00:16

It is Bell 3 (3rd affidavit). If you read it carefully you will see that what Bell actually means (I believe) is that IOMG will hold back on claiming its £10.7m until after all depositors have been paid in full their claims that they would have had under the DCS. That is completely different to all depositors/creditors getting 100% of their money back! All depositors are not going to get 100% back under the SoA. It appears to me to mean that Treasury will hold back only until they have had their 50k or whatever is limited under the DCS. Note also that whatever is limited under the DCS will, by the time the SoA comes into effect, if it ever does, have reverted to 20k and will no longer be 50k (although we may later find that this change has been provided for in the final SoA).

So, we now find (with grateful thanks to Manx-person) that actually the Treasury does not have £10.7m on deposit, but in fact 2m, the balance being deposited through a third party. I suppose that the Treasury could still provide for the 3rd party to hold back its claim, since it is the beneficial owner. In any event, £8 or £9m out of £800m is not going to make all that much difference in the long run, so I remain unconvinced of the significance of this, other than as an indication of the incompetence or untrustworthiness of the IOM Treasury. Maybe I am just being stupid. Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is so important.


2/10

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 00:26

Look at the ratio of the Demiglass Holdings case. Isn't it relevant that someone overinflated their creditor claim by £8M, and the weight that would be given to the view?

Look at the basis of the petition.


2/10

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 00:38

I have just been looking at the case, but the obiter rather than the ratio.

You may have a point. There are a number of other points I would like to have made about the use to which that case was put, but it is too late now. However, if that Neuberger judgment is the basis on which the DD has resisted the application to wind up KSFIOM, as appears, given the facts of our case I think there is considerable cause for concern.


10 or 2 IOM Gov't

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:05

It stated 10 in either Bell's or Alix affidavit. Manx person was the affidavit corrected or contradicted in court?


IOMG - £2M or £10M?

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:59

kiwi38

The IoMG have over £2m on direct deposit, i.e. in their name. The other £7m+ is held throught an investment manager so is not directly in their name, but it is their money.


IOMG - £2M or £10M?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:11

Yes, I agree Ally.
They beneficially own it but don't legally own it.
MS's advocate explained that it was held in a client account of the Investment Manager.
So in effect IOMG are a £2M creditor not a £10M creditor.


So £2M then

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:36

So the IOMG cannot write off the sum of £10M under their proposed SOA as they only have £2M directly. The rest is in the account of an intermediary which will of course be due back to the intermediary, albeit for the benefit of IOMG? In other words another piece of spin by IOMG in thier drive to "sell" the SOA which has now been exposed as an untruth, or should we be kind and say it was a simple mistake? At least they did being it to the attention of the court I suppose. Thanks for the info.


£2M

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:44

Well it was actually the lawyers for the LP who brought it to the Court's attention.
Its just that no issue was taken with this by the DAG advocate in court; which surprised me.


We'd all love to have been there

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:13

but as the IOMG well knows, it's a bit difficult to pay for all this travelling to and from the IOM when we have all had our money taken from us. I don't think that anyone would take the likely dividends from the SOA or liquidation as collateral for a travel loan...........!


We'd all love to have been there

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:17

I fully understand, but there are a number of IoM resident depositors (I am not a depositor)

My point is about the collective efforts and how people can work together


Further inf0

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:45

It wasn't an order as such, it was a list of (ISTR 4) additional enabling powers, including forming a PL cttee. which would be incorprated into an order.


PL committee

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:44

I am afraid I don't, but this was presented to the Court and the revised order will be made.

I do have a copy at the office. It surprises me that this isn't know especially when counsel has been engaged.

Do you know that the JW Affidavit number 4 was only given to the court 1 minute before the case started?

Deemster Corlett is off on leave from next week so he is anxious to get the orders agreed before he goes.
I think if people were actually present at the Court (I know its hard for people and expensive etc) then they would have more of a feel of teh preformance and conduct of the parties
At the possible risk of being flamed here, I think that there could be much better cooperation and co-ordination on this site.


@manx's-persons comment. Very good advice...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:58

We need people present.
OK. Who can do this?


cooperation

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:34

First, there has to be a desire to cooperate.


JW4

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:08

JW4's only purpose was to get a few letters into evidence, all but one of which was inter party. Was he criticised for late filing - it seems unfair if he was since there was no time limited for filing DAG's affidavits and although there was for Treasury's, it was late.

You were there so tell us your observations and feel. I understand that the deemster expressed certain reservations about the SoA, but his brother was able to put his mind at rest..


JW4

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:13

You were there so tell us your observations and feel. I understand that the deemster expressed certain reservations about the SoA, but his brother was able to put his mind at rest..
Well it appears you have made your mind up already!

This is the issue here, everything discussed in ths forum is combative - Perhaps the points weren't well put by the DAG lawyer, have you considered that.

If you had heard the actual comments about JW4 in court I am sure you would have a different view.

If you have made your mind up about nepotism, then anything I can say will only be "to protect my own position in financial services"

If the nepotism was sufficient to recuse then surely the DAG advocate would have made this point?


JW4 Comments

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:29

If not an opinion can you give us a summary of the comments relating to the DAG lawyer and the JW affidavit?


JW4 @manx-person

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:16

I haven't made up my mind at all - I was hoping you would tell me.


your opinion

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:48

Manx Person, can you give us your opinion how all the parties performed? You're not a depositor so you should have a totally unbiased and realistic view. Why was affidavit 4 presented so late? It was on the website yesterday.


Limited observations on todays hearing

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:43

Swiss

I know you asked Manx-Person but I will pass a few comments. Unfortunately I missed the after lunch session so missed the summing up but I was there for all of the morning session.

As for the hearing itself, I went into Court thinking whether it was Liquidation or SoA would be a very close run thing. There were 2 new advocates present, one for Canada Life and one for another company, but I can't remember the name. They left it late to represent themselves but obviously felt it would be a close run thing today and so perhaps eventually thought their voices should be heard.

Then on to speeches by the advocates We began with the Attorney General and Alan Gough representing the Treasury, then on to John Wright and then it was Seth (not sure that is his christian name) Cain on behalf of Mike Simpson (PWC) and then Mr. Wilde for the FSC. This is just my opinion, and some might say that counts for very little. But of those 5 advocates none of them fills you with any great confidence. Today the best was probably Mr. Wilde for the FSC as he did provide some good information on the workings of the DCS.

Of the other 4 none of them made convincing arguments. Even Mr. Cain, who acting for PWC was not there to make an argument did not convince at all and stumbled and stuttered and had to check information.

Of the Attorney general, Mr. Gough and Mr Wright, none of them made a convincing arguement of their point of view.

In the end the Deemster went for a further adjournment. Why was this, I don't think, as elgee might say, because the Deemster was persuaded by his brother, but simply becuase no one had made a convincing argument to oppose the adjournment. Indeed 2 new advocates had appeared to support the adjournment.


@ally: How did John Wright perform?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:55

That's it, the Q.


Limited Observations

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:13

Hi Ally,
It seems you are saying that the Court Hearing today was whether or not the case deserved another adjournment.

I was under the impression, that the Deemster on 29 Jan 09, basically said to IOMG and Alix Partners - go away for 21 days and come up with a workable SoA, so that depositors can make an informed decision on which route to take or KSFIOM will be put into liquidation. As it appears the revised SoA which to date has taken 81 days to prepare (and will now take 141 days) is still not complete. Irrespective of the performances of any Advocates from whatever Group, surely the Deemsters question to ask himself was "has the SoA been developed sufficiently in the last 21 days for all parties to be clear on its function" If yes then start the SoA, if no then place KSFIOM into liquidation, as declared on 29 Jan.


Limited observations

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:40

Tricky

The hearing on the 29th was adjourned for the 21 days as the Court asked for clarification on certain legal points. I can’t remember exactly what was asked for but one was definitely clarification on what legal action a Scheme Manager could take. The Court did not ask on the 29th January that a fully developed SoA be presented today.

The point of the last adjournment, was not as some might believe, specifically so the SoA could be developed further and presented to Court today, but more to clarify some legal and technical points that no one seemed sure of on 29th January, such as what legal action could a Scheme manager take and against whom.


Limited Obs

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:54
  1. The hearing on 29th Jan was adjourned for 21 days to allow for clarification on certain legal points.

  2. The hearing on 19th Feb was adjourned for 60(?) days to allow for clarification on certain legal and technical points.

I was not expecting a fully prepared SoA that could be operative on 20th Feb 09. But what you are saying is that the points which needed clarification in the delay in 1. above have not been clarified to the satisfaction of the Deemster, and in his opinion a further delay of another 60 (?) days until 9th April is required.

I am only trying to clarify this in case someone who is now closer to destitution than they were before asks me, and I therefore have an answer for them


29th January judgement - online copy

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:16

I am surprised that this hasn't been supplied by the legal advisers, or put on the site for people to see.

Here is a copy of the last judgement from the IoM Courts web site http://www.judgments.im/content/J910.htm


29th January judgement - online copy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 00:32

Thanks for that Manx-person. I had not realised that DD was relying so heavily on a judgment of David Neuberger, who is now a law lord and someone I happen to have had contact with quite recently other than as a judge. I just wish that I was on good enough terms to ask if he would agree with the use to which his judgment has been put in our case, because it seems at first sight that the reasoning applied by the DD is open to question.

However, I am certainly with the DD at the start of his analysis of the Neuberger, J (as he then was) obiter, where the DD states:
"What the judgment tells us is that in the absence of good reason, a creditor of a company who has not been paid is entitled to a Winding Up Order virtually as of right and ordinarily it is the duty of the Court to direct a winding up and, prima facie, there is a right to a Winding Up Order ex debito justitiae"


Limited Obs

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:10

Tricky

The delay on the 29th Jan was for the proposors of the scheme to clarify certain legal issues, such as whom the scheme manager could sue.

These issue were answered today to the Deemsters satisfaction. So he then allowed the balance of the 60 day adjournment asked for on 29th Jan (although he seems to have added an extra 10 days). This is to allow the SoA to be full developed (as the proposes had said it would take them 60 days to do this on 29th Janaury).

Therefore on returning to Court on 9th April the scheme should be fully developed and they will return to Court to ask for the Court direction on calling meetings for voting on the SoA.

I understand that there are people close to destitution I am only writing to try and clarify certain issues I am not writing to say which way is best.


thanks ally

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:01

Thanks Ally for the detailed explanation. So it wasn't the extra affidavit filed by 20 depositors that swayed the judge's decision for further adjournment after all.

You said that the DCS was clearly explained. So do you have more confidence in it, or is it still a ghost structure?


Swiss

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:27

Swiss

I wouldn't say the letters swayed the Court. But letters are presetned to Court and the advocates and Demmster's do read them. And anyway as I recall point 2 of the letter asked for liquidation if the current SoA was not enhanced. So hardly fully supportive of a further delay.

However the hearing on 29th January was adjourned because the Deemster wanted some legal issues clarifying. Those issues were obviously answered to the Deemsters satisfaction. So at that point I would then think it would be up to someone to put a convincing arguement to the Court as to why, having had its queries answered it should not allow the further extension. As both PWC and FSC took neutral stance, the advocate for 6 insurance companies spoke in support (although for the first time they made submission to the Court as although supporting the SoA in princpal they want enhancements. This was a view backed up during a quick chat with one of the representatives of the Insurance Companies during the lunch break). As stated above 2 new advocates also spoke in support.

An advocate representing 2 companies with loans from KSFIoM also spoke in favour of liquidation , but gave no argument just that they wanted liquidation now. So the only argument put for liquidation was put by Mr. Wright. It is just my opinion, but it was not a convincing argument.

As for the DCS, I'm not sure I have confidence in it, but Mr. Wilde did clear up some misunderstadings of the DCS that had been made during the hearing by other advocates.


My opinion - I wouldn't dare

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:56

Well I am afraid others don't share your views about my lack of bias and realism.
If I post an opinion here I just get criticised for being partial and only being interested in the future health of IoM financial services.

I do think however that it is important when one engages counsel to actually attend court and see how they perform. In this way you can make a decision on whether you would engage them again


My opinion - I wouldn't dare

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:56

I agree with Manx-person. It is important for parties to attend court if possible (although I am informed that a solicitor from the DAG London solicitors was there in addition to John Wright).

However, we depositors, having been taken for a ride and wholly stitched up by the IOMG and the FSC over the DCS, the parental guarantee, the funds transferred to London and other regulatory failures, are completely out-resourced by the IOMG, which is represented by some of the most expensive solicitors on the Island and in London, the most expensive counsel, assisted by the most expensive financial advisors, has engaged one of the most expensive PR companies, is allowed seemingly endless adjournments and even when refused ends up getting what it asked for the next time around and additionally benefits from the court's willingness to overlook breaches in compliance with deadlines set out in court orders. So we depositors are a trifle disadvantaged when it comes to available resources and making use of the system, woudn't you say? Quite apart from what you refer to as nepotism and I would simply say was a rather unusual and potentially embarrassing situation.


My opinion - I wouldn't dare

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:58

I agree there are very big issues regarding inequality of arms.

But there were very few IoM depositors who attended. Noone was there to pick up witn the reporter after the case, or to explain key points. Noone was there to give a steer regarding the £2M/£10M issue.

I think as well you should not underestimate how persuasive an individual appearing in Court can be.

In respect of (alleged) nepotism, I don't think the DAG can claim that the lack of knowledge in the AG/DD situation.

The AG/DD situation has happened before in the IoM - If the potential of bias had been raised perhaps this could have been dealt with - I actually discussed this with an articled clerk following the hearing.

It speaks volumes to me that the first posting of the London team was a discussion of opposing petitions, rather than the progress in respect of the PL cttee. The 2/10 issue, and feedback on what happened in court.

Another example is the pulling of the valentines day advert. Why hadn't his been coordinated with local iom residents? It is much harder to renege on a promise made in person rather than on the phone? Has a PCC complaint been made; has one of the radio station been told about this (there is some rivalry)

These comments are intended to be constructive, not critical


Communication?? fight theft / manx-person

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 15:38

Was I dreaming? I seem to remember 29 Jan court hearing, lunch time, fight theft (Valentine ad) and manx-person at lunch together (with others) .....???? no communication re ad??


I was criticising here on

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 15:50

I was criticising here on your role, please dont take it this way. Its just that much mileage could be made of this with the Radio stations. I am sure that they would love to run a story on the lack of transparency with the newspapers; they are rivals.

What I am saying is that if there was a face to face meeting arranged and an IoM resident was banging on their door then this might have been more effective.

I am trying to be constructive here; please don't take it negatively.

I remember the soup and sandwich lunch very well !

I thought that the adcompaign was very good and would have been effective.


manx-person

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:44

Your input seems to be valuable. Unfortunately, it will only be of value if somebody uses it. You've already attracted two people who choose to attack you. I don't know why you bother to try to help us.


My opinion - I wouldn't dare

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 22:40

Manx-person: Okay, that is helpful of you, although these do not seem to be crucial issues.

Let me ask you this, if I may? As a successful financial services provider in the IoM, would you say that IOM's conduct in the matter of KSFIOM is likely to have persuaded any of us depositors to ever again deposit/invest in any IoM institution?