The Resolution in respect of SoA

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 13/04/2009 - 15:33

The resolution, on which depositors will have to vote on 19 May 2009, is:

"that the proposed scheme of arrangement be approved".

The proposed scheme of arrangement is the draft that we are presently aware of, set out in the affidavit of Alan Gough sworn on 3 April 2009 for the most recent hearing on 9 April 2009.

Just to be quite clear, my suggestion, based on careful consideration, is that depositors vote against the resolution. That is based upon the defects, qualititative and quantitative, identified in the proposed scheme and set out in my recent postings.

If a new proposed scheme appears before the resolution is voted on I will reconsider.

That's all. What else is there to say?

4.17857
Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (28 votes)

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

Agree completely, for me

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 12:14

Agree completely, for me the two major areas of doubt in the interpretation of SoA are:

There is no guarantee of a timetable as its implementation is dependant on the schemes acceptance by the English and Welsh courts, institutions over which the IoM gov. have no control. Refer to section 7.2

The situation of joint account holders is unclear in the SoA


Wouldn't it be sensible...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 19:27

...to wait for the following before making these sort of statements?

"The Joint Liquidators Provisionally will be making the following documents ("Scheme Documents") available to Scheme Creditors:

•The Second Affidavit of Michael Simpson;
•The Scheme of Arrangement; and
•Explanatory Statement to the Scheme of Arrangement (including notices of meetings).

Timetable
Post the Court hearing of 9 April 2009, the Joint Liquidators Provisionally are required to adhere to the following timetable:

•The various Scheme Documents are required to be issued to creditors within 10 days of the Court Hearing. This information will be sent to creditors in various forms. The Joint Liquidators Provisionally endeavour to issue this information through website updates as well as by post, by email, and through newspapers published internationally."


Wouldn't it be sensible...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 22:35

It certainly would be sensible to read them first and of course that is exactly what I have been doing for past few days. Do you really imagine that I would come to a conclusion about documents that I have not read? All those documents were made available at the hearing on 9 April 2009 and they can be found in the following places:

  1. I can send you a pdf of the 2nd affidavit of M Simpson, since it has not yet ben posted on the site, if you wish

  2. The SoA is exhibited to the affidavit of Gough, which can be found at:
    http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/Aff...

  3. The Explanatory Statement is exhibited to the affidavit referred to in (1)

I strongly suggest that you read them.

To be fair, I understand that the explanatory statement is to be/has been modified slightly. I very much doubt that it will make any difference, since I am informed that the modifications to be expected are a small amount of quantitiative tinkering so as to more accurately represent the SoA, and which actually have a negative effect on the claimed benefits to depositors.


From the legal team update today

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 18:06

"One important aspect as you will all be aware, was that the SoA and other documents (provided by IOMG) were flawed, and erroneous. New versions of these documents are, we understand, being prepared by IOMG so that creditors will be asked to vote on much clearer and less flawed documents than previously available."

I strongly suggest that you read them.


@lancara - From the legal team update today

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 18:18

Thanks lancara. I understand the message that you are trying to send me, but I believe you will find that when the IOMG has corrected its errors the SoA will be more unfavourable than IOMT indicated in court. If the legal team's update gives you a different impression, I think you will find that that was not the intention.


wait for it

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 20:28

Why dont we wait for it and use our energy to try and keep our profile alive with the UK Government, rather than write unhelpful speculation about something that has not been seen.


simpson affidavit

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 00:54

Elgee, can you send me the Simpson affidavit. I have been looking for it for days. I really want to know (try and understand) why he has changed his tune, and is now pro SoA.

Thanks.


@swiss

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 10:52

Done


@swiss

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 01:41

Yes, please email me at l(?)thux [dot] net


Soa in English

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 22:47

The SoA is also available in non-gobledegook speak here.

But please remember that arguing over DCS's and SOA's is akin to arguing over the size of hose nozzle while your house burns down. It is an argument for another day. Right now every single one of us should be writing to UK MPs, the press and public forums. It is soul destroying work - dont i just know it! - but is the only thing we can constructively do to get that £552Million returned. When the £552Million is finally returned, we will look back at the DCS vs SoA argument and see how pointless it was, until then we HAVE to work to get it returned. And filling MP's bags and public chat forums (iPM, PM, Times Online etc....) is the ONLY constructive thing we can be doing.


dj

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 16:28

Well said.
I was accused of being naive earlier on when I commented on how the legal route would be long and costly and such bodies tend to stick together close ranks on you (fact, tried and tested) .... but there are plenty of other (and maybe better) ways and be assured, there are plenty of us out here with connections and are banging away at keyboards.


Yes, legal route is great on paper...

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 00:26

With you caledonia, good to see some are doing constructive stuff (i sound like a school teacher! :-)). Yes, legal routes/speak sound great and threatening to sue someone works off as much anger as punching someone in the face albeit legally, but as with physical violence the short-term satisfaction is a kidding yourself. Legal stuff costs a fortune and takes years and years, ultimately ending in dissapointment. The chancellor has the power to return the £552Million, in full (despite what the nay-sayers say), and the UK Government are in the wrong as they forced many of us offshore and were the root cause of the bank's demise.

Go for it caledonia, we 'doers' are a small band at the moment, but we are increasing as folk realise just arguing on here does nothing to help whatsoever.


The analogy of arguing about

  • broadway
  • 15/04/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 13:58

The analogy of arguing about which type of hose to use whilst your house burns down is an excellent one. Last week's court hearing seemed to be nothing more than hot air from highly paid men in wigs.

The chance for people to speak from the floor will may well nave appeased one or two of you but in law it means absolutely nothing. The Manx Courts are hoodwinking you all and taking you, on behalf of their beloved Government that serves them so well, hook line and sinker.

They do it very well in their marvellous huge buildings.

A population of a full football ground. The Isle of Man is smugly sitting by through all your anguish.


Broadway, do you have any practical suggestions?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 15:53

It would appear that discussing the merits and defects of both SOA and DCS, or clearing up any misconceptions of them, is a waste of time, because one's house is going to burn down regardless of which hose you use.

I completely disagree.

In fact, to continue the analogy, I'd say it's more like checking the nozzle isn't connected to a flame thrower before you start applying it to your already burning house.


importance of liquidation "v" soa

  • aikom
  • 16/10/08 21/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 08:43

It is the vote against the SOA that is crucial. Voting decides the arena we will have to work within. Liquidation gives us a bigger, more free arena. As a body of creditors we are still able to force our will over some aspects of liquidation. The SOA just hands over control completely to IoMG

Swaying the vote is a huge task but it needs to be done. 1000's dont realise the benefits of liquidation.

Work in other areas is important, but this has an absolute deadline.

Don't believe the figures of the IoMG the percentage wont be as high as they claim.
further to that,they will take out admin' costs, at Goverment level these are always huge

Aikom


Benefits of liquidation?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 11:42

Benefits of liquidation? Like what - longer delays on getting paid, the possibility other banks run into financial difficulty, etc. etc?

When is everyone going to start realizing you're as powerless as a sail boat without a wind. All this "let's stand together and except nothing but 100% of our money back" attitude is playing to deaf ears.

The deal was done once you sunk your money into this bank and the UK decided to abscond with it. I'm sure some of the powers-to-be would just love to see this linger on while they line their pockets and have a feeding frenzy with what's left of your money.

Simple decision to a complex mess is the Scheme overall better than the DCS alternative. If you think it is vote for it. Don't throw it aside because you still have illusions there is a better deal just around the corner because there isn't.


Thanks jimg please enlighten them

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 12:42

my other half wants me to get away from the site and understands why some have deserted this action group because he says its not an action group but a group fighting for liquidation , who has ever been a winner in that show me,. , . Action groups stop a group becoming victims, in our case no matter how it looks fighting to get , like dj bangs on about, 100percent back of our deposits. Any route soa or dcs is not the golden ticket , but soa seems what the isle of man can deliver a bit better. How many letters to mps, mhks, media have you written today? I try and write on average at least one a day..


well said hippychick

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 00:33

yes, liquidation is a losing route that is being talked about, again. However, most are going for it purely because it appears to 'punish' the IoM Government. Well, i like my nose and refuse to cut it off, even if it will spite my face.

Just look to BCCI for a nicely laid out detail of it. IoM Gov cannot do any more than they already are. The Island's population is just 80,000, so a £50K limit will stay however much we throttle Bell n Co. The answer lies in the UK; they forced many of us offshore, talked KSF into putting the wad with the Uk bank, then froze that dosh. The chancellor has the power to return it and we need to continue to push for that.


Money sent Direct toKSF London in March 2008!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 07:27

My argument is whether my money every got to the ISLE OF MAN in the first Place!

It was sent direct to the UK KSF and thats where it stayed!

In that case I should be eligible for it Back under the Protection of UK citizens. as it probably never even left the UK when it was frozen March 2008...

I broached the question at the time why it went direct to London KSF!

Its a Scam and we have been Had it seems... Just Robbed! I have No Trust the Government if they can do this to people, I agree with you DJ that HMG are the vacinity we should be aiming!

Aurora


@ hippychickrobbed

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 13:52

And please enlighten us as to all those people who have benefitted from contracts like the proposed SOA.

Equitable life ???

I don't think so.

Worst thing they ever did was forgo the legal precedents of liquidation for a "taylor made compromise agreement"
Show us where the IOMT is compromising and then maybe you would have an argument.

There is little point in paying for expensive legal advice if you have no intention of heeding the advice you receive.
Until the legal advice changes and convinces people otherwise then you have to go with the current opinion and that
is that the SOA is on no material benefit and has serious disadvantages written within it.

How can you consider a scheme which contains within it the clause that they can change the scheme they propose to another one once you have agreed to it without your approval and another clause stating that you have to release the
two people whose job it is to administer the scheme of all liability should they mess it up.

Two of many issues with the SOA that people need to consider over and above the fact that you wont get any more money any sooner out of it in the first place compared to the alternatives.


People keep quoting

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 06:21

People keep quoting Equitable Life as an example of an SOA but what are the real facts behind this.

Have Equitable Life investors had a return of any of there money under their scheme?
Would they have faired any better without the scheme?

I am afraid I am not upto date with the facts surrounding the case but there does seem to be a tendancy for people to blandly throw unsubstantiated 'facts' into the debate in an attempt to sway people to support one course of action or another.

People have been rightly critical of the way the IOM are using spin but there are many people posting here who are also not adverse to using a little spin of their own!

Podather,

You state 'that you wont get any more money any sooner out of it in the first place compared to the alternatives'. Under the SoA I will be fortunate to receive all my money back in August. Under liquidation I should receive 10%-12.5% by then. So please dont assume that the SoA will not benefit anybody. Some may better off with the SoA and others may not, in which case people should vote accordingly.

As I have said before I will make my own mind up on which way to vote and will not be so arrogant as to suggest what someone else should do.


Hear, Hear Podather

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 06:14

Please everybody take note of Podather's comments. The S of A is a hiding to nothing as far as I can ascertain (I'm very sorry to say)


20 a day would be better!

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 13:00

20 letters or emails a day would be better from everyone.

Today has everyone written to their MPS and MEP? as requested by DAG?

The Template is here provided
the addresses are available
so instead of worrying about the SOA and DSC write to all these people they have to be INUNDATED with mail to sit up and take notice.

I DONT BELIEVE A WORD that comes out of the IOM we have to be guided by the DAG lawyers to some extent why otherwise have them?

They think the SOA in its present form is rubbish and so do I.

So 20 + letters per day it is


Go for it bellyup! RSI will

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 00:39

Go for it bellyup! RSI will heal quickly, poverty doesn't.

The key points in all my emails i send, and they still ignore them (which is a good sign in that they dont dismiss them as wrong), is that many of us were forced offshore, the UK FSA talked KSF IoM into putting the £552Million in Kaupthing UK and it was the UK which then collapsed KSF as it froze the wad. The Chancellor has the power to return the £552Million and if we keep up the barrage they wont be able to ingnore for ever. (I've also sent three shoes to date; Treasury, FSA and 10 Downing St - works some anger out and you never know, maybe a member of the postal depts will tell a journo :-)).


DCS doesn't help Bondholders

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 11:43

What about the bondholders? From what I have read both the bondholder and under £50,000 depositor would fare better with the Scheme of Arrangement (SOA).

For the record I am above £50,000 but still see the SOA a better bet.


DCS doesn't help Bondholders - reply to all

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 21:45

Neither the SOA or the DCS has any provision in there for the benefit of Bondholders.
Bondholders receive no compensation cover under either scheme excpet for the £20,000 cover for all bondholders
under the single claim of the insurance company.

Bondholders will not get a vote in the SOA, though the Insurance company will vote on behalf of bondholders
up to the total value of deposits held (minus EPS)

The Insurance companies have been allowed to collect EPS payments on behalf of bondholders but it is at there discretion
how they distribute these.

The Insurance companies have indicated they currently favour the SOA because under it they may receive accelerated dividends between the 30p-60p level though this will be offset by slower returns after this point.

Bondholders will only receive their share of the liquidated dividends of the bank via their insurance company
Though again its at the discretion of the insurance company how these are distributed.


Clarification Bonds..Podather & Rip off charges continue..

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 08:29

So are you saying that under the SoA there is no direct provision for Bondholders but the Insurance Company will rcv back up to 60% as any other creditor of the Total of the Bond and this will then be distributed at the Life companies discretion to the individual Bondholders...Is that correct....and if so a Bond Holder can still expect to rcv up to 60% of their money back in time both under liquidation OR SoA ....
Is my statement true and if so pls explain in your opinion any advantage of SoA over Liquidation...

Another thing Podather ..( As you seem pretty well up on these things) I as a Bond Holder have lost a huge amount of money (Considered Large amount) but my Insurance company are still charging me both setting up charges for the next 5 years and management fees every year on money that is no longer there....so Im paying over 10 grand a year...for something I no longer have....Is this the case with all Bond Holders...can challenge this in court.....I feel like I am being raped and its immoral but the life company tells me I have no choice....desperate.


@ chipmunk

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 09:45

There is no direct provision for bonholders under the SOA.
As bondholders your relationship is with your insurance company, it is the insurance company who has the relationship with KSF IOM, hence why they get a vote and you dont.

With only £20,000 of protected deposit and many millions on deposit the Insurance companies will get paid out pari passu
with all other high value depositors from the dividends paid by the liquidator/scheme supervisor as pence in the pound as and when these are declared.

MS has stated a first dividend of 12.5p/£, this will be way above the £20,000 of protection so each insurance company will receive 12.5% of their total deposit less the money they claimed per bondholder under the EPS.

So, in essence, you should receive the exact same p/£ return on your bond that the insurance company receives on its deposit over time.
If final returns are 70p/£ you should receive 70% of your bond value.
This distribution is at the discretion of each insurance company so there is no guarantee, but morally I believe they will and should distribute it this way.
I am aware that the EPS funds claimed are being distributed pari passu by some and as lump sum payments by others.

So basically, some bondholders will receive up to £10,000 each as a lump sum where as others will receive a % of there bond value calculated as total EPS claim against total bond holder liabilities.
This differs depending on which insurance company you invested through.
There are pros and cons in both depending on the value of your deposit though pari passu would appear the fairest way.

Your returns will be the same under SOA or DCS so long as recoveries reach 60p/£
Should they fall short of this there will be a small advantage under SOA, though things will be slower above 60p/£ in the SOA as opposed to the DCS
This is the part that would appeal to your insurance company providing they are prepared to accept all the additional legal issues that are involved with accepting the SOA
They may decide that recoveries WILL exceed 60p/£ and the legal and cost issues are so great that the SOA is unacceptable and vote for liquidation instead.
Either way, sadly, you are unlikley to be consulted on your opinion.

Regarding the charges you are paying as administration on funds you have currently lost, you will have to take up this issue direct with the insurance compant, I cannot help you on that front sorry, though I do believe some insurance companies have ceased charging bondholders any fees at present.


chipmunk and bondcharges

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 09:26

We know how you feel we too are being charged for something which was not our fault and infact they are in default as the funds do not even exist.Are you abroad? if this product was sold to you by an ifa than just see legally how you stand, we were all severely mislead.


Bond Charges @ Chipmunk

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 09:05

Have read before on this board that some Ins. Cos are still charging irregardless of whether you have the funds or not.
Legally I suppose they can say if an investment goes down you still pay the charges and even though we all thought we were depositing safely in a bank it now transpires we weren't, they were using our money which then became theirs to squander as they saw fit without any protection.
Perhaps they treat this exactly the same as an investment, apparently there's not a damn thing you can do about it, but worth trying to fight it.
None of us would have gone down this route if the pitfalls had been truthfully explained to us as they should have been, nobody ever contradicted any of our beliefs that we had DCS protection or insurance protection of some sort, did they?
Our bonds are with Skandia & to be fair they did suspend charging for the KSFIoM part of our bonds from 9 Oct 2008. Now that we are both in receipt of £10K EPS payments they will resume the charges on this £10K only, for how long they won't charge on the remaining £10K each they haven't said.
I presume the companies have the freedom to choose how they handle it but it would be interesting to know if there is a legal take on it.
We are relatively small fry @£20K each thank god; obviously ramifications for you larger bondholder depositors are huge. Perhaps this is something we should all pursue with our own companies via a "Groups Approach".

At least not paying the charges would help to claw back some of the lost deposit albeit a small part!


GroupApproach and charges

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 19:53

Yes I would very much like to try and have a group approach to this immoral issue but not sure how to start....what I would liketo put together is some sort of list...Life company and if they are charging or not...
I have (Had) 700K tied up so you can see just how I now suffer....retired and no hope of a job I now 'Pump Gas' at the local airport....and my Life company HANSARD continue to rape me financially and have advised me simply...thats the way it is and legally I can do little...but I can name and shame thus this request to name your company and how are they reacting to this...I would then write to Financial mags/websites etc etc until it becomes known just what they are doing...how do we start on this...Im not too computer literate.....


soa is better..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 12:55

Come on everybody, liquidation is a gas chamber for our funds, am not saying soa is like the golden ticket but Alix partners were brought in to come up with a better deal than liquidation. What you want to see dcs triggered, than it becomes a disaster, weve had enough of those and than turn round and say see isle of mans dcs is flawed. More lossses, come on enough is enough...


soa is better - @hippychickrobbed - reply

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 16/04/2009 - 09:53

I believe you are a bondholder according to your other posts.
You are not protected under either scheme in that case and wont have the opportunity to vote either way.
I am surprised you have such a strong aversion to liquidation in your position, the costs associated with the SOA are substantially more and could well affect the final returns in a significant way.
As an unprotected depositor I would have imagined a larger final return would have been of interest to you?


DCS doesn't help Bondholders

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 11:56

I agree with you undone, I am in the same position as you are!


@podather - DCS doesn't help Bondholders

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 11:49

This type of question is best answered by podather, who has a very detailed understanding of all the figures for both alternatives and probably a better one than everyone else involved in this murky matter


LIQUIDATION WILL BE EVEN HIGHER

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 10:55

Aikom, liquidation will be even higher beleive me, hello wakey wakey there will be people just placing any type of high value bills for maybe work they will invent, than the percentage will be truly lower beleive me. I beleive its 60percent because they know a higher estimate is coming back from the uk.


@dj. Focus on main issue

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 23:11

Agree 100%. Need to concentrate on getting the UK to act, analysis of DSC / SOA secondary at this stage.

I have been concentrating on the MOJ who have responsibility for Crown Dependencies - with emphasis on TSC report recommendations that the UK work with IOM to resolve this and the fact that IOM should be required by the UK (with UK assistance as necessary by way of loan or release of KSF UK monies) to comply with Gordon Brown´s statement regarding all jurisdictions should vouchsafe depositors. If they don´t deal with the IOM in this respect it will be clear that they are either totally incompetent, deliberately misleading everybody, or both. Following up by phone end of last week I was told to expect feedback by 15/04. Have already suggested in postings that others do likewise to keep up the pressure.


phone calls...

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 00:50

Nice one Brazil. Must admit i have not been phoning - my concentration has been on email dialogs with MPs - at the moment trying to disabuse them of the fact that many of us were forced to us offshore banks and that we are suffering primarily due to the non return of the £552Million.

Let us know if anything comes of the calls and I'll start that as well. (and if you get anything back on the 15th).

On with email number 76 for the day. Bed when i reach 100 :-)


a voice of sensibleness

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 22:00

Yes. Lets not get into a big yay/nay argument over the SoA. For a start, getting the £552Million from London is a much bigger issue than the DCS vs SOA.

We are getting drawn into an argument that is diverting us from the real issue. We should be firing off emails/faxes/letters to MPs and writing our fingers to bone on public forums like the BBC PM/iPM and Times Online. If we get the £552Million from London then it puts a completely differ spin of everything fundamentally. For Christ sakes guys, stop arguing over pretty irrelevant stuff and use the energy to do something constructive!


@dj

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 01:52

But there is no hope in hell of getting the money from KSFUK before the vote has to take place.

Also, you will find that the estimated net position of KSFIOM with KSFUK is only £369m (reduced by set off from £535m).


Excellent example..

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 02:35

An excellent example of an unhelpful post that draws folk into a completely irrelevant argument when they could be alot more productive elsewhere.


IOMG/HMG Conspiracy

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 01:21

Can't we see the wood for the trees? As dj and others have pointed out many times, the main issue for us should be and always has been the 550million.
The IOMG and HMG are as thick as thieves
My belief is that there is some sort of cover up going on.

Why did Darling's anti IOM rhetoric suddenly cease?
Why was there almost a complete about-face by Tony Brown and Bell at the Feb TSC hearing?
Why have they stopped even mentioning the 550million?
Why is the IOM no longer considered a tax haven?
I believe that the IOM & UK govts. have stuck a deal that leaves us high and dry
We need to get to the bottom of this.


Valentine see my blogShort

  • direstraits
  • 30/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 13:28

Valentine see my blog 529 Million Conspiracy or Cover Up


Liquidation is the only way

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 14/04/2009 - 11:27

By all means everyone carry on trying to get the UK to face up to their resposibilities.....but Gordon Brown and his goverment are on a one way ticket to oppositionville and they know it....we are the least of their worries.

My mind is fully decided, liquidation all the way.
Why i hear you ask.....1. because the final figures are pretty much the same and 2. because the IOM dont want it and thats a damn good reason to vote for it. Let them either step up to the plate and do the right thing or live in the cold nuclear winter as their DCS scheme gets revealed for the piece of crap it really is.

IOM say its their only offer! Stick it, your loss Brown, lets hope the lease on your shop is still available and you still have a bank left on the island to pay your takings into.....NOT!!!!


Who Gets the 550m ?

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 06:01

I know that if we vote for liquidation and the 550m is returned, it goes into our pot.

Can someone please tell me who gets the 550m if we vote for SOA. My fear is that it is IOMG and if so, we won't see much of it back after they fill their coffers.

Is this the reason they are so keen on us voting for their SOA ?

Also, who will be counting the votes ? I hope it won't be anyone in IOMG.

You can see I feel the same as Diver - don't trust any of them.


The reason the IOM wants an

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 10:50

The reason the IOM wants an SoA is because the banks won't fund the DCS therefore that process could well turn out to be a bit of a red herring.

Read the document, IoM do not control all events at all, that's why there will be a creditors commitee, if the SoA proceeds. And finally the SoA was foirst devised because it gives the long shot of a buyout, which liquidation does not. The whole thing may have been badly handled, but I think you'd agree IoM Gov (which by the way is not the FSC!) have an early payment scheme which many are gratefull for and they didn't need to do that either.


dcs

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 12:25

The funding requirement for the Depositors Compensation Scheme is so much less than for the SoA. The DCS is only a compensation scheme, providing up to 50k to eligible depositors. It is possible that liquidation will entirely fund the DCS without any bank contribution. I believe figures along this line were presented earlier.


dcs @ steenjp

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 19:46

The funding contribution for the DCS is almost the same as SOA.

Both schemes are funded by dividends from the liquidated assets of the bank and top up contributions from IOMT
IOMT have committed over £110 million to the DCS and the banks will also contribute £40 million in the first 2 and a bit years. (The banks will not contribute to the SOA but have to contribute to the DCS)

It is impossible that the bank will entirely fund either scheme unless returns are 100p/£
and so long as they are 60p/£ the cost of funding either scheme is the same.

Your right the DCS is only a compensation scheme, whereas the SOA is......Only a compensation scheme. (albeit by a different name)
I have posted many times on here about how both schemes work.
There is little or no difference to them , except the following:

DCS pays out Pari Passu , SOA pays out in set amounts. (assueed payments)
Both pay you some dividends, some funding, the ratio changing depending on deposit amount
The payment dates will be different so one will be better than the other initially (DCS) then the other will be best (SOA) for depositors below £30,000, then back to the first way as so on and so forth
DCS is relatively simple the SOA very complicated (though needn't be)
DCS is far less expensive to administer than SOA.
One requires us conceeding on very many issues (SOA) the other doesn't.

Ultimately, the amount you receive under either scheme is likely to be the same except that the costs associated witht he SOA will be higher so the final p/£ payout could well be a little lower.


SoA versus Liquidation/DCS

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 20:19

Podather's summary is very accurate and represents my own judgement. Unfortunately some of the posts by other DAG members have been extremely inaccurate and in several cases very misleading.
Every DAG member is of course entitled to his or her own opinion. I have noticed that during the last number of days there has been a flurry of strong pro SoA posts some of which have distorted the facts to an unacceptable level!
The indisputable facts are as follows:
-Depositors with £50k and less may well be better off under the SoA as payment of the top up funds may be more "certain" under the SoA than if the DCS is triggered. This is disputed by some but I can fully appreciate the fear of depositors that the DCS is currently unfunded
-Depositors with up to £83k could possibly also do better if the total recovery of the bank's assets is under 60%. I am personally very doubtful that this will be the case. I believe we have an excellent chance of eventually recovering 65-75%
-Depositors with over £83k are very likely disadvantaged by an SoA as they will not benefit from the top up payments if the asset recovery is 60% or more and the SoA has a number of drawbacks for this group
-The SoA will result in higher administrative costs
-Under liquidation the IOMG has no legal influence over the liquidation process and the subsequent pari passu payments. THe SoA gives the IOMT a major (possibly controlling) say over the payment process
-There are other legal pitfalls associated with the SoA but the impact of these is currently debatable
-I profess that I have no idea how the SoA will impact bond holders

In conclusion I will vote against the SoA. Others should make up their own mind but base your decision on facts not on unsubstantiated claims made by some posters.
I welcome factual challenges to my comments


SOA v's DCS/Liquidation @brabander - reply

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 21:10

If I may challenge your your comments - factually.

As we stand neither of the two schemes are funded.
They both have had funding approved for them and are both funded from the same source(with the addition of the banks under DCS) so whichever scheme is finally invoked the IOMT will support. (they have said this)
The FSC have submitted a schedule for funding and payments under the DCS - This was used as evidence in court last week
so again the DCS in not "uncertain"

Regarding depositors with under £83,000, both will receive £50,000 under either scheme regardless of recovery of the banks assets.
Both schemes will pay out £50,000 to all protected depositors with over £50,000 on deposit
If recoveries exceed 60% then they will receive more, but again that is under both schemes.

Depositors with over £83,000 are not disadvantged by the SOA so far as top up payments are concerned.
You need in excess of £180,000 to not benefit from top up payments from either scheme.
But the amount you are topped up is significantly less and this is returned to the scheme in full at 60p/£
This top up funding would also be recovered under DCS.

The rest of your points are correct.

Regarding bondholders , I repeat again, neiter scheme offers bondholders anything........
Bondholders will receive, at the discretion of their insurance company anything claimed under EPS1/2 and then whatever
dividends are paid by the liquidator. (minus any EPS payment)

Bondholders will not be given a vote and may not even be canvassed by their insurance company as to how they would like the vote to be cast.