Result of SOA vote will be by "end of the week"

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 19/05/2009 - 14:11

According to Manx Radio, PWC will be able to announce the results of the SOA vote "by end of the week".

Meeting was delayed two hours following a "rush of Proxy votes".

Looking to hear what DAG has to say about proceedings.

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=35865

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (7 votes)

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

Official result lodged with

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:00

Official result lodged with the court, now on KSFIOM website.


Proof of Debt forms

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 15:05

We need to make sure that Homer Simpson does not use the same mickey mouse company to mail these important forms that he used for the voting papers. (which have still not arrived in Florida).


Proof of Debt forms

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 18:40

I understand there is some interest in replacing Mr SImpson and PWC with another company as liquidators, for reasons which I need not spell out. It will be a matter for creditors, but given the goings on in past few months I can't imagine there would be much disagreement.


Further delay?

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 07:23

Yes, why not introduce something else that might delay payout further, add more costs to the process, and get involved in another divisive creditors vote? Sounds like a good strategy to me.


Further delay?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 10:28

expatfrance1: For the record, nothing that I have suggested and nothing that DAG has done so far has been remotely responsible for causing any of the delays we have experienced. The same goes for the "divisive vote". These were all creatures of the IoMG's efforts, not DAG's.


Further delay?

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 10:44

elgee: Where in my original post have I suggested that the DAG has been responsible for the delay's we have experienced or the divisive vote?


Further delay?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 12:32

expatfrance1: I think the suggestion is contained in your words "why not introduce something else .... ", although I agree with you that it does not actually say that DAG introduced the issues that gave rise to the earlier delays.

On the substantive matter, I assumed, judging by what I have read on the forum, that depositors wanted Simpson and PWC to be replaced. Is that the case or not? I suppose depositors might want to let DAG know.


@elgee

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 07:28

You appear to be making a lot of assumptions from my post rather than looking at what was actually written. I do hope that some of the other assumptions you have made in the past are a little more accurate than these.

You also are aware that a few postings on this site by a few depositors do not necessarally represent the views of all those registered here let alone those of the majority of all depositors.

Your own personal strategy now seems to be to divert time and effort away from the cause of '100% for all' into small skirmishes that may be just a distraction, and I am beginning to wonder if you are now getting a bigger buzz from the the fight itself rather than from achieving the ultimate goal, especially when you have nothing to loose financial whether the campaign succeeds in 10 days or 10 years.

If I am wrong then I apologise, but that is just what I assumed from your latest postings.


Bring in E & Y

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 05:35

Well let them bring in E & Y. It might give us a more open dialogue with KSFUK and a better chance of finding out why the likes of Whelan can get his money back and not us.


Royal Skandia confirm vote for SoA is NO

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 14:48

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited – Update

In our most recent communication regarding Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (KSFIOM), we confirmed that creditors had cast their vote regarding liquidation of KSFIOM, or the Isle of Man Government’s proposed Scheme of Arrangement (SoA), and that we would announce the result of that vote when known.

The result of the vote has now been filed in the Isle of Man High Court and confirms that the SoA failed to be approved by the necessary statutory majorities in two of the three classes of creditors.

At the next hearing in the Isle of Man High Court on 27 May 2009 the winding-up petition is due to be heard. It is anticipated that KSFIOM will be placed into liquidation on that date although that is still a matter for the Court to determine.

Potentially, all this means to affected policyholders is that the administration of KSFIOM assets, and their distribution amongst creditors will now be subject to the normal rules of liquidation; however, unlike the SoA, distribution dates for payment are not set out.

There will be no difference to the amount our affected policyholders receive via liquidation, when compared to what they could have received back via the SoA, the only difference will be that the dates those payments will be made are now unknown.

We expect further details to be confirmed at next week’s court hearing however, in the meantime, if you have any questions on this or any other KSFIOM matter we would recommend that in the first instance they first refer to the Isle of Man Government’s website www.gov.im/cso/faq_gfs.xml or contact our dedicated customer helpdesk at RSKFMCustomerHelpdesk(?)RoyalSkandia [dot] com or by telephone +44 1624 655465.


SOA 71% in favour

  • kevkev1888
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:04

So let me get this right 71% waned SOA

But this now wont happen thanks to the DAG pushing out the small investor

Gee thanks a bunch DAG!


kevkev, it didn't matter.....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 23:34

It didn't matter how the Class 2 partially protected DAG depositors voted because the SOA would still have been defeated by just one depositor in Class 3 who held £3,000,000.00 of the £3,309,860.82 and voted against the Scheme. That is all that was required to defeat the SOA based on the votes cast.

See the Kaupthing IOM bank website at-
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4087


In the final analysis

  • teedoff
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 13:16

So, despite all the posts both for and against, all the efforts of many individuals over many months, the debacle over the postal service, infact, the vote against the SOA was always in one Class 3 voters hands - which they took!

The rest of us were disenfranchised. It doesn't seem to be a very democratic outcome to me and surely one that the IOMG should have avoided having wasted so much money developing the SOA.

You couldn't make this story up. Good post by Lucky Jim though why all should remain positive to a 100% recovery. I think he is right.


SOA 71% in favour

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:28

I think kevkev.. may have missed the point again. The SoA was a compromise and involved rights of creditors against the bank being given up. It was a settlement. As such it was a departure from the normal route for pursuing a claim aganst the bank - one of demanding that the bank pays the money it owes to its creditors and, in this case since the bank is insolvent, winding it up in order to realise its assets and pay out its creditors. Since the SoA did involve a surrender of rights, it required more than a simple majority of creditors by number and value to support it, because those creditors who did not support it would have their rights compromised by those who did.

It was not merely a choice between two similar alternatives, but instead one of preserving rights against one of losing rights in return for some other advantage. That is why it required 75% by value to support it, as well as a majority by number, and that could not be achieved.

As for your last point, DAG has not "pushed out the small investor". First, DAG maintains that we are depositors, not investors, since there was never any reasonable expectation of losing our savings or any expectation of the principal being lost. Second, and much more importantly, DAG does and has always supported small depositors and as I undertand it intends to continue to do so by pressing (and litigating if necessary) to ensure that the DCS works as it should do and, in this case, pays out quickly (there are substantial funds in the bank that should enable it to do so, as well as money promised from the Treasury and the banks).


So let ME get this right !

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 15:09

You will get your money back anyway ! Now Class 2 have not had their rights taken away to pursue higher payment.

You sound upset. Surely you cannot begrudge us trying to get our money back - as I have said yours is safe.


Kev, Not strictly true. The

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:19

Kev,
Not strictly true. The insurance companies voted as a block making up I think about £250m. They did not vote as a percentage of depositors for and against but simply for the SoA. many of their account holders did not want SoA but had no voice. The 'no' voice for bond holders was therefore in the hands of DAG. I am sure that had bond holders voted many would have voted against and therefore the true figure of those opposed is greater than 29%


Just got my voting forms

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:49

Just got my voting forms today. I am sure many others have not yet cast their vote or had them counted. Since there was an obvious flaw in how the voting procedure went, I hardly believe it can be said that the SoA has been defeated.

I am not sure how the numbers work out but my feeling is if those who have not yet voted do, the balance could be shifted in favor of the SoA. I for one am against postponing this any further and to vote down the SoA in favor of liquidation would do just that.

I think anyone who has not had their vote registered needs to be contacted by those who are in charge of this mess and allow them to do so. Voting via email should be allowed with sufficient time to remit a hard copy (ie two weeks from date email vote is cast.).

I think DAG is premature in their elation for victory and it is now time to make sure everyone's vote does gets counted. Enough voting fraud and error takes place around the world and it never ends with a benefit to the majority. Let's make sure the same doesn't happen here.


jimg;Just got my voting forms

  • Jerome.broke-in...
  • 14/10/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 23/05/2009 - 12:42

I am not sure how the numbers work out but my feeling is if those who have not yet voted do, the balance could be shifted in favor of the SoA

You clearly do not understand. How ever you or any one else votes the SoA is dead and the balance could not be shifted. Because it has to succeed in every group by 50% in number and 75 % in value.

in class 3 ( and you can't affect class 3) the SoA has over 50% in number but only 9.7% in value. That is a NO VOTE of 90.3% in Value

So there is no chance that the SoA could be voted in.

FWIW you would need to get a further GBP 240,557,767 voting for the SoA in group 2 to get to 75% and find at least another 9,000,000 to vote in group 3


@jimg

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:39

Only 4,000 (?) of 'remaining' depositors 8,000 (?) voted.

Why ??

The very hefty DAGgers "NO" vote has skewed the figures.

Only about 215 non-DAG and non-HNW depositors voted against the SoA.

If DAG represents ALL depositors it should be demanding immediate investigation into exactly why so many depositors did not receive voting forms, and demanding that VOTING be done again.


to late

  • barry259
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 09:22

Hi, we did not vote for the simple reason that we did not receive the voting papers until five days after the voting closed.
Barry


Bobby, see item above to Kev

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 15:02

Bobby, see item above to Kev as well. £250m was tied up in the insurance companies. I do no know how many people they represented but i suggest many hundreds if not thousands. These companies had only 6-8 votes and took no account of percenatge of bond holders who wanted to vote against. albeit there may be about 10,000 voters many have been disenfranchised by the companies. Also many smaller depositors have recived their money from EPS. I can imagine that again this probably counts for another few thousand. I doubt very much if many or any voted as it does not matter to them as they have the money.
If you add up the money amounts i would suggest that at least 90% of votes have been cast with the majority of the rest being EPS people or those unfortunates who do not have email and PwC have neglected to tell that a vote was available.
Not wholly satisfactory but then again IoMG and PwC have not exactly been shining beacons of propriety and learning during this whole debacle. What do you expect from a vote that sends the packs out as magazine post to, presumably, save money and manage to alienate almost every expat account holder by ensuring late delivery!


Yes, thesunnysouth

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 15:08

It's great PWC will be handling the liquidation if it comes to it, isn't it? Were they, and not the IOMG, responsible for sending out the voting forms and counting the results?


CW, PwC were to handle the

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

CW, PwC were to handle the SoA except an extra layer of beauracracy from the IoMT was inserted in the SoA. I do not think either group are brilliant and the postings fiasco proved this. However with liquidation there is a degree of security as it has to correspond to the law. Let us hope PwC hierarchy in the UK real;ise that thre is a reputational issue if they let the current people (Simpson on the isle of Man is out of his depth) and put some decent people with experience in.
John


If it had gone the other way

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:53

If it had gone the other way would the IOMG accept late votes ?

Somehow I doubt it.

I have still not received any voting papers.

It does seem very unusual that the Class 2 voters were in the main the ones who did not /have not recieved their voting forms.


KevKev1888 - Every coin has two sides

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:20

You can view this in another way. In the majority of the group 2 depositor’s opinion the SOA had no financial benefit to them but the disadvantages of:
1. IOMG gaining influence on the administration of our funds
2. Imposing additional legal restrictions
3. Potentially loss of parental guarantee
So you may ask yourself why this group of depositors should support it. The people you should be angry with should not be the group 2 depositors who voted against the SOA but the IOMG who would not come up with an SOA that had more benefits than disadvantages for all depositors. Instead of putting something in place that most of the group 2 depositors could agree on (not necessarily a 100% return) the IOMG played a very cynical game, where they chose to benefit the small local IOM saver at the expense of the larger expat saver, in the belief that propaganda and being in bed with the insurance companies would be enough to tilt the group 2 vote in their favour.


Every coin - klauseriksen

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:48

I entirely agree that those who favoured SOA should not direct their anger at those who decided to vote against it, and vice verser. This falls into the "divide and rule" trap.

I also agree the IOMT should have come up with an SOA with more benefits to all, but I do not see how they could have removed the fact they would have influence on the admin of funds (seeing as they would contribute to those funds) nor impose legal restrictions. To expect otherwise would be akin to expecting someone to walk to the moon. With regards to your third point, I understand that there is much legal opinion that there will be no loss of Parental Guarantee under SOA. If these are the basis of your arguments against the SOA, I do not see how any SOA would have been successful in your eyes, regardless of the % of pay out.

What you do not mention is that a protected guarantee was there for a reason, and it is this that should have been paid out immediately. The IOMT did not do this, as they obviously wished to implement an SOA rather than their DCS via liquidation (for many reasons, certainly not reasons to benefit anyone but themselves, why would they?), but in the short term they offered EPS-with-strings which, frankly, they did not have to as under the terms of DCS the bank would of had to be in liquidation before any payments were made. This DCS helped certain depositors out of a hole, and without it some would be in an even worse situation, yet it was of course a non-negotiated compromise for not placing the bank into liquidation in the first place.

The anger/annoyance of the apparent defeat of the SOA is pretty simple. The SOA promised a 100 day pay out of 35K (less EPS), whereas the DCS does not and it is also not clear when it will pay out anything, how much it will pay when it does and at what administrative costs to those that apply for it.

It's surely no surprise if the prospect of greater certainty of payment has been removed by the votes of other depositors, and indeed by those depositors who were not fully protected in the first place, will illicit resentment from some of those who wished for an SOA with an "end in sight", but there is no reason to blame each other.


CW You partly misunderstood me

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:14

I have never said that I would not be willing to accept certain additional legal restrictions in an SOA if the financial benefits outweighed these restrictions, but the fact of the matter is that in my and a majority of the group 2 depositors opinion they didn’t. Had the IOMG proposed a reasonable SOA with advantages for all (say 80% return before IOMG claw back within a shorter timeframe than liquidation) then I would have supported it.
With regards to the EPS then it hasn’t really offered any advantages to most high net worth depositors and from the comments I have read it seems as if many of us never chose to apply for this (in my own case I didn’t do this as the Euro/$ to £ exchange rate used by the IOMT was very unfavourable). From most of the group 2 depositors perspective then they would actually have received more by now than £ 10,000 if the liquidation had been executed Oct 9 2008 so the 8 Months delay + EPS was in most cases to no advantage from them either, rather the opposite.


Klauseriksen, you may also have partly misunderstood me :)

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:31

I think it's generally accepted that those who voted for the SOA felt the financial benefits outweighed the restrictions, and some who voted against the SOA would not have done so if they had felt the same. However, there is an element of anti-SOA individuals, regardless of funds owed (if any) that voted/influenced/supported that way more in retaliation (or for other reasons, be they benevolent or otherwise) rather than purely financial ones.

I also understand the EPS was not of benefit to all, and presumably you likewise understand that it was of benefit to some. My point was that IOMT should have done the honourable thing and paid out the fully protected immediately and in full via EPS, which they obviously did not do, but nor did they have to. The fact other depositors appear to have snatched away the guarantee of timed payments to other depositors by voting down the SOA does not mean we should blame each other for the situation.

I am mildly optimistic that the game isn't over yet and an improved SOA may still be forthcoming.


I actually agree CW

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:50

The whole point of a protection scheme is that it is paid out within a reasonable time (say within 3 Months) and this is also what other more responsible governments have done. The IOMG could and should have supported the DCS instead of concocting an SOA that did not benefit all depositors at least to some degree. Had they done that they would most likely also have had the support of group 2 depositors. Instead they chose to play games, split the groups, manipulate graphs etc and have now lost the respect and trust of many of the depositors. I also acknowledge that the EPS was a good thing for many smaller depositors but it would not have been necessary if the DCS had been supported in line with the protection plans all other western governments have in place. As it looks now the IOMG may indeed be forced to use the money earmarked for the SOA to support the DCS to avoid a major backlash from the local IOM depositor base.


well said klauseriksen

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 11:50

Well said

The small investors will not lose they are protected and will get their money returned with the DSC.


Bellyup

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:41

First of all we are not small investors, we are depositors just like you.

Secondly, it is not the DSC but the DCS.

Thirdly, can you explain how the DCS works, seeing as you think everyone should put their faith in it? Or do you not intend applying for it, if it comes to it?


Yes indeed you are a small depsoitor

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 13:20

Yes indeed you are a small depositor I must be catching something from John ASpen.

I am sorry I feel no desire to communicate with trolls small as they might be.

Enjoy your day!


Small depositor = Troll, Bellyup?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 14:01

So as a small depositor, I am troll? That's nice of you.

What you really mean, is you have no idea what you are talking about and cannot answer my question.

I'm sure everyone reading this who is in the same position as me, and presumably those who are not, will know what kind of person you are.

That's if they hadn't made their minds up already.


Latest email from Royal Skandia

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 10:06

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited – Update

In our most recent communications regarding Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (KSFIOM), we confirmed that Royal Skandia intended to follow the majority decision of its affected policyholders, and vote in favour of the Isle of Man Government’s proposed Scheme of Arrangement (SoA) at the KSFIOM creditors meeting.

This meeting was held yesterday (19 May 2009), and Royal Skandia upheld the wishes of its affected policyholders and voted in favour of the SoA.

The results of this vote are expected on Friday (22 May 2009). Currently, we have no indication of the outcome of this vote; however, as soon as the results are known, we will update you accordingly.

There will then follow another Court Hearing on 27 May 2009, at which point the full implications of the vote will be established, and we will then be able to offer more clarification regarding the impact on our affected policyholders.

In the meantime, if you have any questions on this or any other KSFIOM matter we would recommend that in the first instance they first refer to the Isle of Man Government’s website www.gov.im/cso/faq_gfs.xml or contact our dedicated customer helpdesk at RSKFMCustomerHelpdesk(?)RoyalSkandia [dot] com or by telephone +44 1624 655465.


Whoever is right, I am not

  • investor6
  • 08/02/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 08:50

Whoever is right, I am not sure Liquidation or SOA, doesn't matter to me.

It just makes me sad as a reader from the side to see you guys arguing between yourself :(
This is totally not fair!

Result should be simple: The people in the top from KSF should be in jail and pay you back 100% of the money.
They should be put into trial for false advertising, stealing, lies.... etc
Damn it with these Icelandic thieves, why the International police isn't busting these Icelandic theives??

Is there any way to make a bigger noise of this tragedy than what it is now, using the media?


According to DAGs figures

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 16:36

The SOA will be defeated:

with 2,735 votes with a value of 585, 051, 710 across all classes FOR the scheme

and 1,335 votes with a value of 233, 446, 859 across all classes AGAINST the scheme.

If correct, it was good for those against the SOA to get the fully Protected and partially Protected vote split in two, otherwise the SOA would have stood.


Actually no chris ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 16:52

.. at least not with the votes counted so far which you give correctly above.

Unless my calculator has gone wrong, I make it that the votes FOR the scheme across all classes accounted for 71.57% of the total value. And that's not enough - the target was 75%.


Yes, you're right

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 20:36

I'm wrong

If the HNW's had voted FOR SOA it would have been easily carried.


"IF"...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 20:48

But they didn't (and why would they?) And if the class 1 creditors had voted against ...?
Sorry, I REALLY don't get your point.

One could go on endlessly with IFs and BUTs - but to what end?

We shall see what is declared on Friday (if they manage to be on time) and then on 27th.


Very true Anrigaut

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 20:59

They didn't, and I'd hardly say I was "going on about it". Just made a single comment...

But now you ask me, I suppose my point was the HNW-group hold the "power" rather than DAG.

No "if's" or "but's" about that is there?


arithmetic

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 16:52

of course it wasn't "across all classes"

but even if it was.....my mental arithmetic is not good

can you kindly tell me what % of the votes across all classes were for "yes"

can you tell me what % of the value across all classes were for "yes"

regds

iainb


Iainb

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 17:19

Apparently there were 4070 votes total.

67% representing 71% of the total value in favour

33% representing 29% of the total value against.

The 33% and 29% "won"

The SOA did NOT receive the required 75% as an aggregate either.


All will change by Friday

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 05:19

Perhaps the SOA did not get enough % on Tuesday but it will have by Friday ! They will make sure of that. They will be busy now signing YES votes for the count.


They may try but I think the margin is too big

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 05:57

I think it is fair to assume that there is a considerable amount of anxiety among the involved IOM officials, the IOMG and the insurance companies now as it looks like they will not be able to sweep this whole affair under the carpet now.
I personally don’t think they would go as far as to make up votes themselves but I do think they may challenge some of the proxy no voters on technical reasons and indeed there may be technical problems in the registration of some of these as I found out myself when I was contacted by “the scheme” 3 days after my vote had arrived by carrier to tell me they had not received my vote. All in all however I think it will be almost impossible for them to sway the vote as it now looks with 55% by number and 30% by value of group 2 votes cast against the SOA unless they call in Mugabe as a consultant


get rid of mike simpson..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 06:43

for starters he can go,...


@CW: careful with the "newspeak" (cf 1984)

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 17:42

As is noted the result isn't definitive at present, what has really happened is that 100% of us lost when the KSFIoM had to be put into administration. 100% of us lost because we had accounts in the IoM.
Then the IoM government tried to hoist 'an SoA' on us telling us it was going to be clearly advantageous for 100% of us. In the light of that claim being false ( the vote as it stands proves this ) the 'obfusticate, divide and conquer' strategy of the IoMG might hopefully have been rejected.

All of us will have won when the financial community of the IoM and the IoMG (and they are hand and glove (puppet)) start acting in a more reasonable and proactive manner. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. This result simply says that they "..can't fool all of the people all the time."

What the result does say is that we now stand a fair chance of finding out in detail how exactly this farce was allowed to happen, what the roles and interests of the significant players were, why they made such gross errors, and whether they were culpable.

Meanwhile the IoMG will have to get the DCS operational in the very way that they themselves presented it and sold it.

The above is my opinion. I think it's more useful than yours.


what next

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 19:23

good evening

I'm relieved that the SOA appears to have been defeated

the arguments from elgee and DST were very persuasive..

what next?

i have formally complained to KSFIOM management that they acted negligently in allowing a substantial portion of assets to be upstreamed to KSFUK without adequate safeguards. I received a reply from the LP saying that any investigation would have to wait until liquidation

i have formally complained to IOM FSC that KSFIOM (a former licence holder) had allowed funds to be upstreamed to KSFUK without proper safeguards. They replied that although they were worried about the Icelandic economic situation they were reassured by the UK FSA and had no concerns about the actions of KSFIOM. They don't consider that KSFIOM had done anything wrong. They advised me to address my concerns to KSFIOM.

i have formally complained to IOM FSC that they were negligent in their supervison of KSFIOM. They replied that they weren't negligent and that what happened was outside their control and that they acted reasonably.

so what next?

Something that has not had a great deal of discussion is the revised balance sheet

with set off i thought that KSFUK had approx 400m of KSFIOM money but it now appears that they have 240m

I'm not clear

did KSFIOM upstream less to KSFUK than they thought? if so that is astonishing

or has KSFUK lost a proportion of KSFIOM upsteamed funds? if so...unfortunate.... but they would still owe us...

or has KSFUK legitimately disbursed KSFIOM funds for example on in-flight transfers..if so KSFIOM liabilities will be less than published..by a similar amount

i may have missed the explanation..can anyone enlighten me?

regds

iainb


I agree - this must be pursued. Can MS do it or just fob us off?

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:11

Exactly - while we can see that the precentage return 550 might be reduced by bad debts etc, the starting point figure of assets, whether with KSFUK or elsewhere, should not have been less than liabilities. Something is going very wrong. Who is on top of this legally?


what next ?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/05/2009 - 19:43

Ian, shouldn't you and 700+ DAGgers asked "what next ?" BEFORE voting against the SoA ??


Bobby Shafted & Ally - I believe most of us have done that

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 12:28

What is next is either pure liquidation + DCS
Or
Liquidation + IOMT coming out with some sort of support package for the DCS equivalent to the payout under the SOA
In either case the IOMG does not gain influence on the distribution of our funds or power to block potential legal actions and instead we follow a legally well defined path towards recovering what is left of our money