Revised Apendix 1 recieved BUT STILL NO VOTING PAPERS. What a cock up

  • Jerome.broke-in...
  • 14/10/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 19/05/2009 - 08:23

In Tokyo

I have just got the revised apendix 1 which includes the ballance sheet.

This was posted on the 14.05.09-PM though dated 12th of May

I have still not recieved voting papers.

FWIW I have of course e-mailed my downloaded forms

4.8
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (5 votes)

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

voting papers not received

  • hoodwinked
  • 13/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 18:23

Bermuda

Like you in Tokyo still waiting to receive the voting papers yet have also received the balance sheet. Thank goodness for the DAG site allowing me to download the proxy forms and return them by fax. Were they mailed late on purpose by the IOMG.


Appendix 1 received but not Voting Papers

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 13:49

I received revised Appendix 1 today in Hong Kong ( post mark IOM 14th May 2009 ) but still no voting papers. Fortunately I mailed my voting papers printed from the internet.


Appendix 1 arrived in Canada

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 05:25

Also got ours today, postmarked May 14, but no voting papers. Wonder if we will ever get them.


They obviously were desperate

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 07:02

They obviously were desperate to try and convince you to vote yes and thus actually made sure this packet would reach you whereas they were not so keen for you to vote in the first place as an outsider of the IOM


@ klauseriksen

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 07:23

I disagree.

"They" would obviously been aware of the likelihood of DAG proxy voting, and would have wanted ALL depositors everywhere to have rec'd voting forms etc and to have voted.
The low vote % was a huge advantage to DAG ...unfortunately.

Will the White Knight arrive or are we ALL ****** ?


Bobby Shafted - your comments make little sense.

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 08:02

I don’t understand peoples surprise about the low voting rate and do not agree we know to who’s advantage this was. Most of the low voting is likely to be due to class 1 depositors who already have been fully compensated through EPS1 &2 and therefore have little interest in the outcome. In class 2 the voting percentage was significantly higher despite the problems with the postal votes. Most class 2 IOM depositors appear to have voted and so do most expats. People who are most likely to not have voted here are expats with lack of computer skills and I see no reason why they would have predominantly voted for the SOA. As it is the “low” vote in class 1 has no bearing on the SOA being approved or not as the real battle has been in group 2 where the voting % appears to have been high.
In short your comments make little sense.


Sorry..............

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 19:04

Sorry to make it so complicated for you.

Let's say DAGgers had 1,000 "NO" votes.

If total number of Depositor votes was, say, 4,000 then DAGger's 1,000 represented 25%.

If the TOTAL number of votes had been greater .... say 6,000 then the DAGgers proxy 1,000 would have represented only 16.67%.

If the TOTAL number of votes had been larger still ... say 8,000
then the DAGgers proxy 1,000 would have represented just 12.5%

So ..... the lower the TOTAL vote the more significant the DAGgers proxy "NO" vote .

If the turnout had been higher (and I'm not suggesting foul play) the SoA would have been accepted.

I have purposely ignored Voting Classes to make it easier for you.

Apart from you DAGgers very few depositors voted against the SoA.


Bobby Shafted – You are ignorant of the rules

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 06:58

With regards to my lack of surprise of the low turnout in class 1 then part of the explanation is the depositors who cannot vote because their money is wrapped up in the insurance companies. The other major group that didn’t vote are the group 1 depositors that had already been fully compensated. So if you are still surprised/dismayed/bitter/angry/revengeful then ask yourself if you had received 100% back of your deposit already via EPS 1 & 2 would you have bothered to vote or still be active on this forum? The answer for most of these class 1 depositors as can be seen from the figures is overwhelmingly NO apart from a few enthusiasts such as Elgee.
With regards to real issue here i.e. the voting result, then you are obviously totally ignorant of the voting rules. The SOA vote has to pass in ALL three classes SEPARATELY to be approved i.e. even if it passes in class 1 & 3 but is voted down in class 2 then the SOA will not be approved. The total sum of all three classes which is what you quote is therefore irrelevant to the result. In class 2 the vast majority of people actually voted and the extra thousand of votes which you talk about mainly belong in class 1 (as can be concluded as 93% of the creditor value voted). Hence no matter how many votes you add in class 1 it still doesn’t change the result in class 2 where most depositors (as it looks now) voted NO. The SOA would therefore STILL be defeated in class 2 even if 8000 class 1 depositors had turned out to vote YES for the SOA. Hence you have completely missed the mark by "ignoring the voting classes to make it easier for me to understand".
Your anger is also misdirected. The real culprit here is the IOMG government who didn’t set a system up monitor the bank adequately and allowed the monitors to have director posts in the same banks they monitored. Following that the IOMG did not rectify the situation by compensating people in a speedy manner as all other government did. Instead they played a cynical game where they proposed an SOA that many higher net value depositors has seen has being unfavourable compared to liquidation. Originally when there were only two classes they would probably have gotten away with it but even with three classes they were cynical enough to think that propaganda, graph manipulation and being in bed with the insurance companies would carry the day for them. Well as it looks now they were wrong and it didn’t. Had the IOM government reacted responsibly then they would already have compensated most depositors by supporting the DCS or indeed proposed an SOA which benefitted all depositors to some degree. Yet they didn’t and this is why we are in the current situation.


@ klauseriksen

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 07:14

I am not ignorant of the rules (but have not bothered to wade through your reply).

Let me try again ....... DAGs (misguided ?) proxy vote has skewed the voting figures.

It would have skewed the figures less if the total number of depositors voting had been greater.

Exactly how many "independent" depositors have voted against the scheme ??? [About 200 !!!]

If DAG is not about to announce an enhanced SoA offer (in which case: fantastic) then perhaps DAG should now accept that a vast majority (at least,by number) prefer the SoA route.


@Bobby shafted - independent depositors???

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 07:58

Who are these so-called "independent depositors"? Are you suggesting that those who used DAG as their proxy were somehow "dependent" - or mentally deficient - and thus not worthy to be counted? If so, I take great offence at your suggestion.

The arguments presented by the DAG legal team were lucid and well reasoned and many of us went to great pains to study the proposals and the legal advice before making up our own independent minds on how to vote. I fail to see how that makes our votes less valid.

The vote (as it stands) leaves no doubt that, after careful consideration of all advice (and propaganda) received, a majority of class 2 creditors did NOT believe the SoA was in their best interests and therefore voted against it, as was their right.

It is unfortunate if this means that some fully protected depositors may have to wait a little longer for their money , but this was not of our doing. To be adopted, the Scheme had to be made acceptable to all classes of creditors (which it clearly was not) and it is clear that the interests of the fully protected and partially protected depositors differed sufficiently to merit two separate creditor classes - as was accepted by all sides at the last court hearing.


Addition

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:05

I would like to add that there were in total 3 classes of creditor, it seems to be forgotten that a NO vote in any one of these would vote down the SoA.
Any result is NOT based on total votes cast by all creditors but by the votes cast in each of the 3 classes in respect of number AND value of those votes cast


Class 3 may have voted NO also.

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:41

There were 22 votes handed to MS prior to the day of the vote in Class 3 amounting to £450,000 approx.
One vote was cast on the day in person
This was incorrectly reported in the Manx Herald.
Should this vote be a NO vote and represent more than 25% of the value of all the votes cast in Class 3 then the SOA would have been rejected in two of the three classes and up to now we don't know how this vote was cast or its value.


Yes correct indeed TD

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:11

Yes exactly right, certain individuals seem to have great trouble grasping this fact


If it is clear that the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:03

If it is clear that the interests of the fully protected and partially protected depositors differed sufficiently to merit two separate creditor classes how can the DAG still claim to represent ALL depositors? Perhaps it should be renamed HNWDAG!


Expatfrance1, Yes DAG has always had a problem

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:28

Yes I agree DAG has a problem catering for all in its vote which is also obvious from the small percentages of class 1 depositors that gave their proxy vote to DAG. However since the real battle was always going to be in Group 2 (as Group 1 was going to vote yes anyway), then this has not really had any effect on the final result of the vote.
What is really sad is the way the two groups are now at each other throat. You can’t really blame group 1 depositors for voting for the SOA and you can’t really blame group 2 depositors for voting against it. The real culprit here is the IOMG who failed to regulate the bank, who allowed the regulators to have director posts in the banks they regulated and who cynically proposed an SOA which (in what would seem to be the majority opinion of group 2 depositors) had more drawbacks than benefits for group 2 depositors. The IOMG is most likely already manoeuvring now to exploit this split and to present themselves as the savers of the predominantly local smaller depositors who were torpedoed in their efforts by a small bunch of hardcore IOM hostile ungrateful expats. One could only hope they would direct some of their efforts into actually helping all the depositors but they seem to be all about spin and no substance.


No. The real problem was that

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:51

No. The real problem was that from the day that the SoA was announced, those people who dared suggest that the SoA may be a good thing for certain depositors were vilified on this forum by those whose agenda was to see it fail and could not accept that for some, the SoA may have been a better option.

It seems that the DAG strategy has been to encourage people to reject the SoA in the hope that the IOM would come back with an improved offer. I do hope that this is the case, but I have my doubts that any offer from the IOM would be acceptable to some as I get the feeling that there are many people who are more interested in the fight itself than the outcome.

If the SoA is in fact voted down I do hope that the DST have considered what comes next and that it amounts to something more than just the DAG Agony Aunt service!


Expatfrance1, Not correct group 2 depositors were initially pro

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 11:39

It is not correct that Group 2 depositors initially were against the SOA. If you go back and check the old posts then you will see that the majority of the Group 2 depositors were for the SOA (including myself) when the possibility of this it was first raised. However as soon as the first draft was submitted it became clear to many in this group that the IOMG was only playing games and then the opinion quickly turned around in class 2 to be against it.
I personally think it is wrong to vilify anyone for the way they have voted irrespectively of how they voted as we all have voted to the best of our conviction. The only ones that should be vilified are the IOMG, IOMT, FCS, HMG and FSA for their manipulative handling of the situation. There have been many harsh comments from supporters of each side, however at the moment it is the Group 2 depositors that voted against who are being vilified and I will bet you the IOMG is doing everything it can to stoke the fire to the tune of several hundred thousand £ of Manx taxpayers money through their media consultants to divert attention from its own poor handling of the whole situation.


@expatfrance1 - if it is clear ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:31

The best respose I can give to that is summed up in an interchange (below) between Banna and Elgee, which I reproduce here for convenience:

Banna: "If this apparent result is sanctioned by the Court on May 27th I think we have to turn our efforts towards managing liquidation and deciding how we pursue our objective of 100% return. We could all agree perhaps fairly easily on that."

Elgee: "Agreed. And, very importantly, our efforts towards ensuring that the DCS functions as it should do, so as to ensure as rapid as possible payout for sub-50k depositors."

Yes, there were differences of interest in this vote (between two unpalatable options) imposed on all of us. But I would hope that we can now put those behind us and go forward together to the next stage :
divided ? - maybe a little by circumstances, but
conquered ? - I hope not!!

Courage expatfrance1 !


@anrigaut

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:47

I admire your confidence and hope you are correct. But how can you ensure the DCS functions as it should do when the DCS has only ever stated what it will pay out and never stated when it will pay out.


It does represent all depositors

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:16

Those with less than 50,000 will get their money back whatever happens. If the IOM renege on their DCS, all hell will break loose. The SOA was detrimental to the health of the class2's and that, together with the loss of legal benefits inder liqiudation, outweighed the time benefits that accrued to class 1's. Besides, expatfrance, would you trust a govt to administer a scheme that couldn't even get the docs mailed out on time/duvulges info at the last minute to try to sway the vote??
PS. Did you get your docs?


There seems to be an

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:43

There seems to be an assumption by many that those that did not receive their voting documents would have all voted against the SoA. There is nothing to suggest that this is the case.

Considering there is no timescale built into the DCS the IOM would not have to renege on the DCS, they could just take a very long time to pay out. But of course that would not bother the Class 2 depositors would it, many of whom will already have been paid more than they would have under the SoA when the first dividend is paid out.

I can see no evidence that the DAG now represents anyone other than the HNW depositors.


Did you get your docs, then?

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:06

We are talking about administrative competence, not about how the non-receivers would have voted. It seems that it would have made no difference to the outcome as class2's were overwhelmingly against the SoA.
As to the IOM delaying, they have shown to be experts at that. Hopefully, with liqudation soon to be in the hands of the PL it can be speeded up. With regard to DCS payment, as I said earlier, the IOM had better find the money somewhere (they have a huge amount in reserves) or they will be on the wrong side of the law.


@uptight61

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:39

You state:-

'With regard to DCS payment, as I said earlier, the IOM had better find the money somewhere (they have a huge amount in reserves) or they will be on the wrong side of the law.'

And which law would that be then?


Presumably Isle of Man law

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:02

Tynwald upped the DCS around the time of this mess. If a legislative body has passed such legislation, I believe that it is embodied in statute. Statutes are enforced by the courts. As stated elsewhere on this sute, the IofM has made such a song and dance of their DCS that if they reneged on it, their offshore banking industry, and consequently their economy would disintegrate.
The above is, I believe, correct. Comments gladly accepted if any of this is wrong!


what law?

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:34

they do what they like in fraggle rock ...and above all it has to suit them


There are laws there,

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:42

There are laws there, regrattably, hippiechick. Otherwise certain depositors would have been over there in a shot and made Brown and Bell members of the "disappeared"!!!


oh come on..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 12:09

do they look scared to you, how many death threats is it now?


You really don't get it do

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:09

You really don't get it do you.

As I stated earlier, there is nothing in the DCS, IOM statute or any other law for that matter that states WHEN the DCS has to be paid. So the IOM would not have to renege on anything to make things difficult, they could just decide to pay out £1000 a year for the next 50 years, the DCS would be paying out, as enshrined in statute, and no one could do a thing about it.


Did you get your papers, then?

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:28

I believe I do get "it", merci beaucoup! If the Isle of Man Government makes a mockery of their legislation (eg. paying out over 50 years as you state), nobody will bank there again and their economy will go down the proverbial toilet. Reputations are hard things to earn but can be lost in seconds. I believe that by behaving as you suggest, the Isle of Masn would be cutting it's own throat. Besides, a lot of these sub-50,000 depositors are Isle of Man residents and the Govt would not like to upset them either for fear of losing their jobs.
PS. The queen is the Head of State in the UK and IN THEORY she has immense power. She doesn't put them into practice for she knows she would be out immediately if she did. I think you can draw an analogy with the IofM govt as to how they will behave with regard to the DCS in the future.


The vast majority of money

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:38

The vast majority of money deposited in the IOM is institutional money and they really do not give a damn about the DCS as they would not be covered anyway. Also, how many people consider a DCS when depositing their money in a jurisdiction, even with the limited protection that was in place in the IOM it did not stop people depositing money way above the compensation limits. Take a look at Guernsey, they have done nothing to help depositors and the money is still flowing in, so I wouldnt hold out much hope that 'nobody' will bank there in the future if things go wrong with the DCS.


relatives will be looked after..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:38

am sure they will look after all their clan first on the island than the rest well you were an investor remember, and we did have that soa,so sorry..bye weve got better things to think about like building our marina


Uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:20

"Hopefully, with liqudation soon to be in the hands of the PL it can be speeded up".

You mention in an earlier post that it was the IOMG who were to blame for mailing fiasco. Do you not realise it was not the IOMG's responsibility to send out the mailing forms but PWC's, who are represented by the LP, and who you now think can be trusted to "speed" things up ???


Mailing forms

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:05

It was the Isle of Man's SofA so ultimate responsibility lies with them, in my book.


Uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:16

Then you are reading your book upside down and it's written in a language you do not understand.


Never got the book

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:34

Also, Chris, I never received the book (voting papers) and besides the SofA was written in a language I didn't understand


Uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:45

The voting papers were available online. I presume you had no access to a printer?

The fact you did not understand what was written in the SOA possibly explains why you listened to the DST and followed their advise?


I'm talking about the post, mate

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:58

I am referring to the lax sending out of voting papers via snail mail.
With regard to the Sof A it had so many loopholes in it and ommitted so mich info that we were promised (such as an honest comparison with DCS) that it was rubbish.
Quit playing devil's advocate and get a life.


uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 11:07

The lax posting was sent by PWC and was their responsibility and not the IOMT's (as I already stated). You seem to think PWC will "speed things up" if they handle the liquidation which is strange given that they didn't cover themselves in glory with the snail mail.

Are you a PWC agent? (irony)


Who's WAS it then??

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:31

If it wasn't a creation of the I of M treasiry's, who's was it then?? PWC certainly didn't concoct it.


uptight61,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 10:47

The SOA was created/concocted by various parties with PWC input, I believe.


Read his reply!!

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 07:43

How can you sensibly respond to a posting if you have not even read it?? Your foolhardiiness amazes me. I hope Klaiseriksen ignores you from now on. You should have a pruvate forum with a certain Mr. Watson...


bobby Shafted - I give up on you

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 07:33

You are obviously not interested in understanding things before you comment on them, so let me spell it out in short easily digestible bits for you.
IF GROUP 2 DEPOSITORS VOTE DOWN THE SOA BY 50% IN NUMBERS OR 25% IN VALUE THEN THE SOA IS REJECTED NO MATTER HOW MANY DEPOSITORS TURN OUT TO VOTE YES IN CLASS 1. THIS IS BECAUSE EACH OF THE THREE CLASSES SEPERATLY HAS TO APPROVE THE SOA. THE VAST MAJORITY OF GROUP 2 DEPOSITORS ACTUALLY VOTED AND THUS THE RESULT IN CLASS 2 REFLECTS THE VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF THIS GROUP.
As for the independent vote, who do you think you are to label people who gave their vote to DAG or HNW as having no mind of their own??? The depositors who gave their vote to DAG or HNW knew the viewpoint of the DAG & HNW committee before doing so and are therefore just as independent and by the looks of it far more well informed than you have proven to be


NOT A LOW TURN OUT

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 07:58

I am puzzled by your comment that the voting turn out was low. In fact I am surprised it was so high.
The latest balance sheet shows a creditor balance of £872.4m.
The vote represented £818m.
This is 93.7% of total creditor value. That seems pretty high to me. And if you exclude from the creditor balance the £10m of IOM Treasury because they did not vote - or at least said they would not be voting- then the vote represented 94.9% of the creditor balance.
The DAG site has about 2650 registered members, but over 4000 people voted and that excluded bond holder members of the DAG site who were represented by the 7 Insurance Companies.So a large number of people apparently not represented on the site did vote. Perhaps some of the difference would be explained by joint account holder voting or by the fact that some site registrations include more than one family member who voted separately.
I don't know how many people were unable to vote because voting papers did not turn up and/or because they do not have computer facilities but it seems difficult to say that the voting result does not represent the majority of creditor value. Although I would be angry if people were prevented from voting by administrative failure I do not believe that any missing votes could alter the apparent Class 2 result
because there is not sufficient unvoted creditor balance to change it.
If this apparent result is sanctioned by the Court on May 27th I think we have to turn our efforts towards managing liquidation and deciding how we pursue our objective of 100% return. We could all agree perhaps fairly easily on that.


Banna--vote by value

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 11:31

Good point.

So as someone said, those who were fully paid under the EPS did not bother to vote--which would be a sigificant number with a small total value.

Makes me feel a lot better about the validity of the process.

Still think it is ridiculous though that I received the 12th May update today(21st May) but still no forms!


NOT A LOW TURN OUT

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:27

Banna: "If this apparent result is sanctioned by the Court on May 27th I think we have to turn our efforts towards managing liquidation and deciding how we pursue our objective of 100% return. We could all agree perhaps fairly easily on that."

Agreed. And, very importantly, our efforts should be turned towards ensuring that the DCS functions as it should do, so as to ensure as rapid as possible payout for sub-50k depositors. Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, towards persuading IOMG to adopt one of several possible solutions that augment payouts under DCS + liquidation, in keeping with DAG's mision of 100% return for all.


Elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:16

Elgee: "our efforts should be turned towards ensuring that the DCS functions as it should do, so as to ensure as rapid as possible payout for sub-50k depositors."

How, in your opinion, should the DCS "function" and what is considered by you to be a "rapid payout"?


We are in the same position -

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/05/2009 - 07:16

We are in the same position - no voting papers yet although we've had the revised appendix (to what?). We downloaded papers and voted - but we're only in Jersey ....