SOA its arrived

  • yer
  • 06/11/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 28/04/2009 - 02:10

Ive attached ALL apart from proxy forms, Eplanatory '71' pages!!!
Ive more than 50k so I know my vote
Good luck


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

Form Of Notice Of Claim

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 12:51

I live in the Philippines and do not expect the SOA pack to reach me until the end of next week (if at all!!). I have looked at the attachments kindly put here by "yer" and notice a form in the Explanatory Statement, Appendix 2, Part B: Form of Notice Of Claim. It seem to me that the liquidator fill this in and we either agree or disagree to the figures as the case maybe. Was this form in the package, if so was it already filled in with the depositors details or will it come later?


Notice of Claim form

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 14:10

dclf1947, I believe this form was shown simply indicate what type of document you would receive if the SOA is accepted. I gather, as you say, it will be sent to you with bits of information on it for your approval and submission. I suppose we might expect something similar even if KSF goes into liquidation and the DCS triggered.


link to Instructions for completion of SOA form does not work

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 10:54

Does anyone have the instructions pdf file on their harddrive so they can post it directly as an attachment here in the DAG? The reason for this request is the the instructions link on the DAG web page:

KSFIOM_instructions_to_complete_Voting_and_Proxy_Form.pdf

and the instructions link on the original KSF home page both produce a blank page


klauseriksen, re: voting form

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 11:39

Here is a direct link to the Voting form number 2 for those they classify as Part Protected Depositors (ie. those over £50,000). I am assuming you fall into that category, if not I can send you another. If this doesn't work, I can send you the forms attached to an email.

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=20184

Cheers


Thanks Undone but I can't get the link to work

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 12:55

Thanks Undone but I can't get the link to work. I got form 2 printed alright earlier from the KSF site but I was not able to access the instructions of how to fill in the form (the link came up as a blank page). The form is pretty self explanatory I admit but I want to make sure it’s a 100% correctly filled in so it doesn’t get rejected


klauseriksen, Instructions for filling in voting forms

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 14:30

Hope this is what you wanted---

FORM(S) OF PROXY AND VOTING
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE FORM(S) OF VOTING AND PROXY
Please note that the terms contained within these instructions and the Form(s) of Voting and Proxy bear the same meanings as given to them in the Scheme.
IF YOU ARE HAVE ACLAIM IN RESPECT OF AN ELIGIBLE PROTECTED DEPOSIT YOU MUST COMPLETE ONE OF THE “PROTECTED SCHEME CREDITOR” FORM(S) OF VOTING AND PROXY FOR THAT AMOUNT OF YOUR CLAIM. THE FORM OF PROXY AND VOTING WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WILL DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF YOUR ELIGIBLE PROTECTED DEPOSIT AND YOU SHOULD REFER TO THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT FOR GUIDANCE. FOR ALL OTHER SCHEME CLAIMS, SCHEME CREDITORS MUST COMPLETE THE “GENERAL SCHEME CREDITOR” FORM OF VOTING AND PROXY.
1. Enter the name and address of the Scheme Creditor in BLOCK CAPITALS. If you are the duly authorised agent and/or attorney of a Scheme Creditor or a number of Scheme Creditors, you should complete a separate Form of Voting and Proxy in respect of each Scheme Creditor (photocopying the form as many times as necessary) and provide evidence (which must be satisfactory to the chairman of the Scheme Meeting) of your authority to execute the Form of Voting and Proxy on that Scheme Creditor’s behalf. Please note that each Scheme Creditor which is a company within a group of companies must complete a separate Form of Voting and Proxy, as a group submission is not permissible. Joint accounts must be split equally between the account holders and submitted as individual votes for each joint account holders share of that account.
2. If you are the duly authorised representative of a corporation or a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons, or the duly authorised agent and/or attorney of a Scheme Creditor or a number of Scheme Creditors, you should enter your name in BLOCK CAPITALS and the capacity in which you have signed the Form of Voting and Proxy (for example director, partner or agent and/or attorney). If you are the duly authorised representative of a number of Scheme Creditors, you should complete a separate Form of Voting and Proxy (photocopying the form as many times as necessary) in respect of each Scheme Creditor. Where a Scheme Creditor is an underlying beneficiary of an Account Holder with the Company, a relevant Form of Voting and Proxy should be completed by the Account Holder (by the duly authorised representaive). For the purposes of voting, an Account Holder will be treated as having one vote at each of the relevant Scheme Meetings on behalf of the relevant underlying beneficiaries in respect of the account of which he is an Account Holder. To be able to vote in this way the Account Holder must submit supporting information, such as trust agreements, to ensure underlying beneficiaries and their entitlement under the Scheme can be confirmed.
3. Enter the estimated total amount of your claim. If you have claims in separate currencies, please enter the total amount of such claims in each currency on a separate line. Where a Scheme Creditor holds a number of accounts with the Company, or a number of invoices are outstanding,these should be listed separately. An equal share of any joint account should be noted in the “share of account” column with only the Scheme Creditor’s share being used for voting purposes. At the Scheme Meeting, the value of the claims of Scheme Creditors whose claims are not denominated, or converted in advance to Pounds Sterling, will be converted into Pounds Sterling, for the purposes of voting only, using the rate of exchange for the relevant currency as at 9 April 2009, set out in Appendix 3 of the Explanatory Statement. If no rate of exchange is listed, such rate of exchange will be used as determined by the Scheme Supervisors.
4. If you wish to appoint a person other than the chairman of the Scheme Meeting as your proxy, delete the words “the chairman of the Scheme Meeting” and enter the name of the person to be appointed. The person to be appointed as your proxy need not be a Scheme Creditor. If you appoint a person other than the chairman of the Scheme Meeting as your proxy, that person must attend the Scheme Meeting in order to vote on your behalf.
5. If you wish to instruct your proxy to vote for the Scheme, please sign the box marked “FOR THE SCHEME”. If you wish to instruct your proxy to vote against the Scheme, please sign the box marked “AGAINST THE SCHEME”. If you wish to leave your vote(s) to the discretion of your proxy, please sign the box marked “AT DISCRETION”.
DO NOT USE “AT DISCRETION” IF YOU HAVE APPOINTED THE CHAIRMAN AS PROXY HOLDER – YOU VOTE WILL NOT BE VALID.


Clarification on Voting Forms please

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 08:56

As a private individual with a deposit over £50k I believe I am a Class 2 creditor and should be using the red form. However Liebenk's recent blog suggests that I am a Class 3 creditor. The last thing we want is confusion about what colour forms we should be using.

I also have two other questions related to the voting form.

What info do we insert in column 3 "Account/supplier name"

I assume I insert "no" in the last column "Trust/client account"


Form 2 for Class 3 voters

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 13:56

I was wondering if the IOM had numbered the forms differently from the Class of voters that we actually are on purpose? Form 2 for Class 3 ? Can be very confusing. Is this just another ruse, am I getting too paranoid, or are the IOMT really that slipshod?


hopeful, re voting form clarification

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 11:35

Greetings, according to the Explanatory Statement which comes with the Voting documents you should use the Red (number 2) voting forms (see below for extract pulled from the Explanatory Statement).

With regards to your other queries, as the 3 rd column heading requests you must inserts the name of your account (eg. Bonus Product, Savings, etc.). You will find the name of your account on the last bank statement you received.

As to the last column, if you are an Individual (or joint) depositor (that is, you are not acting on behalf of someone else), then you are correct, insert 'N' for no.

Hope this helps.

Extract pulled from Explanatory Statement---
· Green Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to Protected Depositors with claims of up to
£50,000 (fifty thousand pounds) in the case of individuals and £20,000 (twenty
thousand pounds) in any other case in respect of the amount of their Eligible
Protected Deposit and bear number "1"
· Red Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to Protected Depositors with claims greater than
£50,000 (fifty thousand pounds) in the case of individuals and £20,000 (twenty
thousand pounds) in any other case in respect of the amount of their Eligible
Protected Deposit and bear number "2"
· Blue Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to all unsecured creditors in respect of any claim
(other than a claim in respect of Eligible Protected Deposits) and bear number "3"


Thanks Undone

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 12:31

You have confirmed my understanding of the vote forms. I understand from DAG's message today that they will soon be posting clear instructions to all depositors on how to fill in the forms. Hopefully everyone will then be absolutely clear on what Class they fall into and what colour form they should use. You will note the the Class Number is printed in large text in the middle of the forms.


Slight of Hand

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:16

Is this yet another slight of hand by the IOMT? At the last court hearing I fell into the new Class 3 depositor but now mysteriously the classes and their numbers appear to have been changed. Surely the IOMG wouldn't have done this deliberately to add to the confusion?


change to voting class

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:55

I was about to make the same comment about the change to the voting class! Every time one reads the docs something has changed, been left out etc. We spend ages on this site trying to figure out what is what!

Some definitions are still not clear. For example, does this new SOA specify what the situation is regarding joint account holders?

My level of trust is at an all time low and even if there were something positive in this SOA I would still regard it with the utmost suspicion!.


Joint Account holders

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 10:09

The SOA explanatory notes, posted on line, states this:

Joint Account Holders

12.16.1 A "Joint Account" is an Eligible Protected Deposit made in the joint names of
two or more persons (each a "Joint Account Holder" and together referred to as
the "Joint Account Holders"). Each Joint Account Holder shall be treated as a
separate Scheme Creditor to the extent of the amount of his Allowed Scheme
Claim.

12.16.2 Each Joint Account Holder should complete a Form of Voting and Proxy
specifying the aggregate amount which he is seeking to claim, such amount to
include the amount of the deposit held by that Joint Account Holder in the Joint
Account (the "Joint Account Deposit") together with any other amounts (other
than the Joint Account Deposit) for which he is seeking to claim. The Joint
Account Holder should provide details on the Form of Voting and Proxy of:
(A) the number of Joint Account Holders holding deposits in that Joint
Account in which his Joint Account Deposit is held;and
(B) any other amounts (other than the Joint Account Deposit) for which that
Joint Account Holder is seeking to make a Scheme Claim.

12.16.3 At the Scheme Meetings, each Joint Account Holder shall be treated for
numerosity purposes as having one vote at the relevant class of Scheme Meeting
at which he votes. The value of the Joint Account Holder's vote at that Scheme
Meeting shall be such amount as corresponds to the aggregate of:
(A) the total amount in value of that Joint Account divided by the number of
its Joint Account Holders; and
(B) the total value for voting purposes of any other amounts of that Joint
Account Holder's Scheme Claim (other than amounts in respect of the
Joint Account Deposit).


Joint Acct Holders

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 10:15

Hi Chris,
I am in total agreement with you as to what the explanatory notes actually say - however we are not being asked to vote for that. Without sparking off a heated debate with 100's of replies I personally am still confused with this topic (Joint Acct Holders) within the SoA document we are being asked to vote for/agree with/sign up to.


Tricky Dicky,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 10:39

My explanation would be we, including Joint Account Holders, are being asked to vote for, or against the SOA.

"Joint Account" holders must be Protected (e.g. not bondholders) and count as one creditor.

If a creditor has both a "Joint Account" and an individual account, the creditor has one vote, to the value of the aggregate of the "Joint Account" and individual account.

So, if Mr A and Mrs A have 100K in a "Joint Account" and Mr A also has 100K in his own individual account, Mr A has one vote to an aggregate of 200K in value. Mrs A has no vote.

Mr A can use his vote for or against the SOA.


SOA and joint account holders

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 11:23

I think the original question concerned not how joint account holders could vote but rather - and more importantly - how they would be treated under the SOA.

This is also explained in the explanatory notes as follows:
"32.9 Joint Account Holders
32.9.1 Each Joint Account Holder shall be treated as a separate Scheme Creditor and, in
order to take part in any distribution, must sign and return a Notice of Claim to
the Scheme Supervisor.
32.9.2 In determining the amount of a Joint Account Holder's Allowed Scheme Claim
and the amount of Pari Passu Distributions and Top-Up Payments to be made to
that Joint Account Holder in relation to them, a Joint Account shall be treated
under the Scheme as if each Joint Account Holder of that Joint Account held a
separate deposit of an amount equal to the total amount of the Joint Account
divided by the number of its Joint Account Holders. This means that each Joint
Account Holder will receive an equal share of the amount of payments made
under the Scheme by way of Pari Passu Distributions and Top-Up Payments as is
made to all of the Joint Account Holders in respect of that Joint Account."

Which sounds fine as it indicates that joint account holders will indeed be compensated up to a maximum of 50k EACH, as has always been stated to be the intention.

BUT - as Tricky Dicky says below - this appears to be explicitly stated nowhere in the SOA itself - which is the document we have to vote on and surely the only one which (if voted) will have any legal value. A search for the words "joint account" in the SOA finds only one reference and this simply says that a joint account holder can be a creditor...

While this could well have been an oversight in the previous version, it is hard to understand why it has not be corrected. I'm quite sure that IOMT were made well aware of this point by DAG so why has it not been changed???


Joint Account Holder within SOA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 13:48

While I am no lawyer, it would appear to me that the following SOA definition of a Scheme Creditor does recognize Joint account holders as one who is owed money and the definition of a Protected Depositor then indicates that a Scheme Creditor is one who has a claim. As I see it these two definitions taken together indicate that a Joint Account Holder has the same rights as any other individual under the SOA.

The following definitions were extracted from the SOA--
"Scheme Creditor" any person to whom the Company owes a Scheme Liability (including any holder of a joint account) including that person's successors in title, assignees and transferees other than Excluded Creditors

"Protected Depositor" means a Scheme Creditor who has a Scheme Claim which is Allowed and which is an Eligible Protected Deposit;


Presumably DAG will clear this up

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 11:24

But I think we will find that Joint Account holders will be paid up to a total of 50K of the monies in the joint account (not each) and that Joint Account holders are treated as one creditor (i.e. Joint Account holders have one vote total (not each)).

If one has a Joint Account and an individual account, one still has one vote to the aggregate value of one's joint account and individual account.

If a Joint Account has, for example, two individuals both with individual Protected accounts as well, both individuals will have one vote each, to the value of how they split the Joint Account plus the value of their own individual account.

So, if Mr A and Mrs A have 100K in a joint account and Mr A also has an individual Protected account of 100K and Mrs A also has an individual Protected account of 100K, they will have two votes for a combined value of 300K.

How Mr and Mrs A split the 100K value in the Joint Account (e.g. 50K could be added to Mr A's value aggregate and 50K could be added to Mrs A value aggregate, giving them both one vote to a value of 150K), is up to the Joint Account holders (i.e. Mr and Mrs A) to decide.


Chris

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 10:46

Thanks again for posting what it says in the explanatory notes, within the actual SoA document though I can find no mention of the phrase "Joint Account Holders" to which the explanation refers. Dont you think it would have been rather easy for the creators of the SoA to actually use the words as they are printed in the Explanatory notes to avoid confusion. What I was trying to point out is that it is the SoA in its standalone form that we have to vote for or against, the explanatory notes are not a legally binding document as the SoA as it is written will be


confusion over joint account

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 12:38

Angrinaut says " compensated up to a max of 50k EACH " and watson says "paid up to a total of 50K (not each) "

The fact that there are two diametrically opposing views on this one confirms my earlier post that the joint account holders position has not been clearly addressed.

I agree with Tricky Dicky that the lack of clarity in the SOA leaves one exposed to difficulties if it had to be voted in in its present form.


joint accounts

  • steve
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 12:54

Hi everyone. Beware. You may think you are a joint account but you may not be classed as such by KSF. We thought we were until today . We received the first payment on EPS 1 as if we were, but they have now decided this was a mistake and now my wife and I, both signatories, are classed as one account because the account name is in that of our pension scheme. It seems they will do their best to wriggle out of paying anything. I would not trust them to do the right thing if they get their way with the SOA. As I said to the guy on the EPS helpline, there is no point keeping us onside because there is no way we would have anything to do with the IOM ever again. They have to rely on new people who don't know the real dangers of banking there.


I totally agree with you and

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 12:51

I totally agree with you and Tricky Dicky about the lack of clarity in the SOA re joint account holders.

I did not say that joint account holders WOULD be compensated up to 50k max each, merely that this is what it says in the (non-binding) explanatory notes (32.9) and is what I had always understood to be the intention. I don't understand on what text Chris bases his interpretation. But the fact remains that the situation for joint account holders is NOT made clear in the SOA document itself - and that is what counts.

BTW, I am not myself a joint account holder. But I think those who are have reason to be concerned.


I don't know

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 11:00

It is of course worth being 100% sure (and I'm sure someone with more knowledge will clarify your point), but I'd have thought the Explanatory notes associated to the SOA contract would also be legally binding, and it would be completely unreasonable for the courts (including the English High Court) to rule otherwise.


Voting and Proxy Forms

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:48

There are clearly three:

Fully Protected Depositors
Part Protected Depositors
General Scheme Creditors

What's wrong with that ? Much less likely to cause confusion than Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 ?


yes but the fact is ...

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:58

that it has changed. people are confused ...again


Clearer classifications

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 10:17

Maybe the changes have been made to clarify (ie because Class 1,2,3 was likely to cause confusion) ?

Honestly .........there'll be people on here blaming the IoM for Swine Flu.


Bobby, couldn't agree more

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 11:57

To make a fuss because the number attached to each voting class may have changed is really going overboard. For those in a quandary, please see the following which I extracted from the Explanatory Statement accompanying the SOA and Voting documents on the KSF Bank site http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4079

· Green Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to Protected Depositors with claims of up to
£50,000 (fifty thousand pounds) in the case of individuals and £20,000 (twenty
thousand pounds) in any other case in respect of the amount of their Eligible
Protected Deposit and bear number "1"
· Red Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to Protected Depositors with claims greater than
£50,000 (fifty thousand pounds) in the case of individuals and £20,000 (twenty
thousand pounds) in any other case in respect of the amount of their Eligible
Protected Deposit and bear number "2"
· Blue Forms of Voting and Proxy apply to all unsecured creditors in respect of any claim
(other than a claim in respect of Eligible Protected Deposits) and bear number "3"


If you are an over 50K (individual) creditor, you use "Red" form

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 09:59

Read the SOA.

The Red forms are for protected creditors with over 50K. Liebenk refers to these as class 3 creditors.

I am not a government agent.