Somr Clarifications

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:43

In the light of certain postings, allegations and questions it is clear that there needs to be some clarification here.

With regards the 9 letters attached to the Clucas affidavit:

Yes, 2 of the letters were sent by members of the informal committee. The only issue I have with the letters is that they may lead someone to believe that they write on behalf of other depositors as well. This has been pointed out to John Wright and the court will be left in no doubt as to which affidavit speaks for the larger group. As individuals they are entitled (just like we all are) to petition the court in any way they wish if they believe it is in their best interest - these individuals felt persuaded by the argument for the SoA and so they put forward their feelings to the court. That was fine, the wording regarding other depositors was ill-advised but will have no material effect when weighed up ageist the affidavit of JW.

With regards the informal committee:

It should be pointed out that the informal committee (IC) was not set up to get consensus or to negotiate anything on behalf of depositors (despite the claims of some postings). The idea behind it was to give the IoM authorities an indication of how various sub-groups within the DAG would react to IoM proposals. Since we have been in direct contact with the IoM we have simply been trying to get sufficient information out of them to give depositors a true choice between various routes we can take. We have had no control or input into any of the figures or predicted returns (although we did press home our thoughts on the calculations).

With regards to JW's affidavit:

A comment was passed asking why the affidavit named 3 participants and not the whole informal committee and suggested this was odd/wrong/a sign that shady things were going on in the background. Well, as in the case of most of that depositor's posts, this was an ill thought out comment/question. When the DAG agreed that legal representation was required in the IoM 3 depositors appointed JW with the understanding that they were the 'front' for the remainder of the group. This has stayed like this ever since and it was felt there was no reason to change it now especially as the informal committee was not put together to put forward the legal standpoint of the group.

With regards discussions with the IoM:

As mentioned above, the informal committee was not put together to negotiate with anyone, especially around recoveries. However, as can be seen from the affidavit presented by JW, we were in a position to request that the IoM produces more information, clarifies existing information, produces meaningful data for
depositors and protects the interests of depositors (as defined by us) as best as possible.

The biggest obstacle to achieving anything of value has undoubtedly been the IoM's inability to follow through on agreements made in meetings and conversations. Invariably we would reach an agreement on something (e.g. the fact that depositors mush have the same legal rights under any SoA as they would under liquidation etc...) only to find that 2 days later this agreement disappeared (presumably due to protestations elsewhere in the IoM machine). This has been true of our discussions from the day they commenced and has led to immense frustration.

A lot has been said in recent days about demanding 100% return or demanding that the IoM take out a loan to cover the shortfall etc... A lot of comments made here appear to believe that these are new ideas and that these haven't been put to the IoM before (despite postings to the contrary). These are things that have been laid at the feet of the IoM authorities for months and have been repeated in press releases sent out by us, including those sent out last week....that's where the press is getting their info from. The IoM's stance on this has nothing to do with the tactics being employed by us....they are choosing to say 'No' and that remains their stance...it's as simple as that.

With regards postings/suggested courses of action:

There has been one poster who has been particularly vociferous in condemning our actions to date and condemning me in particular. This poster has been in touch with a member of the informal committee on a regular basis and has been passing on supposed ‘insider information’. All the information received (despite usually appearing in riddle form) has been acted on…every last bit and this poster know this, so accusations that nothing has or is being done and comments about private deals being done are hard to understand.

Hopefully the above will help clarify at least a few points for you all.

4.72973
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (37 votes)

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

Thanks go without saying, but

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:30

Thanks go without saying, but maybe I am missing something - did we actually have a vote as to the period that should be allowed for the next adjournment? maybe "we" did and I didn't see, but all I saw was one posting discussing the (confidential) discussion notes of the SoA, nothing other than that.

If there was no official vote, then I suppose I too would have prefered longer than the 21 days suggested by the advocate. Maybe not for the best, but because of the lack of discussion from your side, and a general vacuum of information, that would have been my stance.

I would be nice to actually know the organization structure and who is who, and can we apply KISS in this? no silly sub-sub-non-official committees and variations thereon?


Diver - being a little charitable

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:02

Diver: magic - at a stroke sanity is restored. I think the last few days show how crucial it is that the committee provides a regular steer as to what is going on, to avoid the speculation that breaks out in an information vacuum.

Personally I think you are being a little charitable towards those who wrote directly to KSFIoM's advocate.

The weight of the DAG (in the IOM at least) seem to lie in its ability to sway a voting decision where DAG members vote en bloc. Retaining the ability and the realistic threat of vote down an SoA is crucial to getting the amendments accepted that are referred to in the affadavit and in your posting. Breaking ranks to claim that depositors will vote for an SoA come what may undermines that power.

In this respect, as CM's email says, developing a concensus on significant issues helps to keep everyone aligned.


Thanks again, Diver

  • romasanta
  • 16/10/08 02/10/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:33

I would like to echo BustedFlat´s comments.
Empty containers tend to make a lot of noise.
I tend to remain silent when I know I won´t be heard above it.


@romasanta

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:08

Are you our group leader for >200K<500K?


Thank you (again)

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:28

Diver, well done. We are with you 100% If we don´t get 100% of our money back we are willing to take all this to the next stage, even if it means action of a more direct type.


Diver has my support.

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:07

Ok Diver, you appear to be coming good from what I am seeing now. Not making any apologies for my suspicions in the past, problem was we were not seeing anything, no visibility.

Hoping for some solid leadership and informative updates in the future as I understand the need for alignment but also understand that there is a lot of energy here not being utilised or directed to gain synergy.

Hope the agenda is still 100% return.

You have my support and assistance if required.


Good post RP. Diver is the

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 01:16

Good post RP. Diver is the right man if he accepts a little guidance from time to time, which he seems to be getting better at.

Funny you mention energy, I have just written elsewhere: If nothing else, all the current conflict is creating a level of energy that we haven't seen since the early days, if ever. We need to point it in the right direction, and somebody needs to do the pointing.


Diver and Ramsey efforts aligned

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:33

As one who has taken most of Ramsey's comments seriously (except the attacks on Diver), I am delighted to see this apparent public alignment of efforts. I have not met Diver but I have meet Sleepless and I believe that their efforts are honest and that they are doing all they can to get 100% back. Please lets all focus on taking actions to assist. The goal may ultimately prove unachievable but I for one am doing my best to try and get 100% back and won't accept defeat until we are beaten.

Lets see what happens in Court today and then regroup under Divers leadership to plot a way forward. I am not a "blind puppet" but without some form of central leadership this forum will disintergrate. In my opinion views that challenge the thinking of others are always welcome.


contacts with IOM & Diver's clarification

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:09

Diver,
Thank you for this. And for the work you have done and continue to do.
I have never had the slightest doubt about your good faith or the energy you have put into trying to obtain the best result for all depositors.
You say with some finality that IOM has been asked to put something in to the pot and have repeatedly declined to do so. If that is the case and remains the case, do you believe there is any benefit in continuing to discuss the SoA? In other words do you believe there is any chance of persuading them to change their mind? If not, would we not be better off to get a vote taken quickly to try push for liquidation, if that is the will of the majority- and concentrate our efforts on trying to get our UK funds repatriated from London - as your efforts with the TSL are presumably aimed at - and work with the liquidator to get the best possible realisation of all our assets?
If the Court today accepts the petition to prevaricate for yet another 60 days - which God forbid - does John Wright have any view on how we could get a vote taken to see if we have a majority to go for liquidation and if so whether we could go back to the Court in less than 60 days ?
If he wins the case for a shorter delay does he have a view on how to move to a vote ?


Thanks Diver

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:42

My wife and I completely agree with Banna's sentiments. We trust Diver and thank him for all his efforts. Some of those that attack him rather than offer constructive cricism which is always necessary, seem to have social/psychological problems rather than financial ones.


Thanks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:55

Diver, you seem to be doing so much more than I could do. This site is a lifeline for lots of people and I'm sure that many of us are silent because we don't want to get involved in all the bickering.
However I want to say thank you to you. Please keep at it and ignore these posters that seem to want to cause trouble and ill-feeling. A chat room/forum should encourage lively debate, but sometimes I wonder how these comments are helping. It's not compulsary to log-on, so if people don't like what you are doing, they can ignore it and do their own thing in their own way.
There are many depositors right behind you.
Thank you again.


Echo the first line of your

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:44

Echo the first line of your post, but after that we must differ a little - bickering as you call it, or heated debate is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff, and I for one am too long in the beak to settle for chaff.

Let's face it, if the decisions were easy, they would all have been made by now, but they are not easy are they?

What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.


Diver, thanks again.

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:06

Diver, please believe that the free-thinking amonst us can identify the ranting of certain individuals for what it is. These people are tolerated because there appears to be some content in what they write. However, your actions have been the most positive and I for one prefer to follow that than read the posts of the showboaters and wofflers.


A lot of people trust and support you, keep going please

  • timeout
  • 22/10/08 22/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:05

Diver and all the colleagues who keep on working to get our money back, I can assure you many of us, who choose to remain silent in most cases, can see who is doing what and in the majority support and appreciate what you are doing and hopefully will continue to do. For the record I would like to confirm my feelings on this:

  1. I am convinced that a lot of ideas being put forward have already been thought through by the Committee (informal) and you and continue to be pursued. Perhaps you need to consider tape recording these proceedings with IOMG, FSC, etc. since they are playing games and it may help our cause to create evidence that can be used openly in court of they backtrack.

  2. It is important that you put forward to the TSC on 3rd Feb, that a key request from DAG is that the UK Govt. allow IOMG to create DEBT and borrow to pay back depositors. I am sure you have thought about this, but just in case ....

  3. The Informal Committee consider consulting the DAG and John Wright to assess whether we can start legal proceedings now against the Directors of KSFIOM, if for nothing else, at least disclosure under Regulatory provisions for Conflicts of Interest, etc.

In the meantime, may I reiterate, you have my full support, irrespective of whether you or any other colleague have made mistakes or not. We are all human and it is the motive that matters not the actual events. We will learn and live. Please keep on fighting for us.


its good to hear from you

  • markH
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:58

It's good to hear from you.

What I would like to know is, AS IT STANDS, are you still in favour of the SoA?

You mention that the IOMG has been frustrating to deal with and have reneged on agreements. That makes me even more reluctant to trust them in administrating an SoA.

What do you think? It would help to get your gut instinct.


Re: It's good to hear from you

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:09

Depositors cannot possibly be asked to choose an SoA when it is as ill-defined as it is. In my mind it is as simple as that.

My primary concern is for depositors to maintain all their legal rights, that they would have had under a liquidation, in any SoA. Unless that is guaranteed then the SoA is dead in the water as far as I'm concerned.

In short, if we get a short adjournment and the IoM still doesn't deliver what we need then I will find it hard to support an SoA.


Suppoert for Diver

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:59

I am so pleased that you have not changed your stance on this matter. The IOM have shown their true colours here. How can we trust them to run the SOA if they choose to ignore verbal agreements made with DAG and subsequently introduce in their legal advisers Affidavit a condition that requires all depositors to relinquish their right to any future claim against KSFIOM.

If it transpires that HMG cannot be persuaded to assist the IOM to properly resolve the situation we find ourselves in, then it will be crucial that we maintain our legal rights and not be bulldozered into submission by the IOM.

At this stage I feel that I could not support the SOA alternative with conditions attached and its “promise” of an earlier payout.

I will be at the TSC Meeting next Tuesday and I wish you all the very best. In the meantime thanks again for all your hard work in support of our plight.


Thank you Diver

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:05

You have our 100% support.


Well Done Diver

  • Chairman2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:07

Diver, please do not let a handful of arrogant people get to you.

As far as we are concerned you are doing a good job for us all and the majority of us really appreciate all that you and the team are doing.

We will be at the TS meeting on 3rd February and its brilliant news that you will be able to speak, unlike the last meeting there when we all had to keep quiet.

It seems the only time I ever post anything on this site is when my blood boils with reading nasty self opionated remarks, whose names I do not need to mention!


TSC attendance

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 13:28

A group of us will attend the TSC meeting next week. we will each be representing our individual interests in our own money in Kaupthing. We are not a company or a democratically elected governing body or a committee. We've all collectively lost our money in the same violent manner at the same moment. thats as far as our relationship goes.

However, like it or not, that gathering of indivuals will appear to others looking from the outside in that we are representatitve of all the interests of all the individuals in kaupthing who have lost their money. thats you. are you going to help shape that opinion to the outside world?

personally I dont care what diver says, I dont care that I didnt personally nominate him to speak, and I dont need to be consulted to know that he is going to say something along the lines of ' you helped cause this. my money is now gone. please help fix it'.

we are being given a huge oppotunity to talk rationally to the people who played a part in creating this situation and who have a possible role to play in resolving it.

how apathetic will our collective cause appear if no one can be bothered to go and fight for their own money in front of the treasury, and we'd rather sit around debating whether we nominated diver or not. And how seriously will they take us if 10 people show up, and 1000 would rather sit at home in front of our PCs swiping at other people who lost their money in the same screw up

lets meet up. stand together. show our support for an individual who is trying to get his own money back. Presumably if his message gets through, we are all one step closer to being reunited with our own money.

if you dont like what hes saying, get your own offer to talk to the treasury or to the prime minister, or to Iceland or the isle of man goverment or the court of human rights........and we the voiceless masses will support you too, because if we remain silent, we have NO platform, we are forgotten.

The platform Diver has is an important one. Our cause IS collective and we need any help we can get. We need to get the right people to remember who we are.

if you want to do it collectively, email me and join me, if you dont, at least show up on your own and demonstrate to the treasury that this is important to you. I'll be there. representing no one, not having been consulted and completely in the dark about what Diver will say. But I will be there trying to get my money back.

SHOW UP AT THE MEETING.
SHOW UP AT THE MEETING
SHOW UP AT THE MEETING


TSC physical presence to show support

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 22:41

Excellent post Liebenk. If one speaker gets his message through to the committee, then we all do. And he committe must be more fosussed if their is a crowd of citizens who are obviously supportive of the speaker.


Well Done Diver

  • Chairman2
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:06

Diver, please do not let a handful of arrogant people get to you.

As far as we are concerned you are doing a good job for us all and the majority of us really appreciate all that you and the team are doing.

We will be at the TS meeting on 3rd February and its brilliant news that you will be able to speak, unlike the last meeting there when we all had to keep quiet.

It seems the only time I ever post anything on this site is when my blood boils with reading nasty self opionated remarks, whose names I do not need to mention!


SoA must incorporate 100% of deposits returned

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:56

The SoA needs to state that for all investors who's deposits exceed £50K, that the IOMG will continue to make payments until all depositors have 100% of their savings back, plus any due interest, however long it takes. The IOMG should also reimburse depositors for the cost of appointing solicitors to represent our interests.

If the IOMG want the IOM to remain a credible jurisdiction for private investment, the above is the only outcome that will prevent depositors from waging a war with the IOMG and the IOM to discredit it via the press, the web or any other means, so as to warn others NOT to risk investing there.

In the meantime, the IOMG should be looking at ways of legally contesting the UK Treasury's actions, relinquishing the frozen assets and jointly sueing the UK Government for damages to the IOM, the collapsed banks and the Icelandic economy. The UK Government / Treasury must NOT be permitted to walk away from this Scot free after wrecking several viable Iclandic owned banks, thousands of depositors lives and millions of Icelandic citizen's lives, due to the devastating effect on their economy.

Whether Kaupthing goes into liquidation or the SoA is invoked, as depositors with amounts < £50K are "Paid off", bad sentiment against the IOMG will seemingly decline because the number of depositors who are creditors will reduce, however, those that remain will have the funds available to fight a bitter legal battle until such time that all that belongs to them is returned.


Colinalvin63, I agree - IOMG, return 100% of all deposits

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:21

"The SoA needs to state...that the IOMG will continue to make payments until all depositors have 100% of their savings back, plus any due interest, however long it takes. The IOMG should also reimburse depositors for the cost of appointing solicitors to represent our interests." Plus contest the UK Government/Treasury's actions.

Hear! Hear! Now that would show we depositors that the IOMG "is standing shoulder to shoulder with the depositors" and supports us "100 per cent" (Allan Bell, quoted in Isle of Man Today, December 17th 2008).

(Compensation for mental, emotional, physical and spiritual anguish and pain would be good too.)


Supports us 100% - another lying politician

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 07:03

Please support us financially, then, by guaranteeing our savings - like the British, Irish, Belgian, Luxembourg and even Icelandic Governments have. Why should you choose not to with banking as the epicentre of your economy? One wonders what the general population of the Idle of Man thinks as your intransigence might lead to the collapse of the Isle of Man as a financial centre.


Supports us 100% - another lying politician

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 06:57

Please support us financially, then, by guaranteeing our savings - like the British, Irish, Belgian, Luxembourg and even Icelandic Governments have. Why should you choose not to with banking as the epicentre of your economy? One wonders what the general population of the Idle of Man thinks as your intransigence might lead to the collapse of the Isle of Man as a financial centre.


Thanks again Diver. You have

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:28

Thanks again Diver. You have expressed my feelings exactly.

I fear we are coming to the end of the road with IoM - but have no regrets that you/we tried.

We shall see what today brings forth.


Clarification from Diver

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 10:53

Hello Diver,
keep at it, and good luck on 3rd.


SoA re Bond holders

  • Kevin Platt
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 11:33

The recent affidavit in support of an SoA appears to give Bond holders considerably less money return than direct investors.
Why is this?
Why are the insurance companies able to wash their hands of investors and offer no compensation?


SoA re: Bondholders

  • id2cgs
  • 23/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:39

Does the SoA give bondholders a maximum payment of £20K after 2 years? i'm not really sure from the terrible, amateurish presentation just what it all means.

Does the DCS give them a share of £20K per insurance company divided by no of bondholders with that company (ie pence)?

Plus of course the princely sum of £1000 which is accepted for each bondholder by the insurance company, whether they want to accept it or not, and will be reclaimed by IOMG from the SoA if it eventually goes with that!. Although, despite a posting on the Skandia site I'm not even sure if this has been properly agreed yet. WOW!

Either way, it appears bondholders have no voting rights, have a huge stake in the total pot but apparently are going to get the worst deal of everyone!
Before somebody jumps in & suggests sueing insurance Co's and IFA's, please remember some have lost everything in this catastrophe and may not be in a position to start litigation which would probably cost megabucks!


Bond holders

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 11:29

As I understand, the insurance company with multiple bond holders is treated as one corporate depositor and is entitled to 20,000 under the DCS---as you say pennies for each bond holder.
I am sure I will be corrected very quickly if I am wrong.
I am really sorry for you guys and all the Derbyshire people who I imagine are simple hard working folk who kept their cash in the building society for security.
They were given guarantees from kaupthing---on the back of an envelope---shame on all of the suits!
QE1 would say "off with their heads"


Bond Holders and >50000

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 31/01/2009 - 11:20

I am a less than 50000 depositor and maybe I will get my money back within 2 years when my state pension kicks in---survival money only.
I promise that whatever happens to me, I will continue to support the group and if the IOMG don't do the right thing, I will do all I can to help with the collapse of their banking industry---that would be a crusade.
I have e mailed everyone I could in IOM and told them that they face ruin if they do not resolve this issue--not a threat, a fact.
I will help ensure their downfall by whatever legitimate means and let the whole world know what a bunch of scheisters they are.