Supermodel Elle Macpherson has won a landmark ruling against (KSF)

  • alandob
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 06/12/2010 - 14:35

Please see:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/elle-macpherson-wins-ruling-agai...

Supermodel Elle Macpherson has won a landmark ruling against liquidated Isle of Man bank Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (KSF), in a case her legal team claims will give hope to those entangled in disputes with insolvent lenders.

Macpherson took the liquidators of KSF to the Isle of Man High Court, after they refused to allow her to offset deposits she had with the bank against money owed by her nominee company to KSF for a mortgage on a house in London.

The case saw Macpherson’s legal team invoke a legal principle dating back 300 years in order to win.

Speechly Bircham won the case on the grounds of a legal principle that had not been used successfully on behalf of a claimant since the 1870s. The judge ruled that Miss Macpherson and her company were ‘in-equity’ one and the same.

Macpherson had set up the Isle of Man registered nominee company in 2006 to allow her to purchase the property while keeping her address private.

When she decided to sell the house in September 2009 Macpherson tried to offset the amount she had deposited with KSF against the money her nominee company still owed for the mortgage.

But KSF’s liquidators refused, arguing the borrower was a company, albeit owned by Macpherson, while the deposit was held in her personal capacity.

Charles Gothard, Speechly Bircham’s head of international tax and trusts, said: ‘We hope this verdict will throw a lifeline to a lot of people caught up in complex battles with insolvent banks and lenders.'

‘Macpherson’s case highlights the importance of looking beyond statutory and dry legal rights, to the intentions and equities that underpin relationships with banks, particularly where there are complicated connections between lenders, individuals and the companies they control.’

Macpherson said she was extremely pleased with the ruling: ‘I am very grateful for the tenacity and commitment of Counsel and the brilliant team at Speechlys who provided clear insight and were able to establish a robust defence in this difficult case. I am extremely pleased with the ruling.’

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (6 votes)

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

The Privy Council ruling - the facts!

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/08/2012 - 15:23

I have now received confirmation from Mike Simpson that "the Privy Council have said that they will hear the Elle Macpherson/Light House Living appeal, but no date has yet been confirmed. "

He is as astonished as we are by the multiple errors in reporting this matter and has "written to both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail to point out their errors and to offer to help them verify the facts for any future articles".


Elle and the Inland Revnue

  • Downbutnotout
  • 11/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/08/2012 - 16:40

Seeing as Elle is saying she and Lighthouse Living are one and the same maybe the Inland Revenue in the UK would like to know this. Lighthouse Living holds property in the UK and was perhaps set up to avoid UK Stamp Duty.

If Elle is now saying she and the company are one and the same maybe the Inland Revenue would now like to charge her the stamp duty she may have avoided?!


Elle and the Inland Revenue

  • shellshocked
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 14/09/2012 - 10:20

Absolutely bang-on Downbutnotout.
Company set up to keep her address secret??? From who?? - what twaddle.


Sigrun Davidsdottir on Kaupthing IoM, the Queen and “The Body”

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Elle Macpherson

  • Pat
  • 10/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 05/08/2012 - 13:25

Don't know That I understand the significance of this article that appeared in the Telegraph today. I thought she won her cae 2 years ago and now with 91% paid out on deposits the difference is not so significant. Was this just to get us to pay her costs??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9452102/The-Queen-gives-El...

When Elle Macpherson was ordered to pay almost £8 million to the liquidators of Kaupthing, despite holding deposits of £2.5 million with the Icelandic bank, she was left with an overwhelming sense of injustice.

The supermodel, who was known as “The Body”, felt that her only option was to appeal directly to the Queen. Mandrake can disclose that the Queen held a meeting at Buckingham Palace of the Privy Council.

It gave Macpherson the right to appeal against the Isle of Man’s High Court, which had ordered her to pay the money. “Elle is absolutely delighted,” says a friend of the Australian model.

The presenter of the television programme Britain’s Next Top Model, who has become a successful businesswoman since she stepped down from the catwalk, had a mortgage of £7.8 million with Kaupthing Edge. After the bank collapsed in 2008, its liquidators insisted that she pay back the mortgage.

Macpherson, 49, who has two sons by her former boyfriend, the French financier Arpad “Arky” Busson, was happy to oblige, but asked that the £2.5 million of deposits that she held with Kaupthing in the Isle of Man should be set against the mortgage, which would leave her to repay £5.3million.

Kaupthing’s liquidators, Light House Living, refused and His Honour Deemster Moran QC, in the High Court in the Isle of Man, backed their decision. Now, the Privy Council has granted the Australian-born Macpherson permission to appeal against the Isle of Man High Court’s decision. It is a momentous ruling which could save the model, who lives in London, more than £5  million.

In a grandly worded statement, Nick Clegg, who is Lord President of the Privy Council, and its clerk, Richard Tilbrook, say: “At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 10th day of July 2012, present the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in council, Her Majesty was pleased with the advice of Her Privy Council to approve and to order those charged with administering the High Court of the Isle of Man to reverse, alter or vary the judgement.”

The decision means that Kaupthing’s liquidators will have to stump up a six-figure sum in legal costs. “No wonder the bank and bankers have a bad reputation,” says a source close to the dispute.

“A child can work out that if someone has £2.5 million in cash deposited and owes £7.8 million, then you take one away from the other and agree a settlement. Instead, they’re going to have to take less – just because they were being greedy.”

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for British Crown Dependencies such as the Isle of Man


Telegraph article withdrawn ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/08/2012 - 20:19

It would appear - unless it's a temporary glitch - that the Telegraph article has just been withdrawn. I trust the reporter has been suitably reprimanded. Unfortunately his error-ridden and sensationalist report has now been extensively propagated on the web.

A remarkably similar article in the Daily Mail is still online; a comment I submitted there earlier today has not appeared. An optimistic view would be that they are still checking the facts. But if they do not follow the DT's lead it will be clearer than ever that they are more interested in sensationalism and the cult of 'celebrities' than in the truth.


The Mail Article

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/08/2012 - 22:59

Managed to get my and one other new comment on The Mail (This is Money web site) to magically appear by clicking on a different tab at the top of the coment section and then again on the 'Newest Tab'. Computers!! Can not see one from your good self -so may be not the same web site. Wish they alllowed more characters. Didn't get a chance to comment on the Telegraph article - before they pulled it down?, but did get a chance to read it and your comment between flights. Very well said. The articles seemed to me to be more than similar - essentially the same error riddled piffle with the same unidentified source 'close to the case'' '; one can only conclude they came from the same origin. The Body's or her lawyer's PR machine at work perhaps? or just another piece of irresponsible journalism by some freelancer looking for an angle to (incorrectly in this instance ) bash the banks.


Thanks expatvictim -

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/08/2012 - 11:06

Thanks expatvictim - excellent comments. I had submitted a short comment to the Mail online yesterday, just before the Telegraph article was pulled, but it did not appear - probably because it basically said the article was full of errors starting with "the laughable assertion that the Liquidators of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man go by the unlikely name of Lighthouse Living. Well, I know the Isle of Man is an island, but still ... !" and then gave link to the equally erroneous DT article which I pointed out it strongly resembled (!) for more explanation and comments.

Guess that didn't go down too well! But I see that the Mail has now corrected the worst of the factual errors - presumably their response to Simpson's letter. So I have just submitted two new comments based on the one I made on Sigrun's blog and am waiting to see if they appear. Maybe I'm persona non grata there!

On this site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2184361/Queen-rides-rescue...

Update: OK - my comments are now there.

I also now see that the following has been added at the end:

“Liquidators PwC said depositors and other ‘ordinary creditors’ had so far been paid 91 per cent of their deposits, meaning Macpherson’s, excluding legal costs, would have been around £250,000.

Joint liquidator Michael Simpson of PwC said: ‘We were appointed as liquidators to the bank in order to realise the assets and pay the proceeds out to the creditors, who consist almost entirely of depositors who entrusted their savings to the bank.’”


mmm ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/08/2012 - 08:23

mmm

The Mail article now says:

"We're sorry but reader comments are currently unavailable."

???

OK - back up now - seems it was just a glitch.


More Piffle

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/08/2012 - 23:19

I notice that the Telegraph article has re-appeared in toned down and edited form. Still a load of piffle but thats the modern day press for you.


Thanks again - and for your

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/08/2012 - 06:43

Thanks again expatvictim - and for your excellent new comment. Have added another to it.

The link is as before:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9452102/The-Queen-gives-El...


Re Elle MacPherson appeal

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 05/08/2012 - 14:14

Pat,

The original IOM court ruling in favour of Elle MacP was overuled by the IOM High Court on appeal by our Liquidators months ago. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/2_5m_body_blow_for_super...
But she applied for permission to appeal that verdict.

It would appear from this highly confused report in the Telegraph that she has just won the right to appeal. As far as I can make out (though the article seems contradictory), that is all for now - the appeal has yet to be heard.

The report is appalling and doesn't at all explain what the dispute is about. The reporter seems to understand nothing of the Liquidators' case (based on the fact that the mortgage was accorded not to Ms MacP but to her company Lighthouse Living and that set-off should therefore not apply). The reporter seems to believe that Lighthouse Living is the name of our Liquidators (!), that she had a mortgage from "Kaupthing Edge" and that she stands to gain £5m. All very sensationalist stuff (as perhaps might be expected in the Celebrity section of the DT).

I have been commenting there this morning in an attempt to counteract some of the inane and uninformed comments and would appreciate some thumbs up and maybe other comments from those who agree with me.

I note that no other newspaper has (as yet) reported this (other than those who are simply relaying the DT article) and, in view of its confusing nature (re judgment or not on the case itself) and mutliple gross inaccuracies, have refrained from posting it here as a News item.


Elle Macpherson

  • Pat
  • 10/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/08/2012 - 00:53

Thanks Anrigaut,

I also left a comment and gave some thumbs up on othrs.

I still don't see the value as 91% has now been paid out and the forecast is looking close to 99% unless it is all about the costs


Indeed, it is now mostly

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/08/2012 - 06:19

Indeed, it is now mostly about costs (which will no doubt be not insignificant), though clearly that wasn't the case when it began.


from the Telegraph another celeb KSF stakeholder!!!

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/01/2011 - 08:07

Kaupthing approved £1.69bn loans for Arsenal backer Alisher Usmanov prior to collapse
Kaupthing approved loans worth €2bn (£1.69bn) for Alisher Usmanov, the billionaire behind Arsenal Football Club, less than two weeks before the Icelandic bank went bust.

There were several emergency political meetings about the health of the Icelandic banks in the months before they failed, with particular worries about liquidity and access to credit markets.

However, minutes of a credit committee meeting seen by The Daily Telegraph show that Kaupthing was still showering businessmen, including Mr Usmanov, with offers of money on September 24.

The leaked documents show that Kaupthing's loan to Usmanov would have been more than double the 25pc limit for exposure to a single party. It also emerges that Mr Usmanov owned a 1.5pc stake in the bank.

At this meeting, the credit committee agreed to loans totalling just over 100pc of the bank's equity base – many to connected parties, including City tycoons Kevin Stanford and Robert Tchenguiz.

According to the minutes, Kaupthing offered two loans to Mr Usmanov. One was for $1.2bn to build a stake in Norilsk Nickel. Another was to buy a €1.1bn stake in Finnish insurer Sampo – which was closely linked to some of Kaupthing's main owners.

There is no suggestion Mr Usmanov acted improperly at any point (other than owning a 1.5% stake in it).

It is not clear whether or how much of the $2bn in approved loans were paid out to Mr Usmanov before the bank collapsed. The billionaire, worth an estimate $7.8bn according to Forbes, did end up buying a 5pc stake in Norilsk Nickel in 2008.

"We cannot and do not comment on the internal credit approval process of Kaupthing or any other bank," Mr Usmanov's spokesman said. "We have and continue to utilise multiple banks to provide banking facilities, but we can confirm that we have no current facilities or outstanding liabilities of any sort with Kaupthing."


Loan Trust

  • barrona
  • 17/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 12:03

Can anyone provide me with an update as to where we are re negotiations with the IoM and UK authorities re the establishment of a Loan Trust in order to alleviate the ongoing suffering of depositors who otherwise may have to wait until 2017 to get their money back?

It would be a despicable act if they refused to 'stand in our shoes' and if so, I personally hope it would sound the death knell of the IoM as a financial centre.


Well they have done so far!

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 13:22

Well they have do so far !

It would need extreme goodwill on their part to stand in our shoes.

Moreover they seem to be hell bent on giving court judgements against us!


I think she borrowed 7

  • alandob
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 18:42

I think she borrowed 7 million via a morgage and had 2 milion on deposit. With this in mind she should have pay the morgage back, as the T&C's detail - i.e. once you sell the property, pay the loan back to the administrator and be a creditor for the 2 million as a depositor - the same as we all have to suffer as "creditors".

If she just pays the 5 million left, then she's not a creditor - she's off free...


All square

  • richiyeh
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 11:49

I think you've sort of put your finger on it there.
Forgive my ignorance which I'm sure will be corrected, but this hardly seems the catastrophe as which it's being portrayed. What has happened seems to be that the bank's liabilities and assets have simultaneously been reduced by 2m. EMcP is no longer a creditor but the bank's asset (her mortgage) has also reduced by 2m. Provided she pays up on the mortgage there is no significant harm done - what she has effectively achieved is to "jump the queue" and not have to wait in line like the rest of us. I have not really considered the arcane legal points of the case, but I would have thought that the outcome means that she and the company (legal entity) are interchangeable and therefore she can't default without serious consequences.
As to the morality of her actions, would any one of us have acted differently in her (Louboutin) shoes?


@richiyeh

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 18:01

There is the small matter of some £300K (~£75 per creditor). Because she won the 'set-off' case, she gets the whole £2m set against her mortgage loan - 100% - and she gets it now. If the worst case scenario prevails and we creditors get no more than 85% back over the next seven years, then not only will we have lost the ability to use our monies in a lump sum as it were, (instead of in dribbles) but we'll also get 15% less after waiting so long. So, it looks like EMcP got her 'extra' £300K back a lot quicker than the rest of us will ever get our dues - and then only if we were to get 100%. My curiosity rests with how much the costs and fees were to fight for this £300K...


@icecrusher - it gets worse

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/12/2010 - 16:56

Don't disagree withanything you are saying but have found some detailed (non-press) data.

From the judgement posted on the IOM court pages the disputed amount is/was 'only' £1.1 million (see para 10 of part 1). Her lawyers retained this amount pending the court case .

Her losses/our gain would therefore have amounted to only 166k at 85% projected recovery in the long term.

Even if the Jls had won, then there would only be 566k extra for distribution now since Elle would be entitled to her 51%. This is less than 0.1% of the amount owed by KSFIOM.

This 'small' amount is what the liquidators have been spending our money on trying to recover while increasing the profits for their company and their lawyers. (bet they didnt insist on a no win no fee arrangement)

Also note that the liquidators/us received the residue £5.3 million back in 2009 when she sold the house - good or bad news depending which way you want to look at it.

http://www.judgments.im/content/J1096.htm
http://www.judgments.im/content/J1087.htm


@expatvictim - it will probably get even 'worser'!

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/12/2010 - 20:10

Interesting find! So, the media 'inflated' the claim to £2m? And our JLs went to war for about 40 quid per depositor! Meanwhile, back at the ranch, forex movements reduced our overall position on the month by £1,100,000 (coincidental number!)

I wrote to Mr Simpson about the 'big picture' and pursuing legal battles for just a few quid per depositor, but on this point he did not answer. I figure that liquidators are 'bound' by some industry code to pursue every claim to the point of nonsense (but in their earnest endeavour they don't see the futility). This is where our CoI should provide direction on which fires need to be put out and which can be left to burn.

The sooner that pensioners and others in poor straights get their money, the better for them. Fighting court battles for coppers is pretty damn stupid in my opinion and likely loses more than it gains. Let's be brutally frank; our JLs sold the repo shares for £121.8m - a massive loss of $63,200,000 (and they are still arguing the odds with E&Y over the default value 2 years later). For pity's sake! There has to be some perspective. If the JLs go around fighting for pennies they will end up spending years and saving peanuts.
Ice


@ ice

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/12/2010 - 16:22

HEAR HEAR - well said ice, nail on the head as usual!

Kind regards,

Mike

PS: Happy Christmas to you and yours and thanks for your continued straight talking and excellent penmanship on all out behalf.


Elle sold her house

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 16:00

According to an article linked on this page, she (or rather her company) sold her house back in September 2009. So she has either already paid off her mortgage (money already returned to us) or has been withholding some or all pending the outcome of this case. In the grand scheme of things I agree this is not a big hit, but a hit nonetheless and at present will have to pay her legal costs.


post comments on this article

  • jenren
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 17:35

Hi all,

I try to post comments where I can but I think we should all write in force for this story. It is high profile and people need to realise that Elle winning her case just means less funds for the average depositor who has no access to an expensive legal team to argue ancient legal loopholes. It will seriously effect our returns if more cases like Elle's come to light.

other pages for comment other than Guardian and Mail already mentioned on this thread.....

http://www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=31428

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=519487&in_p...

http://www.businessinsider.com/elle-macpherson-wins-payout-in-suit-again...

Thanks again to Icecrusher, Gordon and the rest of the team who are working so hard to give us clear information, it is much appreciated


Found another article about Elle Macpherson

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 22:52

The Isle of Man site (www.isleofman.com) doesn't seem to publish comments even though it says they do. Both of my comments were made well over 24 hours ago.

http://www.international-adviser.com/article/kaupthing-iom-judgement-won...

Regards TonyC


trying to get comments accepted

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 20:33

Gosh its hard yakker trying to get comments accepted on some of these articles.

However one thing - there are 4000 of us left where are the 4000 comments?

Its seems that the same people make comments all the time .

Come on people post a comment


And another from IOM

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 18:22

And another from IOM media:

http://www.three.fm/newscentre/isle-of-man-news/the-body-elle-macpherson...

"Douglas law firm Moroney's have this week helped former Supermodel Elle Macpherson secure a landmark victory in the Isle of Man high court.

It relates to now insolvent Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander bank and a claim they brought against her regarding a mortgage payment.

Miss Macpherson had set up a nominee company on the Isle of Man in 2006 with a view for purchasing a property in the UK and keeping her address private.

She borrowed over £7 million from KSF for the acquisition of the property.

In her personal capacity she also had an account with KSF holding over £2 million.

The case has related to her plight to have her frozen assets deducted from the total sum her company owed the liquidators.

Due to the mortgage being paid back technically by a company she was told this wouldn't be allowed.

However the Deemster eventually ruled in favour of Miss Macpherson, heralding a landmark case bringing a little-known legal principal dating back 300 years firmly back into the spotlight."

Nauseating.

Seems she still owes 'us' £5m - hope she doesn't default ...


Bad News

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 02:01

I fear that this could be very bad news for us as a legal precedent has been set and many other fat but less well known cats might use the same ruling to claw back their money from the pot. It could cost us tens of millions.

One wonders how much the decision was reached on purely legal grounds, and how much it was influenced by who she is.
If the ruling had gone against her, it would no doubt deter other fat cats with clever lawyers from investing in the IOM.

We have to kick up a stink on the IOM. We must make sure that the JLs appeal in the (slim) hope that we get a more fair-minded deemster next time.


To Valentine

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 09:57

Hi There,

Below your current post you will see a reply from myself to anrigaut thanking her for the information she provided on 'Elle'.

Now I could be totally wrong but according to the latest figures given out by the JLs on 17.9.2010 re position of claimants a total of £887m is now agreed leaving £16m unresolved and £2m not claimed yet. That gives a total of £18m. I presume therefore that the only further people who could make any claim using the same principle as 'Elle' would be those within the £18m to add to the current total of £14.9m 'set off' already agreed.

In my answer to anrigaut I have then given my thoughts on the worst scenario based on these figures.

Surely the people who have agreed what their due from JLs that total £887m, have no further recourse to change things? But I really do not know.

But hope what you think could happen is wrong for all our sakes.

Not saying you agree with me but I give another picture based on what we know,

All the best,

Gordon 45


Thanks once again, Gordon

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/12/2010 - 06:01

Hi Gordon

I'm so sorry that in a fit of panic I butted in on your answer to anrigaut. I should have realized that as usual you were already on top of things.

I was thinking that this ruling in favour of Ms. McP might trigger a whole NEW wave of litigation against the bank and that if these cases went against us, the money that the bank would have to pay out would not come from the 16 million already set aside. From what you say it seems likely that this will not be the case.

You have put my mind at ease for the umpteenth time.

As always, thanks so much for your incredible tenacity and stamina, and for your amazing ability to see the whole picture while at the same time keeping us so well informed.

Best regards
Valentine


To Valentine

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/12/2010 - 20:08

Hi There,

Please don't say sorry, you put forward a valid point, I was only gving yourself and anrigaut my personal thoughts on the 'Elle' situation. I could be wrong, hope not, but if the JLs deem to chat to me again as I asked yesterday, I could perhaps find out the situation and then inform all of my DAG colleagues.

I only wish I was as good as you think, sadly I am not, but I will continue to strive to get info that allows me to update all my DAG colleagues and in doing so help them hopefully to see a clearer picture and the best returns possible that might be achieved for all of us.

So, don't apologise to me I am only one of a number doing their best and that includes yourself,

Take care,

Gordon 45


Hi anrigaut - 'I think she borrowed 7'

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 20:07

Hi Anrigaut,

Thanks for the info,

Will help with my next lot of questions to JLs re 'set off'. I aleady had questions on that, this is another addition to what I had.

There only was £16m unresolved + £2m not yet claimed, so presumably this Elle claim unless overturned on appeal should be part of the £16m that was still unresolved.

So it appears at the very worst, if I am right, if all remaining unresolved claims were due to 'set off' appeals we should not see a total above £14.9m + £16m + £2m = £32.9m.

If you take the lower estimated return to us of 85% it should mean a loss to us of of £4.935m in returns 0.545p/£. But would take us from now until 2014/2015 to get the total 85% back. But it should lower the £887m correspondingly - One JL agreed with me on that and one did not - again on my next list of questions.

Anyway thanks again,

Gordon 45


Mail online

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 12:03

This one's even worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1336650/Elle-Macpherson-win...

We need massive comments and thumbs down to counter the innanities getting posted here.

Makes me ashamed to be British.


Maybe the Guardian needs

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 13:43

The Guardian

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 21:09

Hi,

I've added my comments as well.

Regards, TonyC


Ellie

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 17:17

Whatever happens with this - i did not realise we had anyone of 'fame' amongst us. Now she has won this case maybe we need to enlist her support for the loan trust so we can all get our money back.. As the cost of her success was from our pockets let's see if she has any compassion. Who do we write to??


The best reply yet: If Ms McPherson would make a statement---

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/12/2010 - 16:46

then it would confront the media with a problem.
Can't anybody in the UK phone her?


Elle McPherson vs KSFIOM Depositors

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 00:06

I've made a comment on this article for what its worth.

Comments do not appear to be moderated as mine appeared almost immediately.

Regards, TonyC.


Macpherson - Comment on Citywire

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 06:36

Good idea tonycBrisbaneOz, I've just done the same.

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/elle-macpherson-wins-ruling-agai...


Well said, Ice & Tony. Have

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 08:45

Well said, Ice & Tony. Have added my bit.

It may not be over: "PricewaterhouseCoopers, the administrators for KSF, said: "The liquidators are currently considering grounds for an appeal." "
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-12-06/elle-macpherson-wins-case...

Problem is - what chance and at what cost?

I note the ruling came from ... guess where ... The IOM High Court. Done again.


Comment on Elly

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 12:19

Or is it Elli - Made my comment - made my blood boil - - hope PWC win appeal but as already said either way it is at our cost!!


Or is it Elli?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 14:40

It's Elle - though beats me why anyone would want to be called "She". Well, I suppose a Body might.

Mail now getting more comments from us than from idiot Mail-ites. Keep them coming!

And don't forget to give the appropriate thumbs UP or DOWN.


Elle 2.5 million

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/12/2010 - 12:40

I really pray for all of us that after Elle Macpherson's £2.5m legal battle victory that any other KSFIOM Creditors with loans/mortgages waiting in the wings are not going to leap out and get her solicitors to win them the same legal battle thus reducing our money further.
I don't begrudge a person getting their money back but I do hurt for all of us left (4000) who have already lost so much to now have further losses by paying our PCW liquidators legal bills and court costs against one person (hopefully not more). The post the Daily Mail about us being "jealous" makes one sick.


Elle

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/12/2010 - 17:31

Can't begrudge Ms Macpherson her money - no matter how much she has elsewhere (although company does sound like a (legal) tax avoidance scheme - otherwise why so complicated). However this article raises the question how many other offsets like this are there and what is the cost to us regular depositers. I'm sure we are not talking a small amount in this case - or would likely have not been pursued by either party. Also, how much in legal costs are we also going to have to suffer - hers as well as ours (via the JLs and are we now liable for interest on the liquidation payments she has not received!). Sorry Gordon45, but fear your top estimate return % will have to be revised down slightly - unless you had not included for this in your estimates.

Cant seem to blame the JLs on this one either - seems they had a pretty good case. Although they had a pretty good case for claiming back IOM legal costs for the SOA on our behalf but didnt - no consistency there then.


Ms Macpherson's London home sale

  • jetski
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 07:37

You're right expatvictim,
Although Elle Macpherson had to drop her house price by at least 2 million sterling to sell her home, the sum involved was quite substantial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/6230901/Elle-Macpherson-sells-London...


Elle's House

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/12/2010 - 16:03

Bit of checking on Zoopla and a house in that street went for 6.4 million in September 2009 - a few weeks before the telegraph article.

One wonders if, since the house was company owned, it was liable to capital gains tax - she probably flipped it anyway!!


Landmark ruling

  • Jean-Charles Marlier
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/12/2010 - 14:48

I only hope that our Legal Team is as successfull to get us out of this mess!


Landmark Ruling

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 06/12/2010 - 17:18

This is not good news for ordinary depositors with nothing to set off! In fact it decreases the"pot". Worse, no doubt our JL,s racked up considerable time costs and expenses both their own and lawyers defending this case. Guess who pays for this. The JL's had nothing to lose themselves, just our money, and everything to gain, more fees over this case. Other parties will no doubt claim set off too and further diminish the "pot". Was there any mention of this case anywhere and had the JL's accrued for a potential liability if they lost the case?