thoughts

  • agaryh
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 20/10/2008 - 20:20

E & Y have been in KSF (uk) for over a week - why cant they ? wont they tell PWC how much money has been taken by Iceland?
this money drain was supposedly the reason that sparked the uk govt to put KSF(UK) in administration?

these figures are usually easily available , they can change constantly but a good indication must be available , just as with the IOM stating circa £550m on deposit in KSF(UK)
until we know how much is missing we dont know how much we have lost?

is it just me , but i would have expected old gordon brown in these troubled times to be banging the drum saying how he acted correctly and saved the uk depositors losing it all - however he isnt!!
could it be that the figures that E & Y wont release arent as bad as what he thought and may show he over reacted ? and therefore open him upto being sued by Iceland?

0
Your rating: None

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

Which Liquidator?

  • z1000000
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 20:36

UK KSF has one set of Liquidators in and IOM KSF have another firm of Liquidators in. Isn’t the Liquidators job to secure as many assets as possible for their bank?
We’re told there is £600m in the UK branch. But why would the UK KSF Liquidator send the money back to the IOM, when it’s his job to recover/save as much as he can for the UK branch?

As you can guess, this is all way too much for me to understand. Could someone kindly explain?


The Sinister Sealed Orders!

  • brokemanx
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 22:26

See http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/3989
The Liquidator's latest statement. To quote:
"Assets
On Friday 17 October 2008, I went to London and held meetings with:

The team in PwC London who are working for me
The UK lawyers I have appointed to act on my behalf to protect the company’s assets
Ernst & Young, the Administrators of KSF in the UK

The meeting with the Administrators was very useful as we now have an agreed point of contact with them. They agreed to help us to reconcile the asset positions which we believe are held with them and to help determine the contractual arrangements. However, it was very clear that their sole priority, as per the Court Order appointing them, is the transfer of the UK bank’s retail deposits to ING, and anything else is currently of secondary importance. I will post a copy of their Court Order on the website when I receive a certified copy. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the Court papers relating to their appointment are sealed, which means we cannot examine them to determine the reasons for their appointment or any other related matters."


Sinister sealed orders

  • Pat
  • 10/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:41

As the priority is to hand over the cash to ING it doesn't bode well for us to see the money that is held. However, I do subscribe to the discussion that Gordon has bitten off more than he can chew. The sale to ING was done with undue haste - was the sticker price a give-away? He certainly mis-used the anti-terrorism laws and the icelandic government has a good case in pursuing this. The fact that the court papers mentioned in the statement are sealed is yet another clue that the UK Government seems to have something to hide.
How can we force these details out in the open?


Court papers sealed

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:06

I'm intrigued by the statement: "the Court papers relating to their appointment are sealed, which means we cannot examine them to determine the reasons for their appointment or any other related matters."

Can anyone speculate on the possible significance of this ?


Sealed papers

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:24

Frankly, it's fairly staggering - in something that's fairly mundane as far as court hearings go (an administration order)... they sealed the court papers? What on earth went on at that hearing that was so secret?

Even Mike Simpson of PwC said it was unprecedented.

It is a very interesting, and possibly very significant development.


sealing of the order

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:46

It is interesting, but I suggest that it is not the sealing of the order itself that is interesting (I think that is to be expected given the nature of the proceedings under statutory provisions pertaining to terrorist activities), but:
(i) the use of those provisions against an Icelandic bank;
(ii) whether the UK government acted unlawfully;
(iii) whether (ii) would give rise to a cause of action by those affected (Icelandic corporations, Icelandic government, creditors of the bank(s) etc.)

I suggest that these are very tricky matters because this is uncharted legal territory, but they are by no means unwinnable, as another poster has suggested, merely because the UK government would be a party.


What are these 'Court Papers'?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:39

Cold-dose,

I've read through the thread a couple of times but not 100% sure what these papers are. My apologies for asking what are probably 'newbee' legal questions but;

What are 'Court Papers'? What are they used for and who created them? What is the significance of then being 'sealed' (could i not just a paper-knife out and un-seal them?)

In our scenario, what information would these papers contain? From what i have read it seems that they could only contain details of who the liquidator is going to be should it come to that - obviously i am wrong, but i put that in to show my level of (non) understanding.

Mat


Court papers

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:54

It's not a totally unambiguous term, but given Mike Simpson's other comment about getting the court order on the website soon, it doesn't appear to encompass that.

The court papers will be the petitions and papers submitted by the FSC/Treasury etc. to argue for the administration order.

The KSF IOM court papers are online here, to give you an idea: http://www.fsc.gov.im/ViewNews.gov?page=lib/news/fsc/kaupthingupdate2.xml

They could also include transcripts and other documents.

Normally court hearings are open to the public, and court papers and records are open documents that can be viewed by anyone. However, hearings can be held behind closed doors and papers/records 'sealed'.

That doesn't mean they are literally sealed, it means the court has ordered that they be kept secret, and they won't let you in to see them.

Only the court can unseal the papers.

Obviously, there must be a reason for sealing the papers - some overriding reason that means the contents of the papers cannot be realised and the normal maxim of justice not just being done, but being 'seen to be done' is put aside. Either something deeply personal to a party (child protection/family court issues), an important trade secret, or national security reasons.

So... for court papers to be sealed in a mere administration hearing - most odd!


court papers

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:47

Presumably the evidence (in the form of witness statements or affidavits) and the notice of application and the order itself


cold-dose

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:33

cold-dose,

Good morning.

I understood that Expat / Iom Team were scheduled to meet with Mike Simpson this afternon at about 4pm.
Can't find any report.
Do you have any idea what happened?


Mike Simpson meeting

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:55

Can't remember off the top of my head - it's on here somewhere. Nothing terribly exciting came out of the meeting as I recall.


I also agree that the sealing

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:29

I also agree that the sealing is quite bizarre indeed.
I wonder on what basis the Treasury could possibly justify it?


sealed papers

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:41

Could this be the basis of a question to the Treasury Committee currently being asked at: bankingcrisis(?)parliament [dot] uk


Unprecedented

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/10/2008 - 23:33

Is this a good story to get out to the media ?


Sealed Papers

  • DXB
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/10/2008 - 19:13

Another interesting attachment to Aidan Doherty's second affidavit (see http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PressReleases/2ndaffidavitmradoherty.pdf) is the administration order re KSFUK.

The order - and the administration application, apparently - are available for public inspection. What is not available for general inspection is the court's file of the proceedings...

However, leave to inspect the file may be granted by the court. Surely PwC as provisional liquidators in a cross insolvency have the standing and the grounds to request access?