tynwald today

  • Sarah f
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:18

I have just seen on Manx radio site that there are to be futher questions asked re ksf in tynwald from 10am today and that Tony Brown will be giving an update on talks. I noticed yesterday that it said that the team who were in London had returned to the island

0
Your rating: None

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

Director of IOM KSF is also a member of the FSC

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 10:44

The issue has been raised that one of the directors of KSF IOM was also one of the FSC regulators. Not sure if that's news to anyone. I didn't get the name of this individual.


Director at KSF member of FSC

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 10:48

There is nothing secret here - look at the website of the FSC

http://www.fsc.gov.im/about/conflicts/current_directorships.xml


Updates from Tynwald

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 10:23

Am listening in .....

  1. Concerning situation there was nothing we don't know. IOM is talking to UK and asking Iceland to take responsibility. Iceland making moves to restructure and honour its external debts. It was stated that the situation was 'complex'.

  2. Did IOM FSC give directive to move about £500m removed from KSF ICeland to London ? If so what was the purpose ? Why not ring-fenced in London rather than just moving them from one branch to another ?
    -->Confirmed - FSC DID recommend that 'certain' IOM assets went to the UK branch. No answer was given as to why they weren't ring-fenced.

... will post more if I hear anything interesting.


Ring fenced or not

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:16

Without getting into a blame game failure to answer the question if this 550mln GBP was ringfenced/protected probably shows as expat has said that it is not - so at first instance it stands as an unsecured creditor. However, if the decision was made under the guidance/instruciton of the same body (FSA) that put KSF UK into administration then this may/should change the position of these funds. The FSC as IOM government body must be more than a little worried that there actions will be judged and negligent and prove a deeper pocketed claimant for us to go after. They are well motivated to sort this out with the FSA.


this is ineresting, seems to back up our analysis

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:20

Kaupthing is planning to sue the British government over the Icelandic bank’s collapse.

The bank claims a decision by the British government to seize savers’ cash in UK subsidiary Kaupthing Edge and transfer it to Ing Direct may have tipped the bank over the edge.

The following day, the Icelandic government took control of Kaupthing and suspended its shares on the country’s stock exchange.

Kaupthing has now hired London-based law firm Grundberg Mocatta Rakison to fight the case.

The firm said Michael Tackley and Richard Beresford, both Partners at Grundberg Mocatta Rakison, and John Jarvis QC flew out to a meeting with the bank in Reykjavik on Wednesday.

Mr Jarvis told Icelandic newspaper RUV: “I think it’s safe to say we have formed some initial views. We are surprised that the order that was made, was made pursuant to an act which is commonly known now as the Northern Rock Act 2008.”

“It seems to be, to us at the moment, outside the purpose of that act that the order was made and there is a possible remedy there for a gain to the English court to have that order declared unlawful.

“We are also looking to see whether there are the civil remedies for damages for such torts under English law as misfeasance in public office and negligence,” Mr Jarvis concluded.

The amount of compensation sought could run to “billions of pounds”, the law firm said.


Kaupthing's solicitors

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:31

I have been in touch with that firm of solicitors for the past 10 days or so, refer to Diver for details.


FSC Liable in My View because the Funds were not Ringfenced!!!

  • guttered
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:17

This below question is a crucial one. When I spoke to the FSC last week they confirmed to me that our deposits WERE NOT RINGFENCED and we are merely an interbank deposit, hence the reason why KSF IOM is now an unsecured creditor to KSF UK. I have to wholeheartedly agree with John Smalley on this. Given that the FSC DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PROTECT US, IN MY VIEW IS GROSS NEGIGLENCE! On the FSC website their mission and objective is clear " to protect policyholder interest". Splutter, cough - clearly in this case they have violated their mission statement.

The reason why the below question is unanswered is because the FSC do not want to admit negiglence! I'm aghast that the FSC would just hand over our money on instruction by the UK FSA and then not ensure that the paper work is in place to protect our deposit!!!!

Reminds me of the saying "come into my wedb said the spider to the fly"....

UNBELIEVEABLE, GROSS INCOMPETENCE

Did IOM FSC give directive to move about £500m removed from KSF ICeland to London ? If so what was the purpose ? Why not ring-fenced in London rather than just moving them from one branch to another ?
-->Confirmed - FSC DID recommend that 'certain' IOM assets went to the UK branch. No answer was given as to why they weren't ring-fenced.


go read my precis

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:23

go read my precis guttered!!!!! i just posted in general discussions!!


IOM Protection

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:07

I was always under the impression that although the IOM was not part of the UK the HMG protected it as well as spoke on it's behalf. Therefore, if that is the case it seems unbelievable that the UK can take funds from the IOM banks to support the UK banks. It is probable that the HMG took the 555M from the KSFIOM for safe keeping and are using that as leverage with Iceland, I hope so. All the same if HMG does not return this money to the the IOM who can Tynwald appeal to, do they have to accept the decision of HMG or can they then appeal upwards possibly to the queen. Just a thought.


IOM Protection-UK doesn't feel responsible and Iceland is skint.

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:27

Looks like the IOM FSC reccommended that KSF IOM moved funds from Iceland to KSF UK, presumably to protect the funds from a failing Iceland. Then the UK froze all the KSF Uk assets including those from KSF IOM. The IOM assets were not ring-fenced. The IOM subsidiary then appears to have simply had an account with KSF UK - which in turn got frozen. KSF IOM would seem to be a creditor of KSF UK. Not sure if there's leverage there to get KSF IOM compensated due to it being a depositor of KSF UK !?

I doubt that the UK is using the KSF IOM money as leverage with Iceland.

The Tynwald's £150 mio DCS scheme already stretches them financially, and this doesn't appear to be a problem of their making anyway.

More worrying is that Iceland is trying to isolate the international debts of KSF whilst protecting the domestic side, possibly with the intent of not paying back their international debts at all. However, I'd say they have to do this initially to get their domestic scenario under control. After all, they are totally 'off' the international retail banking scene now - who'd trust even one penny with any Iclandic bank after this debacle ? Personally I see the best chances here in the IMF putting pressure on Iceland honouring it's existing debt before bailing them out further. After all, why would the IMF give them anything if they can't even be trusted to return money to small depositors such as those in KSF ?


Is this really anything to do with Iceland

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:23

Assuming the FSA acted on it's own advise to FSC and removed KSF UK assets from Iceland then I'm not sure what this has to do with Iceland. The 550GBP shouldn't be in Iceland and should be in the reach of the FSA and their administrators.

On the other hand if the Icesave and KSF UK accounts are in defecit then the UK Gov't will be looking for compensation on this. If Iceland makes up some of the difference then this would improve our postion as as unsecured creditors of KSF UK.

Although given the role of the FSA we should not be treated as an unsecured credit.


Unanswered

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:56

The biggest unanswered question in my mind is why did the FSC believe that depositing the funds in the UK (where they have no jurisdiction) was a better option than returning them to the IoM where they do have jusrisdiction? Why would they be safer in London? Who thought that was a good idea ansd why?

These will be the keys to finding out just how much involvement the UK authorities actually had in this mess.


expat summay

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 12:03

see my summay drivr!!


IoM protection

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:15

The actions of the HMG were [intended] to protect retailer depositors. This was at the "expense" of wholesale depositors.
Not only were the IoM wholesale depositers affected, so werethose of the UK institutional depositors - look at the merger of two building societies that happened following the £10M investment they had in KSF UK


IOM Protection

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 11:07

I was always under the impression that although the IOM was not part of the UK the HMG protected it as well as spoke on it's behalf. Therefore, if that is the case it seems unbelievable that the UK can take funds from the IOM banks to support the UK banks. It is probable that the HMG took the 555M from the KSFIOM for safe keeping and are using that as leverage with Iceland, I hope so. All the same if HMG does not return this money to the the IOM who can Tynwald appeal to, do they have to accept the decision of HMG or can they then appeal upwards possibly to the queen. Just a thought.