UPDATE AND ACTIONS FROM THE LONDON LEGAL TEAM

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 22/01/2009 - 20:33

In the past couple of days we have been in further detailed conversations with the IoM authorities and will be having further discussions tomorrow afternoon.

These discussions have centred on the SoA v DCS argument and the information (or lack thereof) emanating from Alix Partners. It is important for you all to know that WE ARE seeing information that we are not passing on to you and there are two very good reasons for this:

  1. We are parties to a confidentiality agreement so we are not at liberty to discuss numbers.
  2. The numbers we are being shown continue to be plucked from out of the air with no visible hard evidence to back them up.

So, unlike some, we do not have the luxury of hiding behind internet anonymity and we have to play by the rules we agreed to at the outset. Also, we believe it is highly unfair to discuss possible payback percentages when there is still no evidence of how these numbers were arrived at – they could be vastly optimistic or highly pessimistic…either way depositors could be given impressions that were simply not true.

It is still very obvious that there is a ‘hard sell’ going on as far as any SoA is concerned but, whilst there is a possibility that an SoA may be the best way forward, we simply do not have the information we all will need to make an informed decision. This is the message we are continually banging home to the IoM.

All the information being supplied by the IoM is being passed to our legal team here in London and they are also very much of the opinion that there is nothing, as yet available, on which depositors can make a decision.

The problem is that Alix Partners appear to refuse to stick their necks out even a tiny bit as evidenced by the huge stream of disclaimers at the front of their latest document. Quite simply they effectively say "here are possible outcomes of a SoA or liquidation but if they turn out to be entirely wrong we bear no responsibility for them". This is not good enough and this message has been sent to the IoM in no uncertain terms.

Our primary position with regards any SoA is this:

Firstly, the wording of any SoA would have to include clauses giving depositors the same legal rights and recourses as liquidation as well as the rights a liquidator would hold under liquidation. Depositors should not have to surrender any potential legal remedies by opting for a SoA.

Secondly, we will need a document that is crystal clear on how a SoA will pay out the sub £50k depositors sooner and quicker than the DCS scheme.

Thirdly, we will need documentation from Alix Partners giving detailed information on how they intend to maximise returns over and above what the DCS would pay out to higher end depositors. This document will need to be more than a set of 'beliefs' - facts will be required.

Lastly, the information supplied to satisfy the conditions above will need to pass the scrutiny of our Legal team before we can pass judgement or comment.
The last condition is a particularly important one. None of us are SoA experts whereas our opponents in this (Alix Partners) are, apparently. We should not be agreeing to anything that our legal representatives haven’t given the green light on.

We are reasonably confident that our second request (re. sub £50k depositors) will be met quite easily but the stumbling block at the moment is the request for ‘facts’ on how the higher end depositors will fare better under a SoA. Discussions we will be having tomorrow with the IoM authorities together with further info due imminently from Alix Partners should reveal how close we are to our objective.

ACTIONS

We understand that there can be quite a build up of frustration as we approach the 29th especially as the information from the IoM doesn’t seem to be flowing as readily as we would all like. So there are a number of things we as individuals can do:

  1. In all your correspondence with the IoM authorities, concentrate on asking that they provide clear, unambiguous documentation clearly showing the differences between any SoA and the DCS and explaining that we cannot possibly make a decision with the limited information so far offered. I would ask that you refrain from any personal attacks in these communications as, although completely understandable, they may have the effect of backfiring at the last moment.
  2. In all your correspondence with UK MPs and other UK authorities please point out the issues we are having as a result of the ‘transfer order’ enacted by the UK government with regards KSFUK. Quite simply, the legislation the UK government introduced put in place something called an ‘overriding objective’ for the administrators of KSFUK.

This legislation instructs Ernst & Young to ignore standard administration procedures in favour of procedures put in place by HM Treasury. Specifically, this states that for the first 6 months of administration the administrators must concentrate on dealing with all issues surrounding the movement of accounts to ING before dealing with any other creditor issues.

The result of this is that our Liquidator Provisional had no real information from London as to the potential recovery he can expect from our assets in KSFUK and as such, any parties showing an interest in purchasing KSFIOM are faced with a large hole in the balance sheet of unknown size. This has resulted in any offers from 3rd parties for our bank being of a derisory nature.

We will continue to report back as and when we have information that we believe is reliable and of use to you. There are those amongst us that will have you believe that all is not as it seems and that deals are being done behind closed doors without your knowledge. Once again I will reiterate that we do not have the power to make any such deals and that these stories are categorically untrue. We have placed our heads above the parapet and our identities are out there for all to see. I would ask those who so enjoy casting doubt on our intentions and morals to at least have the decency to do the same…at least then depositors can make a truly informed decision on whom to believe and trust.

The objective remains the 100% return of funds to all depositors.

Thanks

4.82192
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (73 votes)

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

country going down the tubes, ...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 07:04

Well we are never going back now,.I have to fly out there in a month and I have panic attacks just dealing with it all there,, . Its true about the supermarket work bit, thousands of jobs at tescos and morrisons have been created, what have they done to the country. I remember 10 yrs ago when labour got in and they made a visit to the city and said we just want them to get on with it,and wont trouble them and they certainly did . They find it more important to do a few useless wars and ignore the economy.Well this is a comforting reply from the bishop of sodor on the isle of man, he seems to want to question if they have any consciences left.....

Thank you for your email. I could not be at Tynwald on Tuesday because I was off Island for 2 days but I take a keen and hopefully positive interest in the serious plight of KSF investors. I have also taken a couple of opportunities to make representations through Church of England contacts to the UK Government. I will do what I can to help and can only begin to understand the seriousness of the situation for those whose life-savings have been lost.

With my concern and kind regards,

+Robert Sodor as Mannin.

The Rt Revd Robert M E Paterson, Bishop of Sodor & Man


Morning captain

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 06:45

Early bird catching worms!


Afternoon more like, but good

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 07:02

Afternoon more like, but good in anycase.

Just cooked a great big arrabiata sauce , a little of which we shall have with chicken and penne, also while the cooker was started up, cooked my minced beef, onions, garlic, a little tomato paste, carrots, ready as a base for a shepherds pie (I know, it should be a cottage pie, but with my mum's cooking, you could never tell, in fact you could never tell that she wasn't boiling her trollies in the same pot) - potatoes are cooking, I always put a 3 cloves of garlic in the water, gives them a nice flavour - I have to do a bit of shopping and get a little drop of milk, or I suppose I could just make an nice olive oil and cheese mash for the shepherds pie.
I've also just racked off my cider which started off at 1042 OG, and is ready for bottling - I stuck 12 litres in plastic bottles, and primed them for a bit of sparkle (possibly at the expense of blowing the bloody door off my storage area) , and the rest I think I will just let clear as a strong dry cider at around 8.5% ABV.

As for the worms, I have no idea, have someone who helps with that sort of thing.


Questions to Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:36

Diver,
Thanks for the good work. I have two comments to the above though.
I thought the objective of the SoA was to maximize the repayment while not putting the <50K depositors at any disadvantage. In that respect I would have thought the target would be a payment schedule equal to the DSC and not quicker.
Given the high fluctuations in the currency rates since 9th Oct then the foreign currency account holders will lose out in some cases 20% alone on exchange rates if the repayment is made in UK £ and exchange rate is settled on the 9th of October. I think it is important that the foreign currency holders are paid out in a percentage in the foreign currency their accounts are held in instead of in UK £ under a potential SoA to make the scheme fair to everyone. Otherwise foreign currency holders will receive a far lower percentage repayment than UK £ account holders


Further to my question to Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:57

I understand from FROGs comment that Mike Simpson would use the date of liquidation to convert all currencies to UK pounds. Hence the proposed SoA leave the foreign currency holders at a severe disadvantage if it uses the 9th of Oct. either the repayment should be made in the currency of the accounts or the exchange rate calculation date should be the same as mike Simpsons. Otherwise you are likely to get a massive amount of resistance to the SoA from all foreign account holders who might want to go with the DSC instead.
I look forward to your comments


DIVER: LATEST NEWS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 10:38

Thanks very much. We cannot ask for more.

SBS


Diver

  • Sophie
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 10:32

Many thanks.


Thank you Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 09:25

Diver, thank you very much for all your efforts and the clear way in which you put your arrguments and information. Over the last few months the DAG has been the only source of any information, which has been a help, at least it gives the feeling that my wife and I are not alone in all this mess. As with many of us, our plans for the future have been despatched to the dustbin of life, it certainly makes you wonder why after all these years of paying Tax and still paying through the Self Assesment, has it all been worth it ? When you consider that law abiding people who have saved for thier retirement and do not wish to be a burden on the state, seem to rank lower than any illegal imigrant when it comes to UK government priorities. Keep up the good work and once again thank you for all your effoerts


Dolobran

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 10:41

Just read your posting and I couldn't agree with you more. We are in the same position as you and your wife and feel so much gratitude to 'The Team' for all their hard work and efforts on all our behalf.
Without their constant help and advice I am not sure where we would be.

Lets keep hoping and working for a successful outcome. to this desperate situation.


Thanks Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:07

Thank you, old boy, for your ever succinct and clear updates. Keep up the good work and, as always, let us know if we, the footsoldiers, can assist. You and the team are an oasis of hope in a world that is seemingly going to hell!


DCS. Can you say why they might be worried financially?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 03:58

Your progress seems to be following a certain logic.
Again a personal thank-you for your efforts.

'Confidentiality' is a common refuge of the rogue. I think you might take some comfort from the actions of Obama yesterday to prevent the old Bush regime from using this defense when the autopsies are held.

I was upset to think I saw in your recent statements the corrosive effect upon you of having had to represent our interests in the face of such cynicism. You seem to have regained your strength. I'm glad.

Honesty, dignity, simplicity and spirit when presenting our case count for a lot. It is possible to sometimes shame the self-serving into appropriate action if an appropriate audience can be found.

Referring back to the title do you have any opinions you haven't stated so far.

I


Diver and team ..thank you again keep it going

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:43

You have my full support and certainly the majority of the group!!


A couple of points give me

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 04:27

A couple of points give me cause for concern -

You stated:-

"Secondly, we will need a document that is crystal clear on how a SoA will pay out the sub £50k depositors sooner and quicker than the DCS scheme."

Hold on a minute - it was agreed that no SoA would be required to provided any benefit in excess of the DCS for sub 50K depositors - if it did so, all well and good, but the objective of the SoA is to provide an overriding benefit to the majority of depositors, without creating any disadvantage to those already guaranteed statutory compensation. Now you are changing your tack, which is not why many depositors expressed an interest in accepting an SoA. The primary objective of the SoA is providing an advantage to those who do not receive 100% compensation under the DCS, without those (<50K) depositors suffering any hardship as a result. The objective is not to get them paid out sooner or quicker, the objective is to secure their right while enhancing the rights of >50K depositors.

You stated:-

"So, unlike some, we do not have the luxury of hiding behind internet anonymity and we have to play by the rules we agreed to at the outset."

Internet anonymity is not a luxury, it is a right, and it would seem to me that at least one member who has remained anonymous is party to the discussions that is taking place (at least they implied this) - If this is the case, can we ensure that this member discloses who they are to all of us? It can be argued that you and any member who has knowledge of the current discussions has the benefit of being in a privileged position and as such, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the rest of us to know who is representing us. If of course no one other than publicly known committee/core members are party to this information, can we make this quite clear. Perhaps it is just easy to ask you who is subject to the confidentially agreement. I should add that the fact that have chosen to take the lead and the initiative, and have also revealed your identity for all and sundry to search over is appreciated, and the above is not about belittleling that, but seeking to know who knows what - we have for too long been plagued with false information from various sources that is creating false hope, or for that matter false dispair.

I also feel that the lawyers acting are only capable of determining if there is any restrictive clauses in the SoA, and they are not capable of expressing the suitability of the SoA in individual circumstances, confidential or not, we need and require to know more.

You mentioned that the transfer order is valid for 6 months - which will be up soon enough, has there been any indication as to whether HMG will seek to extend this period?

Returning to the DCS/SoA, i still cannot see how anyone can make any indication of which is best, or what the contents of the SoA would need to be unless Simpson has indicated approximately what he believes is possible to realise under a standard liquidation. On the subject of Simpson, it is assumed that he and the 35 employees of the bank who it would appear have already consumed 0.9M GBP will be substantially reduced. I for one am tired of his justification for the number of bank staff he has under his control, when he cannot even request that the Directors are present at his weekly question time.

I assume that IoMG has suggested to the banks, that since they would in any case have a liability to contribute to the DCS, that they would also be required to contribute (at a reduced rate for a reduced period) to any SoA? Why should the IoM Banks benefit from SoA, when they don't contribute to a solution or the maintenance of the SoA?


SoA <50ks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 07:43

capt ... to your first point, i think the figures are 76% of depositors have < 50k, which means that any SoA has to be compelling to that group of depositors.


In addition to the Cpt post

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:51

In addition to the Cpt post there is another distinct possibility and lets make this abundantly clear here,

Ok the percentages at present may suggest that account holders are in the order of 76% <50K holding £109m of funds - 24% >50K holding £770m of funds However within that 24% includes the insurances companies / bond holders / wrappers etc - ie a small number of account holders made up from numerous (but an unknown figure) smaller depositors therefore when all individual accounts are extrapolated from those large account holders there is a high potential of thousands of individual >50K depositors - if my understanding is correct all these individual account holders will have a say (a vote) for any proposal of liquidation & DCS or SOA.

Therefore the percentages of the <50K & >50k may change dramatically once these figures are included in the mix and the now sub 50K lower value group may not form the overall higher proportion of people.

Also don't forget here at present the bond holders / wrappers / sips etc under DCS are only entitled to a guarenteed shared pot of £20K.


@rbirch

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:00

Sorry to disappoint, but I am pretty sure that voting will be on a similar basis to voting in a liquidation, therefore, unless there is a big percentage of the >50K turning against the SoA, then it won't happen.
It may have to be compelling, but it doesn't mean that if it isn't, there is enough voting power to dismiss the SoA.

Please don't take offense at this, but do you really think that the vote of someone with a million at stake should only count the same as someone with a thousand at stake?
Seems that some people still do, and would love to conceive some sort of formula whereby deposit value is not weighted so highly.

If the 1K payout is accepted by all sub 50K depositors, even this is enough to knock a big hole in the voting by elimination of a good number of the depositors in the sub 1K group.


Is that true?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:30

Given that the EPS payment has to be repaid to IOMG from the proceeds of a liquidation or SOA, they would be depositors until the first payments are made by the liquidator or scheme manager - hence they could vote.


Assuming that the 1K EPS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 02:25

Assuming that the 1K EPS payment cleared someones deposit, then the moment they accepted it, their rights to any dividend become assigned to the IoMG who administer the scheme, in this case one would assume that any voting rights go with them are also assigned.


voting rights

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 15:20

am i correct in thinking that it will be the insurance companies who will be voting on an SOA on behalf of the bond holders as they own the asset rights, we just own the policies


As far as my understanding of a any possible SOA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 15:33

As far as my understanding of the wording of any possible SOA - all depositors will have a vote on whether to adopt a proposed SOA - as such the account holder (as in the case of insurance companies) the vote would be the individual depositors contained within those accounts.

Could be wrong but in the absence of any other detailed information from IoMG that's my interpretation of the wording.


Would there be tax implications if...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:36

...bond holders were treated as depositors? By having direct access they could be nullifying the tax-exempt/deferment status of the policies, possibly


tax implications

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 02:27

Well since they stand to lose the lot if DCS is progressed, I kind of figure that they may be prepared to take that risk, don't you?
Worry about arguing with a tax man later.


Bond holder voting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 15:50

Don't know the answer to this either but from an earlier post in NEWS would expect NOT the case. Skandia have not contacted us about EPS but are accepting it on our behalves!
The only info from them is on their web site so those depositors with out access to internet will know nothing.


re Bond Holder voting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:25

The EPS is completely different to any SOA, EPS did not require a vote.

As yet there's nothing to vote on, indications we have from any proposed SOA is that the depositors - not the account holders who will have the vote - to achieve this - relatively easy -

IoMG / PWC / Alix have a breakdown of these accounts - they simply issue each account holder the corresponding number of votes - the companies would then poll the individual deposit holders and signed returns of votes placed before the court with appropriate summery ie 210 for 56 against SOA this is then included in the figures of retail and business deposit holders.

As yet there is no SOA therefore no "time limit" has been placed on any acceptance of a SOA -- the 29th IoMG will go for another delay - whether it's granted who know's.

As you state the insurance companies have accepted on your behalf the £1,000.00 per depositor EPS payment - therefore the numbers of individual depositors are known - if we assume 11,00 depositors (estimated EPS £11m) -- to 8,000 accounts -- leaves as a minimum 3,000 individual qualifiying depositors - as some accounts would not qualify for the full £1,000.00 payment.


@capt

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:44

we always seem to return to the emotive subject of DCS vs SOA !

I was merely pointing out that, in response to your note "but the objective of the SoA is to provide an overriding benefit to the majority of depositors" the majority of the depositors (76%) are in fact those in the <50k bracket and therefore any SOA needs to consider that fact.

as to your further point regarding how the vote will be undertaken, i believe it is to be a mix of the numbers of depositors AND the value, but i've not seen anything definitive on this yet, have you ?


rbirch - possibly not true

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:55

Please read the post a couple up --

the <50K may not be the overall greater number of depositors,

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/update-and-actions-london-l...


UPDATE

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:41

I am fully convinced that the legal advice that the "team" is getting from its London lawyer in respect of the proposed SoA (to the extent that Diver discloses it above) is absolutely right, and I do not just say that because it was me who found their London lawyer for them. I have complete confidence in the firm and in the solicitor with conduct of the matter.

What is being provided to the "team" for illustration purposes is not the proposed scheme of arrangement at all, but merely an example of how such a scheme might work under certain assumptions which cannot presently be justified. The scheme of arrangement, when and if it emerges, will be a document that embodies certain terms as to payments to depositors and other obligations on the parties and until that document emerges it is obvious that no decision could possibly be taken by or on behalf of any depositors.


What SoA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 00:03

Can someone please explain what is SoA?


Thanks for this update and

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 23:46

Thanks for this update and the generally improved level of communication.

Also, we believe it is highly unfair to discuss possible payback percentages when there is still no evidence of how these numbers were arrived at – they could be vastly optimistic or highly pessimistic…either way depositors could be given impressions that were simply not true.YES energy would be much better directed here;
In all your correspondence with the IoM authorities, concentrate on asking that they provide clear, unambiguous documentation clearly showing the differences between any SoA and the DCS and explaining that we cannot possibly make a decision with the limited information so far offered.


UPDATE - USEFUL NUMBERS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 01:34

Forum readers may wish to know the following.

According to my information (not communicated to me in confidence), the assumption on which the most recent Treasury/Alix illustrations of the SoA is based is a total dividend target of 65% (but 100% payout for those who would otherwise be covered by the DCS, fully paid within 2 years). I have no more idea than does the "team" on whether these figures are optimistic or pessimistic, but since the idea is to "sell" the SoA to us I think it is reasonably safe to assume that they are either realistic or optimistic.

Depositors would have to give up their rights under the DCS if they agree to enter into the SoA. It is not apparent to me that that is necessary and it is not immediately obvious to me why it should be desirable, except to the Isle of Man government.


How true.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 03:46

I was given a figure of 66% about 10 weeks ago, I wonder if our sources, or for that matter our sauces, are the same?


How true.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 03:46

I was given a figure of 66% about 10 weeks ago, I wonder if our sources, or for that matter our sauces, are the same?


THANKS FOR LEGAL UPDATE

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 21:34

Dear Diver and Team,

Many thanks for your update and briefing of our current position.

As always, the key to our dilemma remains with the recovery of
funds with KSF UK - annoyingly!

Thanks for your continued efforts, in which you have my full confidence.

Kind regards

Mike


Thanks Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 21:25

Many thanks for the up-date and for all that you continue to do for all of us.

As you say there is no doubt a hard sell going on as far as the SoA is concerned, and I can't help but feel that as this is the path that they wish to steer us down then they will make any DCS alternative as un-attractive as they can, whether it be in our interests or not !


Diver's update

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 21:24

Thanks Diver for this update.

Do I presume that no comments were made to the court today because it was felt it would serve no useful purpose at this point? I would have thought that simply registering our dissatisfaction with the so-called proposals put forward on 15th would have been worthwhile. Too late now anyway!

It seems obvious to me that putting any figures on likely % returns is indeed impossible until we have at least an estimate of the KSF-UK pay-out.

I find it quite telling that you now refer to Alixpartners as our 'opponents' - not exactly reassuring.

I note your references to our London legal advisor. Does this mean that John Wright is no longer involved?

I wish you and your team strength in the coming days.


% Returns - Down to the IOM Govt

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 22:45

Anrigaut,

I agree with most of what you say but I think the IOM can give a % return by stepping up and giving us guarantees. Most Gov't in Europe have given 100% guarantees to retail savers with almost instant access to their funds. At very least the IOM Gov't should be sharing substantial risk in what return the loan book and the KSFUK funds return.


% returns and IoMG

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 07:38

BC,

I agree. That's what is needed. Unfortunately, I just don't see any signs that IOMG are going to do that and assume that Alix are working on that assumption under Treasury instructions.


To add to this, have Alix or

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 04:21

To add to this, have Alix or the IoMG insisted that participant banks who would normally be required to also contribute to the DCS, be required to contribute to the SoA?

Is there any reason why the SoA cannot serve as an envelope in which to operate the DCS, ensuring contributions from the banks as is currently required?


SoA as envelope for dcs

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 20:22

I absolutely agree with you Capt. My view of any SoA is that it should be an envelope or wrapper for the DCS so that we make sure that the IOM contribution to the DCS plus the levies from the other financial institutions on the island go in to the general pot. If that is not the case then the SoA seems to me to have very little to recommend it, because we would be thrown back only on our own assets.


SoA as envelope for dcs

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 21:11

banna: that is a better idea. It embodies my own view posted yesterday and today that I do not think there is any benefit to depositors in teh requirement that they give up their rights under the DCS if they enter into the SoA (that is what is proposed by Treasury) nor is there any need for this requirement. It is only of benefit to the IOMG.


It wasn't banna's suggestion

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 02:35

But don't let that get in your way.

Just because the SoA is adopted, there is no reason why the IoM banks should avoid their responsibilities, and that includes the 150M from the IoM.

Call it what you will, but if the SoA produces contributions from the banks and the IoMG of a similar magnitude to the DCS, but without all the old ponces wearing smelly tweed jacket mincing about the place on expenses (Simpson included) then the rose will still smell as sweet, if not sweeter.


UPDATE AND ACTIONS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 21:19

Diver: "Lastly, the information supplied to satisfy the conditions above will need to pass the scrutiny of our Legal team before we can pass judgement or comment.
The last condition is a particularly important one. None of us are SoA experts whereas our opponents in this (Alix Partners) are, apparently. We should not be agreeing to anything that our legal representatives haven’t given the green light on."

I thought the "team" and the "committee" were not empowered to agree to anything anyway.

Can you please explain how we can possibly eventually vote on a scheme the details of which are strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed to depositors? And how the scheme can be presented in an open hearing in court if it is strictly confidential? And if it is not confidential when presented to the court and when it is voted on, why does it need to be confidential now?


Your questions Elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 21:51

In answer to your questions:

The 'we' in the sentence "We should not be agreeing to anything that our legal representatives haven’t given the green light on" refers to the DAG as a whole not the informal committee.

We never said that the details of the scheme will always be 'strictly confidential', we said that we were not in a position to release the details we have to date for the reasons outlined. We expect (and in fact are demanding) that full details of both the DCS and any SoA to be put before depositors in a fair way (and well in advance of any vote) so that a true comparisson can be made.


Your questions Elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 22:16

I asked if you could explain why the details of the scheme need to be kept confidential at this stage, when they will shortly have to be disclosed to the depositors for a vote and before that in open court. Is it because when it is finally disclosed it will not contain what it presently contains? Otherwise, i can think of no good reason.

My posting was not a criticism of your "team", but of the Treasury and its partners who insist that it be confidential. There was no need for you to respond defensively.


elgee & confidentiality

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 20:13

Stop carping Elgee, please.
You've got sufficient nous to know very well that negotiations of this sort have to be carried out in confidential conditions for any party to be prepared to put forward proposals for discussion. How could this thing be negotiated with 2000+ of us chiming in?


elgee & confidentiality

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 20:13

Stop carping Elgee, please.
You've got sufficient nous to know very well that negotiations of this sort have to be carried out in confidential conditions for any party to be prepared to put forward proposals for discussion. How could this thing be negotiated with 2000+ of us chiming in?


elgee & confidentiality

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 20:13

Stop carping Elgee, please.
You've got sufficient nous to know very well that negotiations of this sort have to be carried out in confidential conditions for any party to be prepared to put forward proposals for discussion. How could this thing be negotiated with 2000+ of us chiming in?


elgee & confidentiality

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 20:56

Well, certainly not if each of us chimed in in triplicate as you have just done.

I did not suggest that we all participate in negotiations, but there is no need to keep them confidential either. However I recognise (and say so above) that the confidentiality is imposed by the IOMG and Alix, not by the committee. You may recall what happens (or did, in the days when people went on strike) when trade unions negotiated with employers over strikes: a small number of people negotiated but members were continually informed about what had been proposed. Members then made their views known to negotiators through their representatives. The same happens, for example, in residents and tenants associations when negotiations take place with landlords and in numerous other areas of interaction between people and commercial organisations.

Anyway, what is happening is not a negotiation. The Treasury and Alix are merely putting forward numerical illustrations of what might be achievable under a scheme of arrangement (but not the details of the proposed scheme itself) in the hope of persuading those listening that it will be acceptable.


Defensive Response?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:05

I see nothing defensive in the response you have recieved. Is that what upsets you, elgee?

Please stop trying to divide the DAG with your attitude. It is not helpful to anyone.


Re: UPDATE AND ACTIONS FROM THE LONDON LEGAL TEAM

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 20:57

Thanks for the update Diver. So at this stage we still have absolutely no idea of % return over what time scale? That information is really key, even if only very approximate, for many members, as you know. In some cases its literally about survival.