URGENT ACTION - WHAT DAG SHOULD DO FROM TODAY 4 Feb

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 04/02/2009 - 01:44

Introduction
It is evident from Tony Brown's mealy mouthed statement to the Treasury Select Committee Meeting on 3 February that the IOM Government is kowtowing to HMGovernment. His emphasis was on the Compensation Scheme being what depositors could expect.

However, it is also evident that the TSC has sussed the parties to the KSFIOM affair and it is not difficult to get the feeling that its sympathies are with the depositors.

There are now 3 issues for the DAG to consider.

  1. the TSC will not have completed its inquiry to be able to report its recommendations before the IOM Court Hearing on 19 February,

  2. the IOM Government is not going to change its stated position ie: it is going to pursue its own strategy which is to try for a SoA, and failing this it will accept liquidation & the triggering of the Depositors' Compensation Scheme.

  3. whilst DAG has the power to bring the IOM financial services industry crashing down on the heads of the IM Government, in doing so it would cause thousands of other depositors to suffer precisely the same as it has suffered.

In doing so DAG will have shot itself in both feet because it will not only hurt others but it will hurt itself because there will be huge complications in implementing a DCS.; indeed if banks go to the wall so will the £200Million that they are required to pay into the compensation pot!

Where does this leave us ?

First, even if the IOM Government can persuade the Court that its SoA is viable, DAG already knows that it will fall well short of assuring a100% return of members' money, so members are not going to vote in favour of a SoA. That being the case the IOM Government might drop the idea of pursuing a SoA.

Second, in this event the Court will decide on liquidation, which will trigger the implementation of the Compensation Scheme. This will take 2 years to pay out up to a maximum of £50,000.

So what might follow ?

  1. the banking crisis plus a run on the banks could change the whole scenario. The IOM is a Crown Dependency & if its financial industry goes to the wall it is almost certain to involve the UK having to step in to stop the Island sinking into the Irish Sea.

  2. the political outcome of the TSC's findings & recommendations to Parliament might bring about a situation where HMG accepts that a gross injustice has been the outcome of events which HMG may want to be seen to rectify by lending assistance to the IOM Government in order to ameliorate it

  3. a speedier progress of the receivership of KaupthingUK could lead to an early release of the KSFIOM assets presently frozen, so reducing the level of assistance given by HMG under 2 above

So what should be DAG's Strategy & Tactics from this point in time?

  1. Presently 96% of members have voted in favour of the motion calling on the IOM Government to seek a loan from HMG in order that depositors receive back 100% of their money. So DAG's Notary (John Wright) will be expected to say now that the DAG does not support a SoA that does not quarantee 100% return of depositors' money

  2. Members will then be obliged to accept implementation of the DCS;, BUT members will retain the right to pursue their just demands through the courts.

  3. DAG will need legal advice as to whether there is a substantive case against a party. Importantly it will need to be known whether the party to be sued have the means to pay not only what is owing to members but also the costs of the proceedings.

  4. DAG will have to decide on the whether the odds of winning are substantially in its favour, otherwise it will be liable for the huge costs should the case fail.

  5. legal proceedings would be costly. It is possible that because 70% of members have less than £50,000 on deposit, (which they will get back in full) , the cost of legal proceedings may fall on the 30% of those with more than £50,000.

  6. DAG will also need to ascertain whether there is a clear cut case of members having been illegally dispossessed of their property as defined by the European Human Rights legislation. If the advice is in the affirmative then a decision will need to be made as to whether to take the matter before the European Court. This too would be a costly matter.

7. a decision will need to be taken right now as to whether the IOM Government should be told that if depositors do not get their money back in full, then DAG proposes to recover the money through the courts.

Tactics/Plan of Action

I propose:

  1. Diver's Team is now advised that members will not support a SoA that does not give back 100% of their money, & that Diver (or his successor) conveys this message forthwith to the IOM Government

  2. Although the Chief Minister has said that the IOM Government will NOT ask for a loan, nevertheless the motion presently enjoying 96% support of members should be sent without delay

The full Motion reads:
The Depositors Action Group (DAG) will not accept any proposal that does not secure a 100% return of its members' deposits. No SoA that falls short of this is acceptable. DAG will support the IOM Government if it will negotiate a loan from HMG in order to bridge the gap that presently exists in the accounts of KSFIOM in order that depositors may be paid fully and speedily. DAG believes that to fail to do so will precipitate the collapse of the IOM financial services industry

  1. this Motion to be incorporated in a Press Release

  2. legal advice is obtained with a view to DAG seeking redress through the courts

  3. if it is considered that the DAG has a strong case then an assessment of the costs involved should be made and members advised accordingly so that a decision can be made as to how the DAG will wish to proceed.


I attach a table showing current & suggested DAG Strategy, Tactics & Action.
Members are invited to comment thereon, suggesting any additions to the Strategy &/or Tactics. Also to suggest who should do what in relation to blanks under 'ACTION' in the table

LJ

AttachmentSize
Strategy-Tactics-Action for DAG.pdf23.12 KB
4.07143
Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (42 votes)

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

Lucky Jim, you have

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 14:32

Lucky Jim, you have complained elsewhere on the forum that I write "scurrlous" things about you. The only thing that I have written about you, apart from the fact that you do not appear to know what you are talking about, is that you are NOT a depositor in KSFIOM.

I hardly think that qualifies as "scurrilous", as you have claimed, but are you saying that it is not true? DO YOU, Lucky Jim, presently have any money deposited in KSFIOM?

It is a fairly easy question and, although I have asked it several times, you have still not given an answer.


Elgee

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 14:45

I have now asked you 3 times.Did you send me emails calling me a ignorant fool,a liar,an idiot,irrational,and pre- pubescent.
When are you going to answer,Yes or No.
Please show others what you really are like.


elgee

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 18:04

This is now the 4th time of asking.Stop giving me smoke screens,i.e lucky jim issues.
Answer MY questions.


Elgee

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 15:41

Still waiting your reply!
Dog and bone..........


Elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 17:03

And I am still waiting for Lucky Jim's reply as to whether it is correct that he is not a depositor


Not a depositor?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 16:33

Lucky Jim, why do you refer above to "us", when you are not a depositor in KSFIOM.

Also, you refer to 96% of members of DAG, whereas surely you mean 96% of those who voted, which is not at all the same thing. Quite apart from the fact that some of those who voted, like you, may not even be depositors, the majority of DAG members did not participate in the vote.

Are you aiming to replace Diver, because I would have thought that your not even being a depositor was a fairly considerable setback? In any event, your past comments on the forum lead me to believe that you are not ideally suited to driving DAG policy (before anyone else comments, nor obviously am I).

Otherwise, thank you for the summary, but it is not supported by reference to any legal advice on the options. Is it even informed by the advice from senior counsel that the DAG legal team have received (I presume)?

Also, have you considered that legal advice, especially on matters of likelihood of success and possible defences in respect of prospective legal actions and the likely costs (including of course adverse costs orders in favour of the defendants) and matters concerning evidence etc. cannot be shared openly on a forum accessible to the public or with anyone who might publish it to others, because doing so would clearly prejudice the claimants?

I think it would be helpful to others on the forum if you explained your interest in assuming a leadership role in the DAG if it is not as an aggrieved depositor. Are you perhaps looking for a cause?


URGENT ACTION - WHAT DAG SHOULD DO FROM TODAY 4 Feb

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 21:17

3.2.2009

THIS DATA IS IN BLOG TITLED - URGENT ACTION WHAT DAG SHOULD DO FROM TODAY 4 FEB WITH A TABLE ATTACHEMENT

Diver/Provisional Liquidator (Mike Simpson)/Chief Minister (Tony Brown)/Alix Partners (Mr Lovett)/ DAG Lawyer (John Wright)/Deputy Deemster (Andrew Corlett), Attorney General (John Corlett)/FSC (Chief Exec John Aspen & Mr Wild)/Head of Treasury (Allan Bell)/MD KSF – IOM (Mr Aiden Doherty)/KSF- IOM (represented by Mr Clucas)/The Insurance Companies (Mr Paul Morris)/AILO (Chief Exec Mr Alan Morgan - Moodie)

Dear Diver,

I read the DAG information constantly, but became a bit concerned with your feedback after the court hearing on 29.1.2009. All feedback to yourself has been good so far and I find it all a bit worrying as a Bondholder through a Life Company encompassed within a ‘Group Holding’ – of which I did not know about until this situation arose. I realise that you and others in the DAG Committee who are in contact constantly with the Manx Government, the Provisional Liquidator and others including the various lawyers etc are more up to date and more informed than those of us who do not live on the IOM.

I therefore write this prolonged letter in an effort to understand more of where we are right now, with regard to the DCS Scheme/Scheme of Arrangement options, also look at the various figures shown on the Balance Statement given out by the Provisional Liquidator and what that might mean in the short or long term for all of us (as creditors).

I write the following in good faith, based on what I have read from various sources, so if it is not all factually correct I apologise and hope you will all look at the bigger picture that I am trying to get across for the sake of all creditors.

  1. If the IOM Government state whether it is a DCS Scheme or the Scheme of Arrangement that the proposed £150m GBP will be used to pay Individual Depositors and Life Company ‘Group Bond Holders’ alike then all creditors are in the same boat. Now Diver and the DAG Website keep saying to all of us that 100% return for all is the aim. That would be a start with all depositors agreeing.
  2. The £150m GBP being returned or clawed back by IOM Government is a separate issue for all those who currently have more than £50k GBP invested in KSF- IOM and I will come back to that later.
  3. What we need now is clarity of figures for various items –
    a. The Loan Book – before anyone should decide whether we are prepared to go down the DCS or SoA route we need to know from Mike Simpson/KSF – IOM/IOM Government what they can expect to recover from the Loan book.
    i. If sold off what is the best offer to Mike Simpson for it - £200m GBP, £250M GBP or whatever?
    ii. If not sold off what return can Mike Simpson expect to recover, over the 6 years, from the outstanding loans? I.e. £416m GBP over the 6-year term, or 80% or 85% - someone has to give some form of estimate based on a previous experience of payments received.
  4. If we then take a look at the Balance statement of 9.10.2008 and
    a. We assume the offsets at KSF – UK and KSF hf (Iceland) – leaving parental guarantee aside at present – then this would leave as Mike Simpson states a net-
    i. £402m GBP at KSF UK owed to KSF – IOM (Mike Simpson said he expects something back from here now- need a guestimate re time span and amount of cash for this.
    ii. And Zero owed by KSF hf (Iceland) to KSF – IOM
    b. If we then look at Certificates of Deposits - £18m GBP back so far, with £35m GBP outstanding. Now if I am reading correctly what Mike Simpson has said – that although there are cross claims via offsets by some Building Societies, having taken legal advice ‘it remains my position that set off should not be applied and that these amounts should be remitted, via Kaupthing UK, to the Company. I shall continue to pursue the Company’s rights in this regard’. Although I believe there is at least one court case at present due to be heard in March 2009.
    c. So if we look at the Balance statement as given out and I put in my best estimates – of recovery of monies due, as per 6th & 7th columns we then see the following

(THE TABLE BELOW HAS NOT BEEN FORMATTED CORRECTLY - SEE MY BLOG WITH WORD ATTACHEMENT TITLED - URGENT ACTION WHAT DAG SHOULD DO FROM TODAY 4 FEB)

No. Headings Book Values AmountsRealised Book value amounts to recover My - Estimates of Further recovery My - Estimates of Further recovery
9.10.2008 16.1.2009

    £m GBP  £m GBP  £m GBP  £m GBP  £m GBP

1 Fixed Assets 1.3 0.0 0.0

2 Opening cash 109.8 107.7 0.0
3 Certs of Deposit 53.0 16.2 36.8 25.0 0.0
4 Advance to Customers – loan book 416.0 ? 416.0 *250.0 **332.8
5 Loan red cash recpts 3.2
6 Interest paymnts rec 3.2
7 KSF – UK -net 401.8 0.0 401.8 ***200.0
8 Due Kaupting IOM ltd 0.2
9 Parental Guarantee? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 Total Assets 982.1
11 Total - 130.3 475.0
Less cost of realisatin -0.9
Add interest +0.4
cash in hand 129.8
Certs of Deposit post 16.1 2.0
Total cash in hand 131.8
12 Customer Deposits 872.8
13 Due Kaupthing hf - net 0.8 0.0
14 Due other Group coys 29.0 0.0
15 Other non dep creditors 3.3 0.0
16 Liabilities 906.2
17 Net Assets 76.9

18 Cash in hand from above 131.8
19 Plus conversions to Sterling –16.1.09 7.2
20 From IOM Government 150.0
21 From Banks & Build Soc ****80.0
22 New Total 844.0
Sub Total 332.8
23 Less –from co l6 250.0
24 Sub Total 82.8
25 Add 82.8
26 New Total *****926.8

  • If sold off
    ** If not sold off and retained until loan book cleared over 6 years @ 80% recovery
    *** Assume 50% recovery based on £1.3b GBP excess on book value
    **** Assume 33 Banks Build Soc @£8m GBP pa over 10 yrs
    ***** Takes no account of – ‘Parental Guarantee’, Cash from life Companies, Cash from UK Government (either as a gesture with no strings attached or loan to IOM Gov, Cash from Icelandic Gov, IMF loan.
    ***** Takes no account of the eventual costs of Provisional Liquidator and his staff (includes KSF – IOM Bank staff).
    Certs of Deposits – another £2m recovered since 16.1.2009
  1. Remember my figures assume IOM Government will not ‘claw back’ – and we should demand this if they want to retain credibility as an International Finance Centre- any of their £150m GBP until all creditors are repaid. Will they come out and say this? Or are they hoping that by satisfying the under £50k depositors totally and giving those above that figure a maximum of 65% back on their investments that they can slide away and get away with that. And perhaps our ‘dear’ Life Companies are hoping for the same thing (and I accept this does not involve individual investors – but I did not know and I am sure probably all other investors through Life Companies did not know that our monies were invested in ‘Group Holdings’).
  2. The IOM Government should be demanding substantial help in the way of contributions from the Life Companies. I.e. - £100m GBP - Are they doing this?
  3. We should be asking Mike Simpson for the average monthly costs incurred by the Liquidator Provisional (inc costs for retention of KSF – IOM Bank staff) so far, or the total costs incurred so far since 8.10.2008.
  4. It will take 6-years to get back the £416m due from the ‘Loan Book’ or £332.8m if it is 80% or whatever.
  5. It will take 10 years for the Banks to pay in their share (if it is £8m GBP per year at £250k per bank per year, for 10 years) unless the amount due in total for up to £20k per depositor does not come to that. But it should include ‘Group Bond holders’ also. Are the Banks/building societies only responsible for the total due to these types of depositors or can the IOM Government demand 10 years at £8m?
  6. Then we have KSF – UK. How long until they wind up the business and payout to all creditors.
    We know that ING want all transfers and cash paid to them by 5.2.2009 (read this somewhere re KSF – UK reputedly from an ING employee – can’t find it again). So shortly thereafter taking into account the various court cases to decide about ‘set –offs’ we can expect some movement. So what time span? – 1year, 2 years, or what is the maximum time required?
  7. Next come the JJB shares – and you can understand the problem for Mike Simpson, and all of us, if he goes for a quick sale – if he could sell them – currently worth £5.1m when they were supposedly worth 13 times that when taken on as collateral - £66.3m – a substantial amount. So how long do you wait to recoup your cash, or part of your cash from that source – who knows?

So in essence we have certain figures out in the open, certain people know more than this, but not the majority – and we want to know before the next court hearing on 19.2.2009 – less than 2.5 weeks away.

As said already how can we vote – if we need to vote – if we do not know the options? It appears there are two options –

DCS Scheme or SoA Scheme, as any takeover of the Bank appears to depend upon what we get back from KSF – UK – and right now no one knows – although we can guestimate.

So as said at the beginning –

· Is the IOM Government willing to say that, if they put in £150mGBP (can we take it that from now on any figure shown in £millions is GBP) – it will be put into either Scheme?
· Are they saying that all depositors – whether individual or through a ‘Group holding’ will be treated the same?
· Will all rights due under a DCS Scheme be transferred in total to the SoA if that is the better option? If the SoA is chosen over the DCS Scheme will the ‘sunset clause’ due to come into effect in October 2009 be reviewed so as to allow the SoA Scheme the same opportunity for creditors I.e. retain the £50k compensation level instead of dropping back to £20k in October 2009?
· Are they saying that all will be treated the same – up to say 65% recovery as muted, then they will’ claw back’ their £150m?
Or are they saying – as they should, if they want to retain integrity, respect, and their position as an International Finance Centre that they will not ‘claw back’ until all creditors are paid 100%?
· Now if the IOM Government do the above and wait until required for ‘claw back’, that means
o They put in their £150m immediately
o The Banks start before the end of this financial year – 31.3.2009 and start putting their cash in – over the timescale determined – and the IOM Government wait for that cash over that timescale?
o They recoup the cash due from the ‘Loan book’ over the 6 years period and receive whatever they and the Provisional Liquidator Mike Simpson think/agree is feasible – as said perhaps 80%/90% more or less. (Unless some company or group are willing to pay that kind of figure just now).
o They await the outcome of the KSF-UK Bank windup – how long – 1 to 2 years? To hopefully recoup at least £200m.
o They await the sale of the JJB shares - how long – 2 to 3 years?
o They await the outcome of the Certificates of Deposits – still due £35m. Mike Simpson believes set off should not apply. So and even with court action pending and perhaps more in the pipeline – surely a result within 1 year? - £25m of the £37m?
o It will take 10 years for the Banks to pay in their share (if it is £8m GBP per year at £250k per bank per year, for 10 years) unless the amount due in total for up to £20k per depositor does not come to that. But it should include ‘Group Bond holders’ also. Are the Banks/Building Societies only responsible for the total due to these types of depositors or can the IOM Government demand 10 years at £8m?
o What is the total value in cash terms due to depositors – whether individual or within ‘Group Holdings’ between £1 and £20k? – This would give us an idea of what the Banks/building societies are expected to pay out.
o What is the value in cash terms due to depositors - – whether individual or within ‘Group Holdings’ between £20,001 and £50k? – This would give us an idea of what the IOM Government would be duty bound to pay out if a straight DCS Scheme.
o One last question relating to the £1000 early payment, now perhaps £10,000 early payment to Depositors. Does this apply to all Depositors – individual and ‘Group’? And two if available to ‘Group’ depositors through the Life companies, what is the chance of being paid direct to our own bank accounts rather than via the Life Companies – where we will have limited access or have to pay extra charges to get this much needed cash out?

· Is Mike Simpson –
o Willing to do his bit re the above –
· The KSF – UK Bank guestimate?
· The Certificates of Deposit?
· Transfer of Rights to the SoA if that is the best option. Will he fight for that?
· The ‘loan Book’ – give out best deal received to sell on immediately and also best guestimate for returns going the full 6 years.
· JJB Shares – what’s best?
· Fight to ensure IOM Government accept no ‘Claw back’ until all depositors – individual and ‘Group Holding’ paid back 100%

o Will he give figures for the average monthly costs incurred by the Liquidator Provisional (inc costs for retention of KSF – IOM Bank staff) so far, or the total costs incurred so far since 8.10.2008.As my figure take no account of the costs that will be incurred by the Provisional Liquidator whether we go for the DCS Scheme or the SoA Scheme.
o Next come the JJB shares – and you can understand the problem for Mike Simpson, and all of us, if he goes for a quick sale – if he could sell them – currently supposedly worth £5.1m when they were thought to be worth 13 times that when taken on as collateral - £66.3m – a substantial amount. So how long do you wait to recoup your cash, or part of your cash from that source – who knows – 2/3 years?

I am not an accountant so apologise for any glaring mistakes, I am not a lawyer so apologise for any technical errors regarding what you can and cannot do.

I presume that the IOM Government, the Provisional Liquidator, all the lawyers/ barristers involved, The Life Companies, the IOM Court all want the best possible result – I.e. 100% recovery for all Depositors of all types.

I am not sure the DAG Committee and the DAG membership will agree with all I have said, but it has been said with the best of intentions, in order that we get all the information we require before we vote (as depositors or Group Holding’ depositors) as to what is best for all us.

So please everyone do not rip apart what I have said for the sake of it, please be constructive and let us try and use this or something else as the way forward at this very important time – remember less than 2.5 weeks to go.

And something has to come out of 19th February, the DAG Committee and others have ensured this now, due to what was put forward and agreed at the court hearing on 29.1.2009.

So let’s make it the right decision, as far as we can.

Best of luck to all,

Gordon 45
.


Gordon - the title of your blog is confusing...

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 23:18

Gordon - with respect, the title of your blog is possibly confusing to members because it is identical to that of my post in the 'Action & Strategy' forum.
You might like to consider changing it ?


Lucky Jim from Gordon 45

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 09:57

Sorry no offence intended. I thought your title was an excellent starting point for others to follow in the same vein. In an effort to make sure we are all heard prior to Feb 12th & 19th.

Gordon 45


Gordon - you were not offensive

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:19

Hi Gordon -- rest assured that you did not offend me. I was just a little anxious that members didn't get confused when they see the same title but seperate posts.

PS: Someone e-mailed me asking whether 'Lucky Jim' was also here as 'Gordon'! lol!


URGENT ACTION - WHAT DAG SHOULD DO FROM TODAY 4 Feb

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 21:20

Dupilcate entry of above.


Plucky Jim

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 15:29

Lucky Jim, why do you refer above to "us", when you are not a depositor in KSFIOM.

Also, you refer to 96% of members of DAG, whereas surely you mean 96% of those who voted, which is not at all the same thing. Quite apart from the fact that some of those who voted, like you, may not even be depositors, the majority of DAG members did not participate in the vote.

Are you aiming to replace Diver, because I would have thought that your not even being a depositor was a fairly considerable setback? In any event, your past comments on the forum lead me to believe that you are not ideally suited to driving DAG policy (before anyone else comments, nor obviously am I).

Otherwise, thank you for the summary, but it is not supported by reference to any legal advice on the options. Is it even informed by the advice from senior counsel that the DAG legal team have received (I presume)?

Also, have you considered that legal advice, especially on matters of likelihood of success and possible defences in respect of prospective legal actions and the likely costs (including of course adverse costs orders in favour of the defendants) and matters concerning evidence etc. cannot be shared openly on a forum accessible to the public or with anyone who might publish it to others, because doing so would clearly prejudice the claimants?

I think it would be helpful to others on the forum if you explained your interest in assuming a leadership role in the DAG if it is not as an aggrieved depositor. Are you perhaps looking for a cause?


Back in your basket elgee

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 04:08

You stated that you wouldn't bugger off once paid out, what is your reason? Why should you be different to LJ?

LJ perhaps got confused, a bit like JW did when he stated that he represented 2000 DAG members.

"Are you perhaps looking for a cause?" - another elgee classic line. Hehehe.


It is self evident what I meant

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:11

It is self evident that I meant 96% of members who voted in the Poll supported the motion the Motion. I have in fact qualified this on another Post.

Our problem in respect to polls is that only those members who log in can potentially vote. It would be ideal if all 2383 DAG members were to come on line & vote. As it is, approximately 20% of the membership who have done so voted in support of the Motion. In census terms that would be considered a fair indication as to how all members would be likely to vote.


It is self evident what I meant

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 10:41

It is self evident only to yourself.


Totally Agree Lucky Jim

  • Sheffield25
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 14:40

Just wanted to say excellent work Lucky Jim and I totally agree with your summary and action plan

Sheffield25


Urgent Action what DAG should do from 4th Feb - lucky jim

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/02/2009 - 10:50

Good Stuff, I also have spent quite some time writing up my own thoughts and tried replying to your very thorough letter. Unfortunately my stuff recreates Mike Simpson's balance statement with my mods. When I paste in my table only half (of width ) shows on screen. Can I ask you urgently to reply or someone else as to how I attach an attachement in order to show my whole table,

Thanks

GORDON 45


How to upload/post file attachments (PDF, etc.)

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 02:31

File attachments can be posted (uploaded) with original posts, but not comments. So, post a new forum or group topic (or blog entry), just below the main text entry area you will see a link marked FILE ATTACHMENTS - click that, and the rest is hopefully self-explanatory.


How to upload/post file attachments (PDF, etc.)

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 09:50

ng - thanks for the pelpful reply. did manage last night to post data again plus table using th 'Blog' entry.

Gordon 45


Charities and Local Authorities

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 15:17

Did I understand correctly from the TSC yesterday that there are UK Local Authorities and UK Charities who had deposits in KSFIOM? I had previously understood that LA and Charities only had deposits in KSFUK.

If this is correct can we get a list of which LA and Charities have deposits in KSFIOM


IoM hospice and changes to DCS????

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 16:16

IOM today 20 October 2008

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/health-news/Bank-crisis-Fears-for-1.4608038.jp

Found reference to IoM hospice £1m deposit...

.. and was amazed to read the rest of the article re changes to DCS.


IoM Hospice and DCS

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 16:52

Coldlightofday

To give a bit of background to that reference to the DCS.

On 9th October 2008 a revised DCS was passed through Tynwald rasing the limits from 75% of £20k to £50K. However the new limit of £50k only applied to individuals, not companies, charites trusts etc. Following lobbying on the IoM the DCS was revised yet again on 22nd October 2008 (not 100% sure of that date). This revised scheme left individual depositor's compensation at £50k but put a £20k level on companies, charities, Trusts etc.

So therefore when that article was published on 20th Oct 2008, the situation at that date was that the Charity was entitled to nothing under the DCS, a position that has now change to £20k.


Local Authorities invested in KaupthingSF

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 15:42

Yes, a number of LA's invested in the Bank but I do not know which ones invested in KSFIOM. The IOM Government has itself got £10Million in KSFIOM. Hence one of the reasons why it wants a SoA ie: nothing to do with DAG depositors, everything to do with its own folly!


IOM Gov't 10mln

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 19:06

LJ - why would the 10mln GBP be a reason for the IOM Gov't to push for the SoA. Geniune question as I'm not sure how it would help them unless it saved them a litte in PwC fees.

I always assumed it had more to do with their reputation.


Yes, I did say ONE of he reasons

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 20:51

Yes, I did say one of the reasons. I presume like the rest of depositors the DCS woul only give it £50,000 for its £10,000,000


I'll second that - why do

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 06/02/2009 - 04:00

I'll second that - why do people persist on posting this notional scenario where nothing is recovered from the bank, and therefore for DCS has some meaning? It won't make a blind bit of difference to most depositors, bond holders included.


IoMG dep of 10m DCS payment 0

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 21:21

Now Jim, thought you knew better :-)

Under DCS the IoMG wouldn't qualify for DSC payment on 2 counts,

1) commercial account
2) even 10% return for PWC would return £1m -- only £950K more than DCS payment.


DAG Memo to TSC?

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 15:14

I believe that the DAG submitted a memo to the TSC please can some direct me to where I can find this.


The DCS

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 13:32

Unless I have misunderstood the DCS, then although the IOMG have stated that they will 'put aside the money to cover £50,000, it is unlikey that in the long run it will actually cost them a penny because whether it be a liquidation or an SOA there will be enough money recovered (from the asset base consisting of cash £140m plus the loan book of £400m +plus whatever we get back from KSFUK) to guarantee all depositors who have more than £50k and those that have up to £50k.

Therefore the very least that the IOMG shoudl be doing is to guarantee, in whatever form, £150m to the pot!


Money back?

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 15:03

So, does this mean that, in the end, we will all get our money back? As somebody with close to 600K involved in this, I would really like to know the answer to that...

The smoke and mirrors with SOA vs DCS and "you will only get 50K back within 2 years" is starting to turn my head...As others have said, 50K (maybe) is next to useless to me....

The IOM govt really needs to sort this out. After Tony Brown;'s performance yesterday (was he not the real Capt Mainwaring?), I can't understand why anyone would invest in in the IOM any more. This business is all about confidence and the IOM is fast running out of that.

But it's not too late.....


No it does not

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 15:17

I was only commenting that whatever the depositor has at stake then there should be enough to get 50k at the least and this in effect will mean that it has not cost the IOMG anything. Anyone that has a depoist of <£50k will be covered by the assets receovered. Those like me will get £50k + whatever else is still left in the pool from the recovery. The cost to the IOM would only be incurred if there was not sufficnet assets. Therefor they have a moral duty to put someting in!


Exactly!

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 13:59

Exactly! The only people who are paying the price for this circus is ...er....depositors !


Lucky Jim makes sense

  • adambw
  • 13/10/08 31/08/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 13:21

LJ your propsoals seem to make sense.


Channel 4 blog re tax havens...

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 12:50

See Jon Snow's Channel 4 blog at -

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2009/02/03/why-is-britain-a-haven-for...

Perhaps we can help to put him right re "tax havens"...


Another useful link

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 12:40

kaupthing : 1 Lords debate

Banking Bill: Report (2nd Day)(Continued) (3 Feb 2009)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-02-03a.633.2&s=kaupthing#g6...
Lord Davies of Oldham: ...by events. Last year, while we were doing all
the consultation and preparation work on this Bill, the Government had
to act under the provisions of the 2008 Act with regard to Bradford
& Bingley, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, and Heritable in
order to safeguard financial stability and protect depositors and other
creditors. The provisions of the Act lapse on 21 February. As I am...

To cancel your alert for kaupthing, please use:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/D/122500-erlk1oivGY8N8CXO

====================

If you register on the site, you will be able to manage your
alerts there as well as post comments. :)


SoA

  • lifesavings
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 12:19

Last para. in the following press article states:

"However, a scheme of arrangement would remove depositors' legal rights, and might see fewer victims automatically refunded in full than under the statutory compensation scheme".

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.2485979.0.Crack_in_...

Is there any substance to the comment that says we lose our legal rights ? I haven´t come across this view/fact.


The adjournment by Deputy Deemster

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 14:18

The court adjournment by DD Corlett was to allow time for the IoMG to clarify the legal aspects of their proposed SoA


The Herald

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 13:27

Also says

"also limits the compensation to insurance fund bondholders to £20,000."

Not as is really the case £20,000 to each insurance company to share between in my case 600 of us, totalling £63M deposit.


No to the SoA - No faith in the IOM Gov't

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 12:15

I support this statement. I can not support an SoA managed by the IOM Gov't who have shown such political and regulatory incompetence.

The only way in which an SoA could be made acceptable if the following conidtions were met.

  1. The IOM Gov't puts its money up front (for example 150mln GBP) and only takes it out on dividend payments once we have received 100% of our capital. Their skin in the game.

  2. We retain all rights to take action against negligent parties as we would under liquidation.

I would like to see what the TSC can uncover in the near future but have my doubts that E&Y will be doing anything soon to release our funds or information about the possible dividend.


I agree

  • jedizippy
  • 15/10/08 21/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 10:13

I totally agree with the above. The SoA is useless. We have over $ 400,000 so £ 50k paid in UK mickey mouse monopoly money is useless.


Who said that the SoA will

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 10:20

Who said that the SoA will only pay 50k?


Agree LJ

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 10:10

I also agree with your comments, after the lack of anything yesterday from Tony Brown, "The Discussions" will carry on till the cows come home, i beleive the SOA to be useless, the payout timeframe is also unsatisfactory.They might need to order some more cows if this goes belly Up, as farming and fishing will have to re balance their economy.


Totally Agree

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 09:51

LJ I totally agree with your summary --- we should proceed along these lines --
SoA that doesn't give me 100% is worthless to us - we have way more than 50K frozen in there and we NEED it back.

Lets get on with it.


What DAG should do from 4 Feb.

  • ASPEN
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 07:19

LJ -

I 100 pct agree with your summary of our situation. I have over USD 1.6 mil in KSF IOM and stuck due the negligence of staff at KSF IOM leading up to the closure.

The current compesation scheme is worthless in my mind and certainly in regards to the amount of my frozen deposit. Also, have heard the 1000 early pay out has not been received by an depositors so how many years would it take to get any compensation? Also, I believe with the current financial crisis world wide that IOM as a banking center is finished and more banks will close ie....any compensation may never be seen. Ever person I know with accounts in other IOM banks are moving funds to other countries due general fear and hearing of KSF situation.

I already have lawyers in the UK and IOM and will certainly take full legal action immediately upon any final liquidation.

I rarely post on this cite but really appreciate all that Diver and others are doing.


Apsen, If you read some of

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 09:31

Apsen,

If you read some of the other posts in this forum you will see that the 1000 early payment has begun to be recieved. I am not defending the IOM just ensuring that the facts are known


I too agree 100% with Lucky Jim's summary & recommendations

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 09:06

I can see LJ has put a lot of thought & effort into this summary & I am entirely with his reasoning, and Diver's informal team should take on board LJ's recommendations forthwith..


How many of our emails reach the key people?

  • adambw
  • 13/10/08 31/08/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 06:12

Liebenk’s (and others) recent public mails have been spot on. But I worry about how easy it is for the secretaries of Messrs Brown, Bell, etc to just delete lots of ‘similar’ correspondence. I guess I'm not alone in tending to try to also fax certain letters thus increasing the chances of hard copy reaching the intended.


Getting attention

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/02/2009 - 16:56

I agree. On the basis that's it's physically impossible for one PM or Chancellor to read all the mail they receive, all they are likely to get is a summary of all the letters received on the subject and perhaps the odd one will make it through the net. It is easy to disregard letters. More effective perhaps is to write to your local MP and request them to ask a question.

But even if all of us were to write it would still only be a few thousand letters we need our collective letter to be seen outside of Parliament. How about writing it large - very large - with thousands of flyers too and handing them out in the centres of London and IOM at the same time? We would be highly visible and if we alert the press we should get some publicity. We could also add Birmingham and Manchester etc if we can find DAG members in each area. It would take a team of at least 4 - two to hold the banner and two to hand out flyers. Overseas members could take photographs of our protest and copies of the flyer and distribute them to anyone in their country who may be interested - eg. embassies, their government, financial institutions, UK owned businesses.

We will get some sympathy if people are made aware that we are normal human beings like them - not fat cat tax evaders.

If this could be coordinated then there is a reasonable chance of us making the news - locally if not nationally.

Apart from making our plight known this would also let IOM know that we're active everywhere and that the publicity can do nothing but harm for their economy.