VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE - PLEASE READ

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 25/12/2008 - 02:24

DAG Representative Committee

In his correspondence of November 19th to other parties involved in this debacle (in particular Cains and Gough & Co.), John Wright, the DAG Advocate in the Isle of Man, requested an informal committee of creditors be assembled with the objective of liaising directly with PWC and the IOM Government with regard to proposals and strategies for KSFIOM. As a result of this and the immense efforts of depositors this request has been granted.

As you all know, Alix & Partners were appointed by the IoM government to identify and develop restructuring plans for the bank as well as to carry out due diligence on the assets of KSFIOM to identify their liquidity and current market value. Over the past few weeks they have been working alongside the IoM Treasury and exploring a number of options for our bank. John Spellman, Director of the Financial Services Division for the IoM Treasury has been in discussions with a number of depositor representatives over the past weeks and has agreed to the formation of a committee of depositors which the IOM Government will use as a sounding board for all proposals for the future of the bank and our deposits.

The committee has been carefully put together to represent the demographics of the DAG as best as possible and includes the following members:

Higher Value Depositors: DaveBraddan, Ally and Diver
Core Depositors (under 50k): Willumcat and Emabroad
Small Business: Nixi
Bonds/Investments: Teapot
In-Transit Funds: Sleeplessnight

In the next week this committee will receive a selection of proposals for the future of KSFIOM and a conference call will take place to discuss this information. In the court hearings on the 14th and 29th of January, the IoM government will outline all these proposals and announce which have been rejected and which are being looked into further based on the responses of the committee.

It is important to note that the committee WILL NOT HAVE AUTHORITY to make a final decision on the fate of the bank on behalf of all depositors. When a solution has been devised that the committee believes is in the best interests of ALL (and there will have to be compromises on all sides), it will be put to a vote of ALL depositors with the results of this vote being presented to the court. Only then will the court make a decision on whether or not to proceed with the suggested plan.

Due to the commercial sensitivity of the discussions the committee will be having with the IoM Government, there will be some things which cannot be broadcast to the DAG as a whole. The committee will, of course, report back with as much information as possible, but would ask for the DAG’s trust and support to pursue the objective of the return of 100% of depositors’ money.

Further Strategy & Actions

As always our objective is to recover 100% of our money at the earliest opportunity, recognising hardship and long term difficulties that arise from our varied situations. At present our strategies are as follows:

• the unofficial committee will receive and review the proposals of IOMG
• formalizing the DAG - a constitution is currently being drafted and is nearly complete and will be uploaded for consultation
• continue to explore legal avenues and to continue investigating the culpability of various parties in our situation with the aim of seeking recompense where appropriate
• ongoing press releases based on developments and human stories - these are uploaded to the public site and an explanation of distribution can be found there
• building on existing political network of sympathetic and active MP's and representatives
• lobbying of UK MP's to push HMG to act decently with regard to: it's actions to date, clause 27 si2674, representation for IOM to Iceland and the recompense of the depositors of KSFIOM
• lobbying Iceland to honour the parental guarantee given to us by KHf.

This is a very significant step for all of us and it brings us closer to understanding our situation and what is being done to achieve the best possible outcome for all.

I think it is important to recognise EVERYBODY’s efforts in bringing about this progress as you’ve all contributed to this in one way or another. By supporting the legal routes both in the UK and the IoM and by keeping up the pressure on politicians on all sides of this mess we have now achieved one of our major goals in getting a serious official dialogue going with the IoM authorities.

It should be noted that special thanks for getting all of this sorted out should go to Sleepless, Dave, Teapot & Ally who have worked tirelessly behind he scenes to help make all this happen. Sorry if I've missed anyone out but if I have...thank you too!

Thank you all for all your magnificent efforts and your support and understanding over the past months. I hope that this news brings a little bit of cheer to an otherwise sombre holiday season. Please try to have as merry a Christmas as possible and let’s hope the New Year brings us all much happier times.

0
Your rating: None

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

You guys are guaranteed that,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 11:08

You guys are guaranteed that, there is no way that a solution could not ensure that. You have to ask yourself a question or two - lets say you have 50K in the pot, would you take 40K now with no wait or 10K now, and 10K a year over the next 4 years? I expect that everyone has a different idea about this - especially the bigger depositors, some who may have been very careful to avoid the credit crunch effects, and who were ready to purchase a property perhaps towards the end of this year - some of us may be happy to take a reduced result as quickly as possible.


Total agreement cpt, the

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 04/01/2009 - 21:08

Total agreement cpt,

the setting up of groups and splitting the membership was probably the wrong thing to do, in some ways I understood the principles -- by country for the members to organise meets or other closer support for members in their region is good, by deposit amount NOT good, we are all depositors whether direct or through a bond and all have the same need, the capital available for use in the quickest possible time frame.

Personally I don't like clichés seen far too many of them in the work place hence although I qualify for several of the groups I'll not join on principle - I prefer when commenting to post that comment to the membership as a whole not a small section.

As for the committee, although I have never meet driver or for that matter any other member I have full confidence in him and if he thinks these are the right folk for the job and he is confident working with them - then as far as I'm concerned I'll back him 100% in his choice.


Under 50K

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 07:57

I have way over 50K but I can understand the under 50K comments. The DCS would give them their full capital back so if a new way forward is found this must give them the same. The only benefit any for them would be an understanding that the "new way" would return their capital quicker. I was amazed when it was stated by the IOM that 30% of the depositors had less than 4K in the bank, it would also suggest that a large percentage have between 4K - 50K. I think one of the questions that ought to be out to Mr. Simpson is could he give a breakdown in 5K increments up to 50K the number of depositors. In this way the true cost of a minimum DCS payout would be pretty well established. I do not think it will be as high as we first thought.
I would prefer the DCS not to be initiated but to "nationalise" the bank as suggested.
I kick myself because I had 3 deposits all below 50K in 3 offshore banks and transferred two to the KSF (IOM) account to make it easier for my wife here in the Philippines if anything happened to me!!!!


Well said, Mike

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 04/01/2009 - 12:09

That pretty well sums up my feelings as well.

I invested in this bank as a small investor appreciating the risks in return for a higher rate of interest, and knowing the limits of the original DCS. As such I was prepared to see a 75% return (it's better than most of the stock markets did last year!). Now that the IOM have upped the limits so much the better.


elgee -reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:01

In common with most people, I suspect, I prefer not to be told by others what i want or what I know, because I think I am in a better position to know those things than anyone else.

I can't speak for others but I have set out clearly what I want in recent postings, and I repeat it below:

If the statutory requirements demand that the DCS be triggered, then I would expect to see it triggered (those requirements are of course clearly set out in the statute) rather than the IOM government doing its best to find a way of wriggling out of doing so. However, if a genuinely better alternative can be found, then I would prefer so see that, subject to the following prerequisite:

That those depositors who would have been fully compensated under the DCS (essentially those under 50k) receive no less by way of payments under the proposed scheme and no later in time (if payments are staged,
at any given stage) than they would have received under the DCS had it been triggered (on the assumption that the DCS had worked as anticipated and no IoM banks had avoided or refused to contribute to the DCS).


CM reply

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:13

Well that depends if you actually know what you think you know.

I am assuming that you haven't read the framework, because if you had , you would have spotted the little bit about banks "refusing" to contribute - they actually don't have much choice.

Just out of interest, if there were another couple of stage payments on account from the IoM, to the extent that say depositors up to 10K were covered (and this is quite possible), would it mean that depositors who had been paid up fully wouldn't count in any future voting? I'd say this was the case, what do you think?

So, let's try again, how does the DCS work?


CM

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 07:01

I really wish the ESP had been 10k.As a lot of crap would dissapear of the forum!


I know exactly what you

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 08:12

I know exactly what you mean.


nitpicking

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 05:50

The money recovered by the liquidators provisionally may well fully compensate all under50k depositors.
Banks refusing to contribute? Let's deal with that later. One step at a time.

Your question is difficult to answer since posting about the DCS attracts criticism. I would like an open discussion of this point.


Again, one step at a time.

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 08:24

Again, one step at a time. What the LP recovers will be used to compensate depositors on a proportional basis, then the DCS will top up depositors below 50K up to the level of their deposit.

Some may actually see it as quite unfair that the DCS doesn't do anything for larger depositors, why shouldn't everyone suffer the same percentage of loss? Just pointing out here that when a couple of whingers complain that they don't want to have to wait for the DCS to be actuated, even though they will get all of their deposit back - perhaps these guys need to consider that some of the bigger deposits could have objected to unfair treatment by the DCS, though no one has -But better we don't go down that road eh?


dcs unfair treatment

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 05/01/2009 - 08:55

Yes, spot on, unfair treatment for bondholders and bigger depositors shall we start with that one, about the dcs payout. lets all be united, the enemy want divides because they rule better .


DCS

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 15:52

I am awaiting elgee's explanation as to how the DCS will actually work - as far as I can see there are to completely different views, and one of them is clearly wrong.

I feel it would be very wrong to imply to members that it is in their best interest that the DCS is triggered, when that suggestion is based upon false information.

Please explain as asked before using simple illustrations exactly how the DCS is going to function?


CM

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:01

He doesn't know,is the truth of it.


That's fair enough then -

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:07

That's fair enough then - there was me thinking it was nuclear physics....

I've posted the way I think it will work from the fabric of the scheme itself, and hope somebody will come along and explain to me that I am wrong - I hope for this because obviously the funds available to me will increase if that nice man from the DCS showers 50K on me on top of the funds from the liquidation.

I have this feeling though that more than a few people are going to be very disappointed when they realise just how gutless the DCS is, particularly if the receiver manages to realise say 50P in the pound which is looking likely at this time.


CM

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:19

I also believe that there are a 'few' who wont give a damn. As long as 'they' get their 'less than 50k back!'

'All for one and one for...............i'm alright Jack,sod the rest of them!'


Well yes, I am beginning to

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 16:30

Well yes, I am beginning to read it that way too. And all this posturing about us "bigger" depositors trying to do the <50K group down, when the key protestor possibly doesn't know how the DCS works (but then who does?) and as such may be shooting some depositors in the foot by suggesting it is kicked into life.


No it doesn't . Who says that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 15:30

No it doesn't . Who says that the Court won't take note of the suggestion that a vote should take place and issue an interim order to cause that to happen?

You know full well that the "committee" that you are so against has no legal standing, and that any voting that takes place will be in accordance with normal liquidation procedures, in other words, proportional voting. As it happens I am in favour of formal liquidation rules being used, as this is nearly a formal liquidation, you obviously don't as you now know that 30% of depositors have 4K or less in the pot.


It's interesting to note that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 12:28

It's interesting to note that PWC have confirmed that 30% of depositors have 4K or less.


THANK YOU

  • everhopeful
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:02

Many, many thanks to you Diver and to all the others for your tireless efforts on our i.e. all the depositors' behalf. It is very much appreciated. The IOM government do appear to have been very supportive and it can only enhance their future reputation as a safe place to invest.
As our funds were borrowed (at a large ongoing monthly cost) for investment, we are effectively in for over GBP600K and so have a large vested interest so please let me know what more I can do to help even though we are in France.

Campaign question:- If it hasn't already been considered, is it worthwhile contacting the UK tabloid press eg Mail, Mirror,Sun etc which are very good at successful campaigning, to start a campaign and lobby the UK government on the depositors' behalf to highlight our stories and our plight etc?

DCS Question:-This may not be the right forum but if the DCS is activated are depositors paid out pro-rata according to the size of their deposit subject to a max of GBP50K i.e. so we would all effectively receive the same % of our deposit back? Or if for example, one depositor has 50K and another 100K, would the 100K depositor only receive 50K i.e. only 50% of their deposit whereas the 50K depositor would recover 100% of their deposit?


DCS Answer

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:22

Hi everhopeful,

If the DCS is triggered, then the MAXIMUM any acct holder/depositor will receive is £50,000. So from your example above, anyone with £50,000 or less will at some point receive 100% of there money back, for anyone with over £50,000 deposited, they would lose the balance. Fortunately in a way for my partner and myself, the acct is in joint names, so we would receive at some point in the future £100,000, but what we have over and above this would be lost.
I would suggest you read the IOM's FSC documentation on the DCS.
It should also be noted that those for example with business accts will only receive a MAXIMUM of £20,000 for each acct. Those with bonds within wrappers from 3rd parties ie AXA/Prudential etc will only receive (I think) £20,000, per bond - so that would be divided by the number of people within that bond (ie 100 people would receive £200 each)


Well not really true. Just

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 15:03

Well not really true. Just because the DCS is triggered, it doesn't mean it pays out a penny, or if it does, it recovers it from the estate. It only pays out any shortfall up to 50K that the estate cannot pay.

If anyone is saying otherwise, then if the receiver can pay out even as low as 50P in the pound then all depositors with up to 100K will receive full satisafction except of course that the DCS has a graduated payment schedule.


DCS answer

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:29

This is incorrect. The DSC limit that you refer is the maximum payable under the DCS itself. If there is a winding up, then further monies would certainly be recovered above that limit by larger-value depositors in the liquidation after the DCS itself had recovered any monies it had paid by way of compensation. The situation that you refer to would only come about if there were no assets in the bank.


DCS

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 15:40

Elgee's answer is almost correct :-)
the DCS will pay out and NOT recover the difference between what the liquidation recovers and the claim limit for those eligible to claim.. so if liquidation recovers 75% (just for the sake of example).. ie. 75p in the £. The DCS will pay 25p to claimants upto the limit.. ie. 50k for retail depositors and 20k for businesses.
So if you are entitled to 50k under the scheme.. and you deposited 67k and liquidation recovers 75p in the £.. you will get 50k (plus a few quid because I've rounded the numbers..) and not cost the DCS anything..
If you deposited 100k.. you will get 75k and not cost the DCS anything
If you deposited 50k, you will get 50k of which 12.5k will come from the IoM government DCS.
If you deposited 25k, you will get 25k of which 6.25k will come from the IoM DCS.

Can you confirm elgee?

Don't even think about asking me what happens about interest!! :-)


OK, let's take a look at the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 16:54

OK, let's take a look at the following:-

CM has a deposit of 200K in the bank.

Magically the DCS scheme finds itself fully funded or borrows money before the liquidator pays out.

CM gets 50K from the scheme.

That's nice isn't it?

Now some months later the liquidator announces that he has recovered 50P in the pound.

CM is so happy, he thinks he will get another 100K, but then he READS the DCS (and he hopes he is wrong on this) which tells him ....

• no compensation will be paid unless the depositor has agreed that his existing
rights in respect of his eligible protected deposit will vest in the Scheme
Manager [Regulation 16(2)]. This is known as subrogation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrogation)

So what it means is that in actual fact he signs over his deposit to the scheme manager who will recover his initial 50 K from the liquidators dividend, so in actual fact CM would apear to be back in the same position he was, except that (with the will of God) he may have had a bit of money a bit earlier.

From what we can see, even with Mike Simpsons kak handed efforts, we could recover back 30P in the pound tomorrow, add to that the 50K from the scheme, and only those with over £71,428.56 give or take would lose.

The wording seems to confirm this, but who the heck knows?

What is subrogation?
Before compensation can be paid to a depositor in respect of an eligible protected
deposit, that depositor must have agreed that his rights in respect of that liability shall
vest in the Scheme Manager [Regulation 16(2)]. Where the depositor so agrees, the
entire liability to the depositor of the Participant is extinguished and there is conferred
on the Scheme Manager a right of recovery against the Participant being a right
otherwise identical to the depositor’s right in respect of the liability agreed to be vested
in the Scheme Manager [Regulation 16(3)].

Out of any sums recovered by the Scheme Manager from the liquidator, administrator or
receiver of the Participant, by virtue of the rights vested in it by a depositor, the
Scheme Manager is entitled to retain an amount equal to the aggregate of:-
• the amount of compensation paid to a depositor in respect of their eligible
protected deposit; and
• the costs of recovery of any such sums [Regulation 16(5)].
Any amounts recovered which exceed the amount which the Scheme Manager is entitled
to retain shall be paid to the depositor [Regulation 16(4)].

They key phrase would appear to be :-

the
Scheme Manager is entitled to retain an amount equal to the aggregate of:-
• the amount of compensation paid to a depositor in respect of their eligible
protected deposit; and
• the costs of recovery of any such sums [Regulation 16(5)].

It's frightening we have got this far and we are still believing that whatever happens the scheme will actually pay out if there is a surplus of funds payable from the estate.
I really hope I have made a complete mess of understanding this, and that in actual fact I'll get 50K on top of my dividend.


DCS

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 17:41

Captain

The DCS was written in haste and although amended soon after it is still not very clear. However below is my understanding.

The DCS is a “top up” scheme. So in your example of someone with a £200k deposit if PWC paid a dividend of 30p in the £ you would receive £60k from PWC and nothing from the DCS

However someone with £60k deposit would receive £18k from PWC and so would be entitled to £32k from the DCS to bring them up to £50k.

Someone with £40k would receive £12k from PWC and £28k from the DCS

If PWC then managed to recover a further 50p in the £ you would recover a further £100k and be sat on £160k.

The depositor with £60k gets nothing more as he has already received £50k (83.33%)

Of the further £30k due to him the DCS would take this to repay the £32k they paid out, so in effect they would have only paid out £2k.

The £40k depositor would receive nothing from PWC and all £20k would be used to repay the DCS.

If PWC then recover a further 10% you would get another £20k and be sat on £180k.

The depositor with £60k would receive £4k from PWC the other £2k being paid to the DCS. So he would then have recovered £54k.

In this case the DCS would have paid out nothing.

The £40k depositor would again receive nothing from PWC and the £4k would again be used to repay the DCS. So at the end of this process the DCS would have paid out £4k


Sorry to disagree but I don't

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 13:28

Sorry to disagree but I don't see it that way at all.

Let's look at a couple of examples:-

We know that we assign our right to our deposit to "the scheme"
Let's assume that PWC manage to recover a final dividend of 26P in the pound

We have Joe who has invested £4K in the bank (we now know that 30% of depositors have 4K or less in the bank)

We have CM who has £200K in then bank.

Let's now assume that the DCS is sufficiently funded to be able to make a payout directly on activation.

Joe gets 4K and is fully paid up

CM gets 50K from the scheme.

Now, PWC pay out a full and final dividend of 26P in the pound.

So, to Joe's account they pay £1040

and CM's account receives £52,000

The scheme directly grabs the £1040 paid to Joe's account and as such suffers a loss of £2960, but with CM's payment, there is a surplus of 2K which gets passed on to CM.

It's as simple as that, the scheme isn't going to see CM get £102,000 and Joe get 4K, CM will end up with nothing from the scheme, and Joe will "cost" the scheme £2960.

That's the way it reads at the moment, or why all the mention of depositors having to assign the rights to the scheme?

Let's look at our 30% of 8000 ish depositors now (and I have left out bonds at the moment as I am not in the mood for simultaneous equations).

30% of 8000 comes out out 2400.
Let's assume again that the average deposit is 2K.

Let's assume again that IoM have a great deal more info than we do. They are preparing to pay out 1K per depositor - and 30% of depositors have less than 4K. I think they know that KSF IoM is easily safe for 25P in the pound, they would have paid out a flat fee otherwise, can you imagine them trying to recover a payment from a depositor who had received more emergency money than he got from the PWC dividend?

So a 25P payout would give each of those depositors £500 from PWC and leave the DCS having to make up £1500, and let's multiply that by 2400, which leaves the scheme paying out £3,600,000 just to those depositors. Shall we guess again and say that the next 40% of depositors have an average of 50K in the pot (the numbers don't matter, the theory does) .
These depositors cost the scheme a further £120,000,000. It doesn't take a lot of working out to see how underfunded the scheme will be on a 25P in the pound return. The IoM know pretty much exactly how much PWC are going to recover at this moment, and you can bet their figures fit their liability pretty closely.

There is no way that this scheme is going to do anything other than a top-up, and I would guess that it will only take a very slight hit because of the lower end depositors. The bigger depositors won't get a penny out of the scheme.


DCS explanation

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 17:46

ally
good explanation ... thats how i understand the DCS to work.

would just add the amounts are per depositor - at least for the DCS element - not sure if it will be the same for the PWC recovered amounts.


PWC recovered

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 03/01/2009 - 03:54

any from PWC will be per account - not per depositor, for ease of figures- if we take the example of 200k in joint account - the DCS has already effectively paid out 50p in the £ - therefore anything above 50p recovered by PWC would be paid to the account holders, everything up to 50p would go straight to DCS.


DCS

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 16:22

On the question of interest, I believe interest is due up to 9th October 2008, the day KSFIoM lost its banking licence. It cannot pay interest after this date as it is no longer a bank i.e. does not have a banking licence.

This is the reason why when statements have been posted out they have included interest due up to 9th October 2008 and not beyond. It is the amount shown as owing to a depositor on 9th October that is due, so this includes all interest up to 9th October. So if someone had £40k in a one year bond paying 6% due to mature on 31st Dec 2008 they would be due £1,855 up to 9th October and their total deposit due is £41,855.

They would thereofore recover all of this amount as they are guaranteed up to £50k under the DCS.

Likewise if someone had a £100k bond running on the same dates at 9th Oct they would be due £4,639 of interest and have a total deposit of £104,639. Lets say the liquidator paid out 70% they would receive £73,427 (being 70% of the total of deposit and interest dure up to 9th Oct 2008).


Should interest continue to accrue

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 19:56

Ally,

I have wondered about this myself. The bank are continuing to charge interest on any mortgages and loans that they have on the books despite having lost their banking license.

The right to be paid interest is surely a contractual one between the depositor and the bank- the fact that the FSC chose to suspend the license of KSFIOM doesnt affect the contractual relationship, surely?

If the payment of interest is a licensable activity (I thought that, from memory the key 'activity' that was licensable for banking was 'deposit taking') and the bank doesnt have a license then that is the bank's problem not the depositors?

The Regulatory Activities Order 2008 (FSA 2008) defines banking as inter alia accepting deposits. Since no deposits are being accepted. I wouldn't have thought - from a laymans reading - that the RAO 2008 that the payment of interest would be a licensable activity.

I haven't researched the legal position here, but I think it would be quite inequitable for any interest not to continue to accrue - thats not to say there is not some statutory provisions here that I am unaware of.

This is a point that could be added onto the engaged IoM advocates list, although I am sure that as you know living in the IoM a friendly word with an advocate with banking knowledge would provide a faster route to the correct answer.


Interest on accounts

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 16:37

I checked our Non-Edge accounts online when it came back to life, and our accounts show interest paid up to October 9, 2008. The account also shows a "Next Interest Application Date" of 31/10/09 for our Platinum Offfshore Access (used to be Annual Interest payment on March 31 each year). The Money Market Account (which was quarterly interest) now shows next interest aplication date of 31/01/09. Can we be so hopeful that eveything is going to be sorted out and we will eventually see those payments.


DCS

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 16:32

Thanks for your clear explanation Ally. My original post was made with the intent of showing the base line, because at present as far as I know, what the percentage will be is only "guesswork", until we hear more clear information from PWC as to the financial state of KSFIOM


Run this by me again -Are

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 15:13

Run this by me again -

Are you telling me that the dividend from the liquidator will be increased above 50K by the DCS? in other words, for example if I receive 100K from the liquidator, that I will receive a further 50K from the DCS?

OR

Are you saying that the DCS will make good any shortfall from the liquidator up to a maximum of 50K?

From your post it seems you are suggesting that my first scenario is the case - is this what you are really saying?

From the DCS.....

The Scheme Manager is required to deduct from the amount of any compensation which
would otherwise be payable to a depositor the following sums [Regulation 10 (5)]:-

• the amount of any payment made to a depositor under any scheme for
protecting or assisting depositors or investors in respect of the relevant eligible
protected deposit or any dividend or distribution relating to that deposit.

Whoops - they seem to have this covered.


that is not the route

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:40

That is not the route that were going down, liquidation with no assets, but well explained elgee. can I just ask by the 15th I presume that they know roughly the e and y report would that be correct?


DCS Answer

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:37

Yes, well we were/I was talking directly about the DCS, which at present has to the minimum/worst case scenario. If there is monies left over after liquidation then thats good, but as of today we have no clear knowledge that that would be the case.


Don't kid yourself - whilst

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 14:56

Don't kid yourself - whilst the DCS may payout initially, it will recover ever last penny it pays out from PWC because of the assignment of your deposit that you agree to.

The DCS is only a makeweight in the case of the liquidation not being able to pay out depositors with over 50K, not a top-up on top of the monies recovered by the liquidator.

Have a read of the DCS. One of the posters here took the advice of a London barrister regarding this point, though to be honest I'd like to know exactly what he managed to deduce from a document that would fail a "clarity mark" check.

Interestingly the DCS scheme could pay out quite quickly as it does have the power to borrow to make advances, but I think the IoM know full well that a cheaper option is to see the bank on it's feet again using the money set aside for the DCS.


thats what we want

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 16:51

thats what we want a bank on its feet again...


Thank You

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 13:15

Another sincere BIG thank you for all your efforts, you are giving us all hope for 2009.


DAG REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE

  • saoversoix
  • 10/10/08 02/07/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 01/01/2009 - 16:29

I am sending a heartfelt thank you to the members of the committee for your tireless efforts on our behalf.. I really don't know where we would be without you all. This news is definitely helping me to "think positive".


A "very significant step for all of us" - indeed it is.

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 01/01/2009 - 07:17

"This is a very significant step for all of us..." Indeed it is. Thank you so much to all those who have achieved this movement, and thank you so much for all that you will be doing to help to achieve KSFIOMDAG's objective: "to recover 100% of our money at the earliest opportunity".

Excellent, hopeful, news with which to begin 2009.


happy new year to us all

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 01/01/2009 - 08:28

Happy new year to us all. we were in a uae dinner party,, a lovely group of lebanese crowd who know of our plight. Ofourse they find the whole thing shocking and what is it they say why did you go to the isle of man to put your funds in ?.why not here in dubai. Well ofcourse when you have a greedy stupid ifa that recommended it in the first place. I just wanted to say do this IOM govt think this is all going to be forgotten if they dont put it right, because it wont. I am in thinking that are we waiting for nationalisation only on the outcome of the ksfuk comeback funds or are we going for that dreaded liquidation.. instead. Yhere must be one uk law company that would take this as a no win no fee if that dreaded route of the L is taken.
Also how can any ifa look at a client and sell them a so called safe bond again on those truman show islands.


Simply, thank you to all of you

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 31/12/2008 - 13:27

We thank you all for your efforts. You have achieved so much. Our own efforts seem to have had little effect, mainly, though as part of a whole, more. We do keep writing to whomsoever we think should be put in the picture and will not stop till the end. We are now retired (well, I got retired off end of November as I had just reached 60 and Saudization and my particular contract didn´t allow me to stay any longer, though in my present circumstances I wish I could have)! We are now back in UK, minus most of our joint savings of the last 8 and a half years in Saudi Arabia. We are paying tax, naturally, on interest from a deposit we have in another bank but since the interest is little we are having to spend capital. However, when our money does come back to us from KSFIOM we will of course be paying tax on interest there too (and hopefully living on the interest). So, the treasury will benefit in the end from two people who left UK while they could, to work to provide for a future for themselves whereby they would be self-sufficient and never need to have to rely on hand-outs etc., on their return to UK. In addition, the government will be able to tax these two people since they have savings which accrue interest which in turn can be taxed. We were with Derbyshire IOM, originally, with a one-year bond before we were sold out to KSFIOM. We had no say in where our savings went. The rest is history but all of you have been a great source of strength and encouragement to us in this struggle and we want to thank you all for that. Happy New Year, may justice prevail and see a speedy return of everybdy´s savings. We´ll give a toast to you this evening.


Derbyshire Group

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 31/12/2008 - 13:41

Hi peter and louise you don't seem to be members of the Derbyshire group it could be helpful if you joined and read the following posting http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/category/tags/derbyshire-building-society you will find that you are by no means the only one to have been trapped by a fixed term bond!


Thank you!

  • oap
  • 08/11/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/12/2008 - 12:49

Thank you, Diver, and all the committee. You have my admiration, heartfelt gratitude and full support.


As far away as I am,

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/12/2008 - 10:46

As far away as I am, frustrated and powerless most of the time, I am really grateful to Diver et al for all their efforts. Let's hope that by next Christmas, this horror will be over and our money back in the hands of its rightful owners.

Despite the miserable situation, I'd like to wish one and all a happy Christmas and New Year.


BEWARE all claims.

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/12/2008 - 11:11

We are all wondering why the IOM government is making a token payment of £1,000 and no more. The answer, a political decision to help those who are being hit hard.
I don't think so.
For those of you who are thinking about making a claim, take a look at the information that you are disclosing and wonder where that information is going. Without doubt your information will be in the hands of your taxation authorities within minutes of being received and certainly before any payment is made to you. If you are considered ineligible then watch out, the taxman will be after you for tax on money you have already lost and do not have. Once you are on their scanner you will remain there for the rest of your days.
£11m is a small price to pay for all the data the IOMG will receive and this provides a launching pad for investigations from which they, HMRC and others stand to claw back this amount many times over.
The isle of man is in a precarious position, unde the microscope of the UK, the US and even the Vatican, it will attempt to buy friends through exchange of information. Look at the exchange of information agreements they already have in place.
CAVEAT.


£1,000 token payment

  • Kenman
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/12/2008 - 16:32

This £11,000,000 represents around £150 from every man woman and child on the Island.
I can't see the overall problem being the fault of the Manx Govt. Having filled in the form to get my £1,000, I could not see anything in the form that asked questions about my tax returns, where the money came from etc. Just giving them details of the account no. and the total sum involved which you will have to do anyway. The problem is the UK Govt. which is holding the 600,000,000 approx. forwarded by KSFIOM. Personally I don't think we will ever see the money again.


I never realised - I thought

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 02/01/2009 - 15:07

I never realised - I thought that £550M was locked up in the administration of KSF UK (which may well be as a result of the actions of the UK) - I didn't know old hairy luggs had that dough in his briefcase.

We have lost out, and UK depostors have had their losses mitigated off of our deposits.


so you think that

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/12/2008 - 16:50

Hello kenman you think then that we are all being led up the garden path?as for 600 million which they have taken from our accounts I beleive some funds will be restrieved and the IOMg know that , hence the liquidation delays also the bringing in of a restructuring company. What the uk and all govts involved here have done is plain malice andeach individual that was involved witn this will have to live with their consciences. I know and I dont want to sound eerie but injustices will be served on them not now but in some way later on in life., beleive me.


who are THEY/

  • Kenman
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:14

These un named individuals THEY', who and what arethey' and them?, I,m sure its not the Manx Govt. who would very much like to see the whole debacle blow away. As to damnation from heaven or hell as you wish, it just aint going to happen. Possession is , as they say, nine points of the law, and whoever has that 600 million is not going to part with it. In the three months we have been putting our case to my knowledge no one has admitted having the money. It is speculated that the UK treasury has impounded it! Has the UK treasury gone on record they are holding the cash? Is it part of the KSFUK/ING deal?