Who to give my Proxy to?

Ziggy,
Good to hear from you again. I appreciate this is a delicate situation here & there is some complex history on all sides, which I was fortunate not to be involved in. I won't go on at length here, but I would make the following observations - the KEY thing here in my view is that HNW depositors consider giving their discretionary proxy to either Stuart or me (Gavin)
- I also wanted to point out to everyone that Stuart and I are NOT competing against each other here - quite the opposite, our intention is that we work as closely together as we can and I believe we have developed a strong working relationship over the past week or so since the final documents were first released. I have huge respect for Stuart
- The reason this two proxy situation arose was because quite a few HNWs were not comfortable giving their proxy to the DAG group. I am not being critical in any way here. Take me as an example. I have massive respect for what DAG has achieved, and for those in its leadership who have contributed huge amounts, personally and professionally. But this is now a critical stage in the process (ie. the vote) and fundamentally I am not comfortable giving my proxy on my £900k deposit to the DAG. Two main reasons for this - (i) I do not agree that the SOA decision is best left to the lawyers at Edwin Coe. Again, I am not being critical here - I have great respect for David Greene and the team at Edwin Coe. However, I firmly believe that the decision on whether to accept the SOA will be both LEGAL and FINANCIAL, and in my professional experience of negotiating complex financial transactions, lawyers make the legal judgments, but do not make the financial judgments. To me, this is a very important point, but I recognise others may not share my view; (ii) I was not comfortable with the fact that DAG was also collecting proxies from sub £50k folks. Again, this is very much a personal view, but I have stated in various emails elsewhere that I believe that sub £50ks should vote yes to the current SOA and over £50ks should vote no. A number of HNWs have the same view as I do, hence the decision was taken to have a HNW specific proxy based on this view, and I offered to fill the seat. To be clear, I am seeking proxies from HNWs only (over £50k per depositor)
- I believe we all agree that one proxy per creditor class would have been more straight forward, but this did not prove achievable. Hence we have two, but again I want to emphasise to everyone that this is not a competition, but more a situation which offers people (HNWs) a choice
- There is a difference in the decision making process for each proxy - as stated elsewhere, I understand Stuart/DAG will be guided by the advice of Edwin Coe, I have stated that I follow the majority decision of a HNW committee of 9 (cvs for each are elsewhere on the site) basing our decision on both financial and legal considerations. I believe we shoudl vote no to the SOA if it is left as it is today
- In practice I would expect that our decisions are likely to be the same, but this is not guaranteed, otherwise no point in have two of us with different decision making procedures
- I would end by suggesting again that HNWs think more that they now have two choices to consider - Stuart/DAG or Gavin/HNW. Think of it as a positive - some might prefer the explicit Edwin Coe link, others might like the idea of the Committee of fellow HNWs using their experience and judgment.
- The final suggestion would be to ensure that you do give your proxy to someone - if not me, Stuart, if not Stuart, me.
- As everyone knows the more proxies we get (Stuart and Gavin combined) the more ability we have to try and negotiate a better deal. Perhaps we may even end up getting more HNW proxies overall through giving HNWs a choice of two to consider.

Gavin

Is this really such a hard decision? Giving your Proxy to the DAG team is the only sensible thing to do. This simply gives them a stronger hand to play with. If we stand together we MUST have a better chance of getting our money back.
It is impossible for most of us to know anyone in the DAG strategy team or the legal representatives, but surely it's better to go with people who are on the same side. Working for us!!
The IoM have made it very clear that they are not on our side. If they were then the whole fiasco would be more open and the SoA less one sided or even non existent. They are firmly placed on their own side and perfectly willing to see us loose our hard earned cash.

Furthermore, voting with a splinter group just serves to water down the DAG team strength. I see absolutely NO point in doing that.

Hello Ziggy

I wonder if you feel ashamed at your highly personal and pretty ugly email. There is just no need.

Whilst you all contemplate your choices, as I have, and as Gavin (hopper), Steve Thomas (expat), Alistair, Hilde, Nigel, Peter, Dipika and the hundreds who have contacted us have, all I would say its as simple as this. its your choice, but you should really make one.

In coming to my decision, I have personally considered the three points below.

1. who in fact is the strategy team behind DAG. do you know who you are actually handing your own money over to, to vote on your behalf. do you know who the list of people are that are instructing the lawyers and how qualified they are to be making the right decisions and instructions with your money and also on behalf of your money. Do they have the same issues and problems as you, are they in the same position as you. If you are in business would you ever give a lawyer permission to make a decision on your behalf, without first understanding his position and process he is going to go through to get to that decision? If you are comfortable with your level of initimacy with this information, great, give your vote to DAG strategy. I am not trying to convince you otherwise, all I have been doing is providing you with an alternative.
2. do you understand their voting and negotiation position, because if you are giving them your discretionary proxy, de facto YOUR vote can be changed to yes or no, by the team above. It seems to me that Ziggy is saying its a clear no. If so, then why dont you just vote no? on your own - send your no vote to mike simpson? do you understand why are DAG strategy team asking for discretionary proxys, and what they intend on doing with them. so back to point one...are you going to cast your own vote, or give it to a person you trust to switch it between yes and no. How is the switching choice going to be made?
3. and do you want your proxy (which can be swung to yes or no) be decided by a lawyer + stuart or seven depositors like yourself (including a goldman sachs MD and a harvard lawyer, steve thomas, peter wakeham, nigel smith (frog), hilde bartlett (business woman of the year)). Again, its personal, my sister is a lawyer, so i am happy saying this. lawyers are not in the best position to make judgement calls, they examine evidence and tell you the pros and cons. We have put together a mix of people with excellent legal experience, and good businesses judgement to decide what to do with the proxys. Actually I think Edwin Coe are pretty good too. However, I dont have enough of a level of comfort about the answers to the questions in 1,2,and 3 to happily hand my family's future over in a discretionary proxy

I dont like that Ziggy is suggesting I have anything to do with stopping legal funding. I have in fact paid £400 myself. I am happy for you all to check this. However, i do repeatedly suggest it might be good to be sharing the written legal opinion with those that are funding it, and possibly more money would flow in if this were made available to those funding the legal fund.

Suffice to say that thats it from my side. please see the list of the people and process involved in determining the proxy vote with gavin Brakes name on it. If you want to send the proxy to us, great, we welcome it. If you want to send it to Stuart Roberts, great. if you want to vote on your own. great.

regards
Adrienne

First blog on this matter: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/depositors-50k-companies-20k...
Second blog : http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/depositors-50k-companies-20k...

INFORMATION ON THE CLASS 2 PROXY PROCESS AND COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENT

HOW THE PROCESS WILL WORK
The proxy votes held the name of Gavin Brake will be a committee vote which is both public and fair and will be democratically voted on by a group of high value depositors. We will be taking advice from the lawyers as one of the inputs into the voting process, although we disagree that they should be in the driving seat of the decision process.

The committee will operate as follows

I will collate all proxy votes given in Gavins name received on or before the 14th. and we will co-ordinate with Edwin Coe to ensure we have counted all proxys for gavin
• Gavin will negotiate with his discretion, and will formulate a set of recommendations / options, taking into account DAGs lawyers opinion.
• Gavin will bring his recommendations and the options / best offer to the group on a conference call at the appropriate time before the vote
• Adrienne will facilitate the meeting to ensure everyone has the opportunity to express their views, and will also facilitate the final vote amongst the members
• Committee will be an odd number, Gavin himself will have one vote
• Each member MUST vote yes, no and MAY not abstain
• The majority rules, gavins personal vote will be cast on the majority
• Adrienne will notify the proxy givers the outcome of the vote immediately following the call
• Call will be minuted

WHO IS ON THE COMMITTEE (alphabetical order)

We are creating this advisory in no formal capacity but simply as fellow depositors with deposits in KSF IOM greater than the DCSlimit of 50,000.

A. Hilde Bartlett (fortuna)
Hilde Bartlett - UK national, living in Hampshire. I have £2.6mill deposited in KSFIOM, which is the majority of the proceeds on selling my business, as I wanted to retire. It is all private money, tax paid. Together with a business partner, over many years, I built up an IT company to approx. £16mill Turnover. During that time I won two "Women in Business Awards" in 1995 (presented by Richard Branson) and 1996 (presented by Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor). I was a magistrate for over 8 years and sat on the bench at Aldershot. I currently lecture part time at the Surrey University on Entrepreneurship and run mentoring sessions with young, budding entrepreneurs. I am totally committed to our cause and will put all my energy and skills into getting 100% of our money back.

B. Gavin Brake (Hopper)

Age 38. UK national, UK tax payer, Currently living in Devon in the UK
Degree from Cambridge University (St Catherine’s College)
1993 – 2005: Goldman Sachs
1993 – 1997 Mergers & Acquisitions (in UK & US)
1997 – 2000 Equities (Capital Markets, Structured Trades, UK & Nordic Regions)
2000 – 2005 Financing Group (Managing Director 2004 and Joint Head of UK Financing Business)
2005 – present: Devon (change of lifestyle)
I own two farms in Devon, one equestrian and one under development. I am the Chairman of my local Parish Council. I am one of four Trustees of a 640 acre private estate in my Parish. I co-own & help run two limited companies, both of which represent businesses I helped close family members establish or buy (my brother and my brother-in-law)
Both my wife and I have accounts - on the various court papers which you may have seen, you will see both our names (Gavin Brake and Kate Jarman) listed as interested parties along with the insurers. I did this very early on to make sure I was kept informed of all court proceedings. We have approximately £925,000 between us, as direct retail deposits, of which just over £900,000 is in my sole name. My wife applied for the £10,000 EPS2, I did not. My £900,000 was inflight (a sterling CHAPS transfer which should have gone through on Monday 6 Oct ober2008), which is why I began a group legal action back in October 2008 (my DAG name was/is HOPPER). Things are still happening here, in summary seeking to clarify if any unlawful intervention was made into the UK CHAPS process by either RBS/Natwest or the UK Government. In my view this does not interfere with my role with regard to proxies
I have met Alan Bell and John Spellman once in London at the end of March, at a meeting with senior Tory MPs organised by the HNW team, and I employ a friend of John Spellman in one of my family companies, though I did not know this until after KSFIOM went into provisional liquidation. The only impact of this fact is that I have been able to speak to John Spellman direct from the early days

C. Mira Davidovski

Independent Legal Consultant, (Legal Services industry) February 2008 — Present (1 year 4 months)
Partner Salans
(Partnership; Law Practice industry), June 1992 — December 2007 (15 years 7 months)
London 2001-2007; New York 2000-2001; Paris 1996-2000; Moscow 1994-1996. CIS & Russian Practice Group; Head of CIS & Russian Banking Practice Group 2002-2007; Chair of Global Legal Opinions Committee 2002-2006; Global Financial Institutions Practice Group facilitator 1998-2001; Client Team Head 2001-2007. Advice to multinational corporate clients, banks, and international financial institutions in finance, securities, telecommunications, media, pharmaceuticals, luxury goods, and natural resource sectors in Russia and the CIS.
Education
• University of Maryland School of Law, J.D., Law, 1982 — 1985
Activities and Societies: Joseph Bernstein Prize (for publication); Moot Court Board 1983-1985; Jessup International Moot Court Competition, Best Brief Award (Mid-Atlantic Region) 1984-1985; Maryland Journal of International Law & Trade, Articles Editor.
• Harvard University , A.B. cum laude, Government, 1977 — 1981

D. Alistair Lees (BC)

I live in Barbados where my full time job is bringing up my twin daughters who are 3. Hold with partner 440,000 GBP in KSFIOM/previously Derbyshire IOM for last 8 years. Trained as a barrister but worked for 16 years as a oil/energy trader, setting up trading/marketing teams in Europe, South America and the USA. Heavily involved in large mergers and acquisitions activity. Down shifted in 2005 to take a lead role in the charity SOS Children's Village (SOS Kinderdorf) with responsibility for the FIFA 2006 World Cup of which SOS was the official charity. Previously one of the founders of the Shareholders United (now MUST) that fought and won the battle against BSkyB to take over Manchester United and fought and lost the Glazer family's similar takeover.

E.Adrienne Liebenberg (Liebenk)

Global Head of Products - the Linde group, based in UK
Have worked at Afrox / BOC / Linde (the Linde group) since 1996
BSc Engineering University of witwatersrand, johannesburg, South Africa
Post-graduate eductaion at Chicago Business School, Wits Business School and Oxford Said
I am acting on behalf of my parents who are retired and have their life savings in Kaupthing. We are large retail depositors.
Alistair and I set up the HNW group in february.Gavin and I have been working together for several months, I have been in regular contact with Hilde, Stephen and Peter for about four months.

F. Nigel Smith (Frog)

Current contact leading conference calls with mike Simpson. Will provide brief profile tongight.

G. Stephen Thomas (expat)
Title Director
Work Location Moscow, Russia
Qualifications BA Architecture (Oxon) Oxford School of Architecture
Politics, Philosophy and Economics BA (Oxon)

Professional 2007-present Director, Hot Data, Project Strategies
2005-2007 Head of Moscow City Project
2002-2005 General Director Davis Langdon, Russia
2001-2002 Project Manager, Samsung Corporation, Russia
1999-2001 Director, HOK, Moscow Russia
1995-1999 Director, Hot Data Project Strategies
1984-1995Director, Beaton-Thomas Partnership, UK
1977-1984Regional Manager, Scott,Brownrigg and Turner MiddleEast

H. Dipika Shah

I am a large private depositor, but my background is as follows: Qualified chartered accountant and been involved in M&A since 1995, previously with Kleinwort Benson (now known as Dresdner Bank) and more recently (2000-2008) with Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America). I was a Director at ML when I left in early 2008.

I. Peter Wakeham

Retired
Most recently, late developer entrepreneur.
In 1989 founded WILink (now PrecisionIR) a leading investor relations and communications firm, listed on AIM in 2000 and then sold to USA based Private Equity Fund in 2006. At its peak WILink had 4,200 corporate and mutual fund clients across 14 countries in Europe and North America
Formerly blue chip multi national executive
Senior international marketing and general management positions in UK, Sweden, Japan and USA with Mars Inc and PepsiCo Inc
Management consultancy with McKinsey & Company and self employed, working for clients in UK, Denmark, Sweden, Australia and Middle East
Founder member of buy-out team which acquired Bricom, a business services conglomerate, from British and Commonwealth Holdings Plc in 1987
Divisional Director, Business Services Europe for BET Plc until its acquisition by Rentokil-Initial Plc in 1996, after which full-time role with own company WILink

Delighted to read your posting Diver, postings from you are rare but always useful and make intelligent reading.
Finally made our mind up after so much confusion. We will be passing our vote over to Stuart at DAG.

Diver,
I share your worries about a sub-group of us splitting off to collect proxy votes, and have written to the non-DAG group to ask why they feel the need do it. The cvs of the people comprising the group are excellent, and I do not question their integrity in the slightest. It's the logic that I fail to understand.
But, I have another question which is bugging me and I would like to put it to both groups. It is as follows: assume we give our proxies to one or other of the named persons, assume their transport to IOM fails - ferry is held up by bad weather, flight is cancelled, car breaks down on way to meeting, or assume the named person is suddenly incapacitated - then what happens to our votes?
Can both groups please tell me urgently what measures they have put in place to protect us against such eventualities. I would have thought we would be better to give proxy to a corporate body, preferably Edwin Coe partners, who may choose any of their partners/members/ to make sure our proxies are used.
I too will declare my colours: we three family depositors are firmly against the SOA and will be voting against it in one way or another.

Thanks Diver for posting again. Wherever you are now, clearly you have not lost the north!

I have already stated below that my vote has gone to the DAG proxy via Edwin Coe.

But I too am sorry to see that we have two groups offering proxies for what appear to be similar positions, thus causing much confusion among depositors. I realise there are historical reasons for this, but surely that is now water under the bridge? No-one is interested in who may have been 'right' or 'wrong' in the past - and maybe in any case no-one will ever know the real answer to that. The point is in the here and now. By whatever route, it seems the two groups are now in basic agreement - that the SoA as presently proposed is not acceptable. Is it too late for you to come together? If it's a matter of pride, please swallow it for the common good. Maybe together we can ...

Whatever happens, I do hope the two groups will stick together and present a UNITED FRONT in the coming weeks. Further divisions at this critical time are definitely not what we need.

Our proxy votes have also been assigned to Stuart, the official DAG representative. We are also ex-Derbyshire, over 50k. Best of luck!

We have already sent off our proxy vote to Stuart Roberts at Edwin Coe offices in London. The IOM Government is NOT working for our benefit and they do NOT have our best interests at heart. The DAG Strategic Team and Edwin Coe IS and DO. The IOM Government have shown themselves to be double-dealing and should certainly NEVER be trusted to take the honourable, just and fair route. They had the chance to sort all this out properly and chose NOT to go that route. We listened to the IOM barristers, for 6 hours, in the IOM courtroom. We sat in silence and dismay to the way they set out their programme. We listened as they told the Deemster he need not concern himself with certain matters, certain matters which to us depositors were of paramount importance. We saw how they narrowed and narrowed yet further the parameters within which they wanted to operate. And in the end they shackled us to their scheming. No quarter nor concern was ever given to us innocent depositors. No shame either, demonstrated by their second rate scheme. They well know that they are pulling a fast one and for one saw a self-satisfied smirk on their Barrister´s face as he left the courthouse. And look at all the anxiety which we have all suffered for so long. All this could have been averted with the will and the power by those who could. The solution was and is with the IOM. Keep on fighting against that lot. We will forever regret it if we don´t. Best Wishes to all.

DAG has been here for us since the beginning and has kept this going throughout. Their resilience has been outstanding (special mention also to ng for the outstanding IT work he has done). They deserve our support.

SUPPORT DAG - STAND UNITED - MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.

STUART ROBERTS FOR PROXY

Good to hear your voice of common sense again Diver.

I have been talking to lots and lots of depositors on the help line and none, absolutly none, of those are going for SOA, and they are going the DAG route. So who are these people trying to force SOA down our throats on this website? Where do they come from.

We've been paying money to the DAG lawyers so the least we can do is follow their advice. And that is what we have done. 2 proxys to EC to join all the others that have gone that way.