Winding Up Order Adjoiurned until 9th April

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 19/02/2009 - 15:39

Adjournemt until 9th April to allow SoA to develop.

I

2.642855
Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (14 votes)

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

Full judgement here

  • hardyboyz
  • 13/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 21/02/2009 - 10:45

I don't know if this has been posted elswhere but here is a link to the court judgement.
http://www.judgments.im/content/J917.htm

As a non lawyer I found some of the comments interesting:
para 6
"In many ways the key point so far as I was concerned at the last Court, and to some extent now, is the question of claims against third parties, and there is also the question of timescale. So far as claims against third parties are concerned it is, I must say, a little disappointing that the draft Scheme does not at present address this at all and I think this is unfortunate." - yet he still allowed the adjournment and doesn't seem to insist on any improvement here

para 14
"However, today it has been emphasised to me that a main advantage of the Scheme being propounded today is its security, i.e. that there will be certainty with payments because these payments are guaranteed and the payment dates are virtually guaranteed." - so the main reason we have an SOA is that the much vaunted DCS is in his view not quite as good as the IOMG would have everyone believe.

par17
"There is no doubt that a Creditors' Committee must be set up in order for them to have meaningful input into the process." - but no mention of how. Why do Royal Skandia believe they have a place on it?

I assume our legal people are looking into this and give us a view on the best way forward


re:Full judgement here

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 21/02/2009 - 12:08

hardyboyz

To begin with let me say that I am not posting neither for nor against the SoA

The judgement is there for everyone to see and you have posted relevant paragraphs.

However with regard to legal powers of the SoA to pursue third parties as you have highlighted in paragraph 6 is not addressed in the Scheme document itself.

However the Court was satisfied that the legal powers available to the Scheme would be the same as in liquidation apart from the power to pursue the directors if there was fraudulent trading. However he did say that the provisional liquidators could always come back to the Court and ask for additional powers to pursue this particular course of action (paragraphs 7 & 18 of the judgement)


SBS

  • SBS
  • 28/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:09

This is a complete farce. I hope that at the G20 meeting in April these UK dependent territories are removed from the financial scene lock, stock and barrel.

This kind of incompetence and trickery is not compatible with an open, well regulated and sound financial centre, and the sooner it is consigned to the dustbin of history the better. Although I have no time for the present UK administration, perhaps if the UK took responsibility for the IoM in total, it would be no bad thing.

SBS.


DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:09

I wish somebody would address the non-compensatory nature of the Depositor's Compensation Scheme! Why have we not received any compensation in 18 weeks? Each postponement of liquidation postpones activation of the DCS. Collateral damage to the SoA / liquidation dispute. How is the IoM government allowed to get away with sinking the scheme in this way? Parental guarantee, gone. DCS, gone. 50k would be so good for so many of us, but this is bypassed as the argument moves on to SoA/liquidation. Is it the higher-value depositors who are driving this. Is anybody fighting for activation of the DCS? Considering this next adjournment, is it possible to activate the DCS without liquidation?

Fed up. Roll over. Hope for the next installment to the EPS.


Triggering the DCS

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:08

I have ask this question before, nobody commented Is the end of march / 1st April significant for the DCS being triggered .
If the financial year of the DCS runs from the 31 March to 1STApril each year , so if you liquidate a bank before the 31 March 2009 you trigger the DCS , Banks on the IOM have to put their money into the DCS , Do they then have to cough up again straight away after the 1st April 2009 .
If you delay until after the 1st April to liquidate then the banks get another year before coughing up again .
Or am I becoming paranoid as well as destitute


Spanishfly If the SoA were to

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:36

Spanishfly

If the SoA were to ultimately fail then that failure would be after 31st March the end of this financial year. It was stated in Court yesterday that if that was the case the IoMG would advance to the DCS the equivalent of one years bank contribution, which was just over £9m. So this should not be an issue.

This posting is not for or against the SoA but purely to clarify points raised.


Trigger

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:41

Hi spanishfly,
The year in which levies are imposed on the participating banks if a DCS is in operation, runs from 1st April (?apt) until 31st March the following year. So in theory, yes, if KSFIOM is put into liquidation and the DCS is triggered prior to 31st March 2009, then effectively the levies would need to be 'collected' for the Scheme Year 2008-2009.
If as you say the liquidation, hence the triggering of the DCS is delayed until April 2009 then the first levies to be collected from participating banks may not occurr until March 2010

Note also see Ally's response above


I think that I read in the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:19

I think that I read in the various affidavits that if the DCS were triggered before 31st March 2009 the banks would be expected to contribute for 2008/2009 and then for 2009/2010.

I think I also read that if the DCS were triggered after the 31st March then the IOM Treasury would pay for any shortfall in the 2008/2009 contribution. Perhaps someone else can confirm.


@steenjp: Absolutely correct.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 01:00

The answer to your question is simply we don't have the power to bring it to book.
No it isn't the high value depositors driving this, I'm one and have been consistent in stating that there is no good reason, apart from IoM torpor, for the situation not to have been resolved. And I have stated that it is the IoM's own constituency that would benefit most.
But to put this on the record: This government is not acting to meet its responsibilities in any way that would be seen be the 'man on the Clapham omnibus as reasonable." It is an excuse for a government. They took
our money, let us down, and then, excuse the language, piss about.
I liked the TSC committee's comment, 'Do you not think we could send a couple of gunboats to retake the island?'

We keep on complaining. We keep on working together. We publicise this debacle. We tell people their DCS just isn't operational, etc etc. And we learn, we learn that the IoMG is < please post your suggestions >,


'Do you not think we could

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 07:54

'Do you not think we could send a couple of gunboats to retake the island?'

That doesn't sound like such a bad idea as this has reached a point of complete absurdity.

People are suffering every day, many who are now both financially and emotionally devasted, while these twits who are running the show can't come to a sensible resolution and just keep postponing the inevitable.

Drastic times call for drastic measures and we undoubtedly are there. Many I am sure are at the breaking point and delays like this can only exacerbate the problem.

If anyone has a gunboat available let me know. I'm ready to go and I don't think I'll be alone.


tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 01:54

Re (suggestions), may I? (A tad dishonest).

They must be p**ing themslves laughing at us.


dissapointed

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 17:15

I am dissapointed that the IOM Gov have been given extra time to do nothing, two years to get some of my money back is no good to me.


£20,000 within three months

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:18

I pulled the following extract from City Wire's website regarding the SOA presented at today's Court hearing-

.... "Payments will come in three instalments of £20,000 or 12.5% of deposits within three months followed by 7.5% in a year then another 15% within two years, Spellman said.

He added that depositors could expect further payments when the bank's assets were sold, highlighting that a lack of clarity about £566 million of deposits caught in sister bank KSF UK was the single biggest obstacle to returning money to depositors."


One thing I have never

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

One thing I have never understood about the SoA is this £20,000 or 12.5% within 2 months etc. Well what is it £20,000 or 12.5%? Or is this just one of the many uncertainties surrounding the SoA?


@expatfrance 1, what does it mean?

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 08:28

Agree with you expat, very confused. Have queried this twice before but never got an answer. Also questioned some reports that would get 65% back after 2 years?? In the examples I've seen it says 24+ months. That + is CRITICAL, how long is a piece of string? Door wide open for many years to come?

This is what I got back from Royal Skandia. Can somebody please explain it for me? Where does £20,000 come into all this?

Total returned

3 months after scheme takes effect 12.5% of KSFIOM investment returned 12.5%

12 months after scheme takes effect A further 7.5% of KSFIOM investment returned 20%

24 months after scheme takes effect A further 15% of KSFIOM investment returned 35%

24 months+ after scheme takes effect A further 30% of KSFIOM investment returned 65%


12.5% or £20k

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:26

cypheath

What £20k or 12.5% means is that a depositor would get back the GREATER OF 12.5% or £20K

So for example someone with £40k on deposit would be entitled to £5k at 12.5%, but this would be toped up to £20k to ensure the minimum of either 12.5% or £20k

Likewise someone with £100k deposited will get a top up to £20k as they would receive otherwise receive £12.5k (being 12.5%)

However someone with £500k on deposit would receive £62.5k being 12.5% of their deposit.

Again this posting is not meant to be for or against the SoA but just to clarify the workings.


Just for closure. That means

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 16:32

Just for closure. That means <50k receive full payout. > £50k receive only 35% and at some point, once they get to 60% the payments stop. At this juncture the IoMG make first claim on realised assets until they have been paid back in full, that which they have put into the DCS. Only then can the >£50k start to receive the rest of their money.


Just for closure. That means

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 16:44

Sunnysouth

I don't claim to be an expert on that but my reading would be >over £50k would receive 35% or £50K which ever is the greater within 24 months (the whichever is greater is still applicable as for example someone on £100k would receive £35k but this is topped up to £50k)

Then as you say over x number of years they are paid until they have received 60%. At this point the IoMG would take any asset realisations to pay back any loans paid in to the SoA.

Once the IoMG have been paid back then any asset realisation would again be distributed pari-pasu to over £50k depositors.


Ally, for once i do not

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 16:53

Ally, for once i do not agree. The DCS is for depositors up to £50K. They is clearly articulated (up from 20K) If as you say a person on £100k was topped up between £35K and £50k this would apply to all depositors with up to about £150k. Would they then have to give it back as they approached the 60% mark or do we now have a three tier DCS where < £50k get 100% between £50k and £150k get a precentage from DCS and those over £150K get nothing. I thought this was a nightmare before but this sounds totally unworkable.


thesunnysouth, £50,000 guarantee applies to both DCS & SOA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 22:00

As I understand, fixed lump sum amounts will be paid out to all depositors under either of the two schemes until the £50,000 guarantee is reached. Thereafter, payouts will be based on a percentage basis based upon assets liquidated until such time as the total of all payouts reach 60% of the total amount owing to all depositors. At that point in time under the proposed SOA (as I understand it) the government will claw back from all future recoveries any amount they may have contributed up front. Should these recoveries which exceed 60p on the £ be more than adequate to reimburse the government, the residue will be distributed proportionately to all depositors with amounts still owing.

Under a DCS the government would not have to claw back any amount as it isn't required to advance funds under the DCS as it claims it would do to speed up payouts under a SOA.


Figures clarification

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 17:22

Sunnysouth

My figures are for the SoA not the DCS


Sunny the schemes are totally

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 17:11

Sunny the schemes are totally separate, DCS has no place in the SOA -- try and keep DCS & Liquidation in one part of the mind and the Loan (with garanteed payments) > SOA in the other,,

The whole thing is now now past the sublime and bordering the pathetic, just like those trying to orchestrate our demise with either solution.

Yes I'm concerned, very concerned about liquidation, but I'm becoming more worried about IoM legal & political.


Thanks Ally

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:36

At last a simple, straight forward explanation, Thank you so much Ally.


Seconded

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 09:53

Seconded


I agree, ally's many postings

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 17:26

I agree, ally's many postings over the past couple of days have been clinically clear and concise! Thanks ally, good input IMO.


Just another example of why

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 08:37

Just another example of why we need further information before we can accept of reject anything. Its a pity that we are not getting it.


IOM Today re adjournment to 9 Apr

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 16:25

Been on tenterhooks all day! Here's the link on IOM Today: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Further-adjournment-in-KSF-following.4999...

19 February 2009
THE High Court today granted a further adjournment to allow Treasury to work up a scheme of arrangement to give guaranteed payments to depositors with the collapsed Kaupthing bank.

Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett granted the adjournment until April 9 after hearing the scheme would give greater security and certainty to payments than would be possible under the government's depositors' compensation scheme whose payouts could be affected by any subsequent bank collapse.

'These are indeed exceptionally uncertain times,' he remarked.

His decision will dismay the depositors' action group which had previously supported the scheme of arrangement but whose advocate John Wright told the court today that the proposal was 'dead in the water'.

'We say enough is enough - let's go to liquidation.'

Treasury officials say the scheme of arrangement will speed up payments and ensure small depositors get their money back first. More than half would get all the money back in full within three months and 71 per cent would be paid back in full within two years.

But at today's hearing, the Deputy Deemster remarked that the scheme's claimed advantages of speed and better returns was 'not perhaps as clear'.

It was suggested that under the DCS, an estimated £226 million would be returned to depositors by October while under the proposed scheme of arrangement, £212 million would be paid in July or August.

The court heard that 21.9 per of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander depositors are Island-based, 22.1 per cent UK-based, 14.3 per cent based in the EU and the remaining 41.7 per cent are based elsewhere.

Today's decision effectively grants the 60 day adjournment that had been sought by Treasury at the last hearing three weeks ago. The government now has until April 9 to finalise a scheme that will be acceptable to the court and the creditors.

Last Updated: 19 February 2009 4:15 PM
Source: n/a


This is not justice

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 16:46

50 days
To prevaricate even more?
Unless they can seriously come up with a fair solution.
This is not justice.


Bellyup

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:30

Your right, this is a bloody joke. The whole of the IOM infrastructure is inbred, the whole country is probably run by a large family all of who posess webbed feet and 13 toes!!!
The best thing we can do is organise our views ready for the next hearing.....i know some people want the SOA but i think the vast majority want liquidation now as there is just no trust....this matter reinforces that even more.
It will be 6 months then and we have didly squat........Guernsey had 30p in the pound back long ago!!!


SOA

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 21:38

hi BELLY UP, WHERE DO U GTE THAT THE VAST MAJOROITY WANT LIQUIDATION, MOST PEOLPE LIKE ME WANY FUNDS ABCK ASAP SO NOT LIQUIDATION !!!!!


dcs

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:23

Liquidation activates the DCS, which begins to pay out immediately (using recovered monies). I want some money soon. No. I wanted some money soon.


Steen, immediate perhaps but

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:31

Steen, immediate perhaps but only in IoM terms -- give me the Spanish and manyana any day, a good 3 months ahead of immediate on IoM.


Adjournment to April

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 16:12

At last some sense. The DCS would take many years to pay out but SOA will pay out under scheduled stages over 2 years

(And bond holders will fare better than under DCS)

Personally I am not interested in sueing anybody, I just want my cash back so I will sign up tomorrow


Ramsey DCS payout timing

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:27

Ramsey: The DCS would take many years to pay out
How so? The PL already has his hands on a fair bit. If this was released under the DCS....


Scheme of Arrangement Inevitable

  • brokemanx
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 16:49

The long adjournment to refine the SoA makes it clear that this is the route the IoM government wants, this is the arrangement that the court supports and that an SoA in some form is inevitable. If the Deemster felt that such a scheme was not in the interests of the majority of depositors he would not have allowed the adjournment and would have liquidated the company.

We must hope that the time allowed gets a scheme that works, maximises returns and is secure. It is clear now that 100% return is not going to happen for every depositor but that the majority of depositors will be covered. Some will be fully reimbursed by the EPS being increased to £10,000.

The UK will not return the money deposited in KSF(UK) and I think the constitutional position of the island precludes external international borrowing by Government. The recent budget speech referred to Mr Bell having "produced a balanced budget, as I am statutorily obliged to do"; there is no budget deficit.

Although the SoA looks very unlikely to fully reimburse me, I, like 'Ramsey resident' just want the return of as much of my money as possible, as soon as possible, and an end to this courtroom farce.


SOA done deal

  • uksmashandgrab
  • 23/12/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 17:48

So let them get their SOA thru the puppet court, we cannot stop it, at least when the other banks begin to fail the $150m will not be diluted.

We can then start a WW campaign to force a run on the remaining banks and bring this dump to its knees. Make no mistake IOM the SOA is not the end of it.

Not only did not protect us upfront, they are now kicking us in the behind on the way out the door, they need to feel our pain in a way that hurts their standard of living the way ours has been discarded.


I think the IOMG should be

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 08:39

I think the IOMG should be made aware of what the repercussions will be the longer this goes on and if depositors do not receive back the funds they had once held.

One thing that could done would be a mass effort using whatever means available to deter other potential individuals from ever doing business with any of the banks on the Isle. Just using the facts and the heartbreaking stories we have all heard, would provide plenty of ammunition to deliver a severe blow to their economy - which is what they will deserve unless this is quickly and justly resolved in a matter months and not years.

An effective manner in which to do this would be through the internet. Websites, blogs and social media marketing such as youtube.com could be used to let the rest of the world know what a travesty the IOMG is and the potential devastion that could occur by doing business there. This I am confident could have a much more severe financial impact on the IOM than if they were to pay us what we are due.

If they feel content to sit by and destroy the lives of so many of the honest depositors who put their faith in the IOM banking system, then maybe it is time to repay them in kind. We need to make them aware there are enough of us who will be more than willing and able to bring down their banking system if that's what it takes, unless we get what is ours.

Trying to be diplomatic and civil has not worked and will not work. They are treating us like sheeple and we are getting rolled over in the process. Delays are just that - delays. They are not coming to any better resolution than they could have months ago, they are merely finding ways to extract another pound of flesh from each of us.

I for one, have had enough of this. We have now reached the point where it is time to fight fire with fire. Let's unite and let them know we are through being conned and exploited and unless they get their act together and solve this dilemma soon, the shoe will be on the other foot. And that they can take to the bank.


150m

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:30

This figure is bandied around so freely. Isn't the actual figure is UP TO 150m? That includes ZERO.


why is it inevitable???

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 17:12

you say"
If the Deemster felt that such a scheme was not in the interests of the majority of depositors he would not have allowed the adjournment and would have liquidated the company."
Wrong. He is paid by the Government, we do not know who his friends are, we do not know who his relatives are, we only know that he is doing what he has been told to do by the IOM Govt.
This site is full of well meaning, good, kind normal people who want to believe in the goodness of other normal folk.
Its time to get real and wise up.
I live in a very corrupt country where lying and bribery is an accepted way of life.....why do we think the Isle of Man is any different?? Maybe they just hide it better!!!!!!! Maybe they are worse. At least here we know what we are dealing with.
The IOM want to hide something. They are determined we will not get it. They will go to any lengths to ensure this. We have to find something, by whatever means, that makes us seem sufficiently threatening that they will back down. Everyone has a skeleton in their cupboard somewhere, especially this lot! WE MUST FIND IT !
Its time for us to take the same tactic that they have and fight them in the same way. The battle must go on..this is only a skirmish...change tactics!
Wake up and smell the coffee or else we are lost.


why is it inevitable???

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 18:41

tsunamivictim: You say we do not know who the judge's relatives are. I believe that we know that his brother is the Attorney General of the Isle of Man, who represents the Treasury in these proceedings.


why is it inevitable

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:01

And we trust him to be impartial?????


nemo judex in causa sua

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:12

All I can say in reply is to quote one of the canons of natural justice: "nemo judex in causa sua".

The general rule is that no judge should preside over a matter in which he has a personal interest or involvement. A judge with an interest or involvement in the proceedings before him should declare it and then recuse himself of his own accord or if requested to do so. If this is not done, a presumption of bias arises and any decision he makes may be challenged.

I make no comments in respect of these particular proceedings. We are all entitled to hold our own views, but only those who attended are really in a proper position to comment.


New Judge

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:43

Elgee, if the lead petitioner in an action is indeed the brother of the judge then that should be enough.

In which case in order to demonstrate our disatisfaction with the process I would agree we should make this request.

Only a thought but on an island of this size maybe all the judges on the island are brothers, half-brothers cousins of the AG.


New Judge

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:49

BC: Treasury is not a petitioner, but it is a party (the joint petitioners are company and FSC). Also, Treasury is represented by A-G (and others) in court, but A-G is not himself a party. Otherwise, I take your point, but the application normally has to be made in the hearing itself (but I do know of one case where the judge was politely invited to recuse himself by letter and announced his intention to do so at the next hearing).

It is a matter for the legal team, but probably note one of the highest priority. Also, an advocate would have to be found who was willing to make the application!


LOL - Wtd ad "eldery advocate ready to retire"

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:46

LOL -
"an advocate would have to be found who was willing to make the application!"

is that just before he emigrates or retires and emigrates!


NEW JUDGE - COME NOW!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 20:27

The court has decided on a further adjournment.
This is what some depositors wanted.
Other depositors wanted liquidation.
Who says another judge would have ruled differently?
Who wants to be the judge anyway?


Love SoA Love liquidation

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 23:34

Yup. For as long as we have one group for the SoA and one group for liquidation, decision making becomes tricky. Much better for the deemster to sit on the fence and refuse to judge by escaping into endless adjournments.


This is not so

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 20/02/2009 - 00:28

There was no decision made by the depositors because we did not have the information necessary to do do.
The Deemster always IMO intended to make this decision.


New Judge?

  • Hampnew
  • 22/01/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 17:29

It was mentioned some time ago that DAG should petition for a Judge from a different jurisdiction to preside over the issue.

Why not?


New Judge?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/02/2009 - 19:15

Because the petition to wind up was made in the Isle of Man and so must be heard in the Isle of Man high court. Thre are (as I recall) only 3 judges in the Isle of Man high court. One of them has to hear it.