work of liquidator provisionally LP

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 06/11/2008 - 17:52

Comments are made from time to time about LP's work. I thought it would be useful to centralise these as it's likely to become more important as Nov 27 arrives. We might also come up with some decent ideas that LP could pick up and use.
I think he should be working primarily for us so this is not intended as a let's beat LP around the ears forum. This forum also makes life easier for him to pick up any comments we have and perhaps makes it easier to communicate with him.
Nonetheless I have some concerns :
- I'm not getting any answers to questions I raised more than 3 weeks ago
- I'm not getting anywhere near enough feed back from him
- I have absolutely no idea what he's doing on our behalf or whether he's doing anything at all that advances our cause.

My principal centre of concern remains the £550m in London. I'm not prepared to give up on it. The problem is the the seal placed on work being done, but I would like to think that LP should be working like hell to get behind that barrier.
So I would like him to consider 2 things :
KSF UK is in Administration not liquidation, and that's important.
During Administration any creditor representing more than 10% of creditors can call a creditors' meeting. Does KSF IOM represent 10% or more of KSF UK creditors? If so why not call a meeting? Over to LP.
Secondly during administration any creditor can appeal to the court if he feels that the company is being managed ( that's what administration is) in such a manner as to be contrary to his interests. I certainly feel EY is working contrary to my interests so why not make an appeal to the court? Over to LP.

Some of you with sharper minds than mine have probably got to an answer as to why KSF UK is is administration and not in liquidation. My view is that administration allows EY to do whatever they wish with creditors' funds and meet the declared UK Govt aim of guaranteeing UK depositors behind the cloak of secrecy, whereas it's my view that if KSF UK was in liquidation we as creditor- or more accurately KSF IOM as creditor- would have a legal personality and EY would have to treat us all the same. Now, Darling has made no secret of the fact that "the rest of the company will be placed in liquidation" as soon as ET has achieved UK Govt plans. So we and other non UK individual depositors get to fight over zilch. That's why I think the fight to open up the can of worms before it's too late is so important. What can you or should you be doing LP??

0
Your rating: None

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

PWC - Communication

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:58

If London Transport can communicate with E&Y and feel confident enough to give positive feedback why not PWC.

The fact that:

KSF IOM staff will openly tell you that PWC staff have told them to not pass any calls from depositors on.

There has been no reply made to any correspondence and in fact as it stands today bar the internet no formal notification that my account is frozen due to administration.

Is sufficient to demonstrate the very poor communication from our LP. I've said in other places but it is worth repeating this needs to improve. We can only hope the the LP's performance in the background is better than it is in communicating with his customers.

Finally since we paid for Senior Council to advise PWC on the status of in-flight funds it would be only reasonable for this opinion to be made available to us.


I posted this a couple of

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:18

I posted this a couple of days back in another forum, but it has more relevance here now. http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/1248#comment-14957

How about a lateral look at things: if 'our' £555M is in the general pot then it works both ways, we get dibs in this larger pot too yes? And this pot could end up bigger than we imagine. PM Geir Haarde claims that HMG took £4.5B assets, and that there was more than enough money to pay savers with Heritbl/IceSave back their deposits. HMG just froze the IceSaver accounts - and it looks like they will soon regain access once the IMF $2.1B is finalised. HMG provided the loot to move the Edge retail deposits to ING, but that was a 'short term' expediency to fund the move in quick time; Ernst and Young are busy putting all that together and given the time they are taking will hopefully find much of that collateral intact.
The Kaupthing non-edge depositors are another matter, they are to be fully compensated, but if the Icelandics can be persuaded to foot the first level (~£16,000) and the FSCS completes the bill up to £50,000 then that could take care of much of it without taxpayer's help. Seems the average account with Kaupthing was ~£15,600 and its anyone's guess as to how many deposits were greater than £50,000 but if there were few, then the Treasury's exposure could be relatively low. This would result in a lower claim on the pot from the largest creditor leaving KSFIOM with more. This would face-save the Darling boy 'cos he would 'never believe it' could turn out this way - and provide a route for our 'squaring of the circle' towards an equitable solution.
Yes, I know... but at least it's optimistic and full of promise!

IceCrusher


IN FLIGHTS

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:28

Just in case it has not previously reported on here, I have received the letter from Mike Simpson in which he explains that my inflight funds are being returned to my account. This is in accordance with the views of PWC's lawyers. My funds were Euros so I assume the same will apply to USD and GBP.

I know Aikom and Hopper's team are still fighting this battle. I for one would be very interested to get some feedback on that situation.


Not Quite Inflight

  • DJO Gutted
  • 12/10/08 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 23:43

For what it is worth: Letter arrived today signed by Scott Bevan for Mike Simpson

I can't copy and paste here but it refers to my:

"Secure instruction of 8 Oct/08"

and that my instructions to transfer funds was not processed before appointment of LP so therefore my account is frozen blah blah blah.

Look on the website for updates, call the bank for queries blah blah blah.

well at least I got a letter telling me that my attempt to empty my account was too late!
LOL! Ha! Yes, I am laughing all the way to the bank...not.


I too have concerns about

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 18:46

I too have concerns about Earnst & Youngs administration of Kaupthing UK.

They have made no statements apart from when the company was first put into Administration, except for them saying that their priority was the transfer of depositors to ING and that everything else would have to wait. I thought one of the roles of an Administrator was to ensure that all creditors are treated equally.

Also dont forget that the same individuals are also acting as Administrators for Heritable Bank. They seem to have got it all sewn up!

I do hope that our LP is putting pressure on them.


LP

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/11/2008 - 20:07

Please,can some one tell me who appointed our LP?
I have sent this guy emails with no response.I have asked him to acknowledge i even exist. I am owed some £391,000. You would think it warrants someone saying, "we know!" You all must remember this was a fully operational bank that had all our details at a press of a button.There was not a big "bonfire" with the loss of all our personal data! That also goes for the assets of the bank. I.E, they are all on record! I have asked this guy for a daily report via the web site so that we all are not treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed sh*t) I am not trying to "put anyone down," but, believe this, wait and see how the fees are cranked up.You will see corporate lawers,joint liquidator,administrators,clerks, Uncle Tom Cobbly an' all, on the Fee note.This guy works for us,i want to know what he is achieving daily.Not to much to ask.I am truly sorry if anyone feels i am being a little "hard" on the guy and "give him a chance," But my career has come against this before and one thing is for sure, they get "theirs" before you and i. I just want to make sure we have the best people possible fighting for US ALL,not for fee notes! I also want someone who will tackle things head on not with fluffy cotton balls!
Again, i am sorry if you feel i am out of order, but this is life changing money to me and my family.I only want, what all of you want!


PWC

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:28

Mt Simpson seems to have himself and his company at heart in this, he is probably spending what he can between all the allied specialists, he will probably have a great christmas, there will be party invertations from everyone.


Totally agree

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:44

This guy and team are supposedly working for 'us' yet we are not allow to speak to anyone in their team.


EVERYBODY READ London transport blog on our News button

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:25

can I ask EVERYBODY to read the LT blog on today's News section of our site.
Yesterday we learned that the LGA had had discussions and reported them to their members. Today we learn that LT that has a mere £40m compared to our £550m in KSF london has had discussions with EY in London, and has been told that there are substantial assets, that the bank is going to continue in operation and that LT expects to get its £40m back at term in 2009.
We have £550m there and no information. Can somebody on the IOM please go and wake up Mike Simpson and ask him to tell us what he's doing and what's going on.


I dont see

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:38

I don't see how this affects us.

LT 's 40million was not banked with KSF IOM but with the KSF UK as I understand it.

This 550 million it appears no longer has anything to do with KSF IOM even if it cam from there outrageous as this does seem.


The KSF UK balance sheet does affect us

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:54

It has direct bearing on how much of our 550 Million we are likely to get back as a normal creditor of the bank.
What is puzzling about the statement is that if the KSF UK assets are that substantial then why did the bank fail to meet the threshold criteria for operating under UK law. The answer to this may be that the bank was doing just fine until Darlings comments caused a run on it and that the failure to meet its operating criteria was caused by a lack of immediate available capital to meet the costumer withdrawals rather than a shortfall in the total holdings of the bank. All in all potential good news on several fronts. First one being that we may get a complete or nearly complete pay out as regular creditors of the bank of our 550 Million. Secondly this would suggest the banks problems were entirely caused by the Run on the bank which can be parly blamed on the UK government.


I don't see - Maybe it is

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:48

Well they are obviously expecting to get 100% of the funds they have in KSF UK back.

Now if they are just an unsecured creditor (and I don't know if they are) then that would imply that unsecured creditors in general can expect 100% back.

As KSF IoM is an unsecured creditor then it too could expect 100% back.

I have read bits and pieces here and there and none of the councils with funds in KSF UK have made any significant write downs on funds held there.

Again this might imply that at this point in time they believe they have a resonable chance of making a very high percentage recovery on these funds.


How are they differentiated?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:07

What is the difference between an unsecured creditor and and secured creditor?

If the IOM deposited 550 million is it to be the ONLY unsecured creditor to be left out in the cold?

What possible excuse can HMG have for discriminating against the IOM?


100% of funds back

  • PM12
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:11

x


re PM12 100% of funds back

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:42

PM12 - I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable and eloquent writers on the forum will reply with a more comprehensive response however in the meantime this is my view.

It is possible that the money may be safer in the UK as opposed the Iceland, however it is also clear the the FSA had a hand in conjunction with the financial services of the British Islands, whether this was direct intervention or by "strongly suggested" comments. Whatever the case the UK's actions and subsequent transfer of Edge (UK) funds to ING within hrs also strongly suggests prior collusion and in depth discussions with ING and possibly Dutch government. Therefore the Uk's government comments of "highly inappropriate" to give any party the heads up or prior warning of actions, couple this to prior notice to the rest of the banking centres not to process Icelandic funds on 6th October (2 days before the event) but not giving the same indications to the British Islands which are after all Crown dependancies still needs a lot of explaining.

Knowing there was substantial funds transferred on their "suggestions" by the Islands regulators then the government should also have secured (ring fenced) these funds on or before actions on the 6th, this simple action would have saved the whole messy scenario they now find themselves in. In addition the secrecy that surrounds the whole affair enables all the conspiracy theories to flourish, I for one do lay the blame for my predicament squarely at this governments door, whether by accident or design they are at fault.


PWC..sealed papers

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:48

I basically agree with all you say but for me the one vital missing piece of the jigsaw is the question of why are the KSFUK court papers sealed ? This question unfortunately was not asked during the treasury committee hearing or the adjournement debate.To my knowledge no meaningful reply has so far been forthcoming on this point.There was some discussion a day or 2 ago about trying to get an answer,and talk of a petition, but today I can't find the forum.Can anyone point me to it?


mikeinfrance - sealed papers

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:05

Mike the discussion re a petition regarding the sealed papers was at this link

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/1219#comment-15606

Cheers

Steve


100% back = not only LT thinks so

  • C_south_africa
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:13

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/Read-the-latest-statement-released...

The Bassetlaw Council also expects to get 100% back... see the above NEWS item I put on yesterday.

...which partly reads as follows .....

IT'S 'business as usual' at Bassetlaw Council despite the £8 million invested in the Icelandic banks crash still 'missing'.

The council's deputy leader Terry Yates and director of resources Neil Taylor have issued a joint statement claiming that most of the £8 million will be recovered.

And residents have been re-assured that the council is being proactive in trying to get the council tax payers' money back and added that no-one at the council will be held to account for the loss.

The statement will be placed on the council's website in the hope that it will alleviate residents' fears that the money will be lost forever.

"All the 123 councils (almost a third of all authorities in England) affected by the Icelandic bank situation have not lost the money, it is at risk.

Ernst and Young administrators for two of the English subsidiaries Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander and Heritable, have said that in broad terms, they considered that, the book value of the assets of each of these banks appeared to be of the same order of size as the liabilities.

So once the assets are sold, it is expected that the investments will be repaid. If Ernst and Young had given a different message Bassetlaw would have reacted differently.

Bassetlaw has £3 million invested with the Landesbanki and £2m with the Glitner bank. These are mainland Icelandic banks and this matter is being dealt with by national Government ministers and the treasury.

(continues...............)


Not sure I do either but...

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:46

I think KSF IOM is an unsecured creditor of KSF UK as is Transport for London. One unsecured creditor gets all its money back all unsecured creditors will. So if the discussions between KSF UK and Transport for London are giving them a positive message you would expect PWC and our provisional liquidator to be receiving the same message.

That is unless the UKG steps in and effectively protects another group of unsecured creditors ahead of us but stepping into their shoes as they did with Kaupthing Edge customers.


I don't believe that the UK

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:03

I don't believe that the UK Govt. did protect a group of unsecured creditors over the rest. What I believe happened is that the FSCS picked up the tab for 100% of the retail depositors, sent the money to ING and they themselves became a unsecured creditor of KSF-UK for that amount. This means we are all in the same boat, us, LT, FSCS etc.

If the LT statement is true, then the 380M UKP (540M - 165M) that is at risk in KSF-UK will also be just as safe (note they are still crossing their fingers!)


This does have an impact with

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:44

This does have an impact with us because 550 million of KSFIOM was deposited with KSFUK. LT is a creditor of KSFUK in the same way as KSFIOM is now a creditor of KSFUK.

So in theory if LT get their deposits returned in full then so should KSFIOM.

If only it were that simple!


PWC Disgrace

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:31

This further underlines the poor performance of PWC.

Whatever Simpson is doing in the background PWC communication, both in style and frequency, has been nothing short of a disgrace. They need to know that this must improve or we as a group will seek their removal, it is the only way we can ensure satisfactory performance.


PwC and EY

  • dodot
  • 10/10/08 01/06/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:15

No point in hurling abuse at the liquidators and or threatening them. These guys are highly competent and we wil not get anyone better.
Lack of communication is frustrating. But they are trying to manage a complex financial and political situation. Frankly communications which would lead to more and more specuation would only make their chances of success less.
I know it is hard to do but trust them to do their jobs. They are the best we can get.


PwC and EY

  • dodot
  • 10/10/08 01/06/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:12

No point in hurling abuse at the liquidators and or threatening them. These guys are highly competent and we wil not get anyone better.
Lack of communication is frustrating. But they are trying to manage a complex financial and political situation. Frankly communications which would lead to more and more specuation would only make their chances of success less.
I know it is hard to do but trust them to do their jobs. They are the best we can get.


liquidator provisional and communication

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:59

Dodot,
I don't see any "abuse being hurled". I think we are being extraordinarily polite. The facts are that the LGA which has 123 LA's with about the same at risk as us, LT which has less than one tenth of our sum at risk, a Hampshire Charity which has about £6m at risk have all managed to have discussions with the EY administrator and all have published that information to interested parties. Have you got a personal line to our LP where he's told you he's had discussions with EY in London and what the outcome of those discussions is? I have heard NOTHING since his early message to say "every thing's sealed fellas, can't do a thing". Faced with what we read from other creditors I'm not satisfied with that and I need him
a to act for us - his fees are coming out of our money
b tell us what the situation is.
That does not seem unreasonable to me.
Secondly, do you know LP personally? Have you seen him at work? If so tell us, so that we can share your judgement that he's the best. I do not know him and I judge people on the results they achieve.I am not criticising LP - I want him to step up to the mark and earn the fees we are paying him.
The deposit we have in London is absolutely crucial to our hopes of eventually getting all our money back, so whatever it takes to get that money returned to us I'm prepared to do. If that means asking LP what he's doing - so be it.
We have already moved a few steps forward : we now have the Chancellor, the Chairman FSA and the Treasury spokesman in the Adjournment debate yesterday accepting/admitting that KSF IOM had a deposit of circa £550m in KSF. That's the first admission by those in authority that we are a creditor of that size. And that seems to me the first step to persuading them they should get the money back to us.It's now down to LP to work on that.


PWC - I disagree

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:43

It is the lack of communication that causes speculation the performance of PWC for me has been unacceptable on this front. They may yet fullfill their obligations to us as creditors but they are adding to the stress through their arrogant atitude to us. If you are satisfied fine but I am not.

Transport for London feels free to communicate to its stakeholders the general impression that E&Y have conveyed to them but PWC feels unable to do the same.


PWC poor communication

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:54

I completely agree as far as the extremely poor communication is concerned. Local Government Authorities also revealed a long time ago the information that E&Y gave them..there is a LGA forum somewhere on this site,on which I asked why Mike Simpson was not able to communicate similar info to us!.


PWC Media Relations executive

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:17

Reading the welter of discontent about the (apparent) lack of progress being made by the LP, I felt that perhaps it was time to re-acquaint myself with the PWC website to establish if there were a more senior figure (than Mike Simpson) who may be in a position to answer/action our questions.
The company have a media relations executive who's details follow:-

Katy Turner
Media Relations PWC
0113 289 4675 (office)
07841 499254 (mobile)
katy [dot] turner(?)uk [dot] pwc [dot] com

I certainly intend to contact Ms Turner, and perhaps others may wish to follow suit. After all, this story is cuerrently "national" and and hint of "bad press" would not be welcomed by such a high profile organisation.


PWC

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 22:35

I note that Mike Simpson is a partner in PWC.


gerry paul

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:27

Remember it is PWC (IOM) who are the LP not PWC UK

I would not be surprised if the uk media rep knows nothing about IOM affairs


Agreed

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:29

I agree, but when you access media relations from the PWC IOM Site, you get the details of the corporate media bod, as detailed


PWC Public Relations

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 18:11

PWC as has been pointed out to me elsewhere is a series of independent partnerships however they do operate unders a single brand. I think this is a good route to ensure that PWC IOM improve there communication with us. PWC do not want bad publicity anywhere in the world, even when they are series of independent partnerships. Just mention the name Arthur Anderson.

To repeat I'm not saying behind the scene they are not doing a good job but they are certainly not demonstrating any respect for the people who will be footing their bill - US.