Action for the DAG on the 19th February

Background and objectives: 

The objective of this poll is to ensure that the "team" cannot petition the court claiming to speak for depositors unless they actually do have the support of the DAG. and if they do not a counter petition could be presented claiming to be equally representative of depositors.

The DAG should petition the court to issue a liquidation order
82% (76 votes)
The DAG should support the proposed SoA
18% (17 votes)
Total votes: 93
Groups:
Voting power is based on 75%

Voting power is based on 75% by value and >50% by number.
Insurance companies may have large deposits, but I believe only 1 vote each.
It appears to me that DBS and DAG represent close to 50% by number--the value of deposits may be 300-500m.
There are 70% of depositors with less than 50k deposited.
Cannot equate this with your statement that the insurance companies have a big vote.
Seems to me that no vote on an SOA will meet the stated criteria.
Maybe I missed something--anyone tell me what it is please?

Bob in Davao

Posted by bobwin on Mon, 16/02/2009 - 09:07
JKK no insinuation that the

JKK
no insinuation that the cause was the same as SiB, clearly it wasn't. Only an indication to others who are not familiar with the process as to how long it can take.

I am undecided on how to vote at present, how could anyone decide on how to vote without the detail, its far too wooley to make an informed decision at present.

I am still in the group that wants 100% back and will not give up this ideal, worked too hard for it. This concept appears to have been lost over this week.

If depositors have agreed to give up on the ideal then this site becomes a platform only for debating the merits of the SoA which can not happen effectively without detail.

Maybe we are being railroaded!

Posted by Hampnew on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 20:37
SoA or

SoA or Liquidation.......nobody seems to mention that over 30% of deposits are from Bond Holders via Insurance Companies....Who it seems get nothing under DSC ....so of course will wish to go SoA......and with such a large voting power....

am I missing something...?? Why are we debating this point when the Insurance companies will only push for SoA and if they have such a big voting power ???

Posted by chipmunk on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 20:28
For a start JJB sports - PWC

For a start JJB sports - PWC state default will be added to KSF UK depost,, don't you think E&Y are going to have something to say about that - they will of course take legal representation as will PWC - if court proceedings follow bang goes another few mil chasing after the first loss -- two liquidators haggling over a pot of cash -- they'll be jumping for joy for years.

There's also a few other possible set off cases -- all which will be contested.

Liquidations are never on the side of the creditors -- liquidators / lawyers / courts always come first and ALWAYS win to the detriment of the creditor.

Posted by skintagainnow on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 20:29
Sorry guys, I don't

Sorry guys, I don't agree.

Businesses and charities, which are owed money by KSFUK, are quite confident they will recover their deposits in full or almost. Nowhere did I read about a 50% dividend expected from that bank. Our deposit in the UK has exactly the same status as the money owed to London Transport or Naomi House. There is no reason why we should get even a fraction less then any of them.

Posted by jkk on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 20:14
That's my point elgee, Also

That's my point elgee,

Also as I understand it there are possible set off claims on tht money - by the time PWC and E&Y stand and fight it out in court between themselves and others that deposit whether £200m >£400m could be worth zip at the end of the day.

Liquidation is fraught with dangers -- not that the SOA looks any better - but it does offer a garentee of certain stage payments, lets keep an open mind at the moment.

Posted by skintagainnow on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 19:52
jkk: I think you'll find that

jkk: I think you'll find that the £550m in London is going to yield much less than £400m. Quite apart from the likely return to unsecured non-special case creditors expected to be in the region of 50% (that is the figure being banded around), I believe that there is money owed by our bank to KSF(UK). Say £120m - £200m is closer to a reasonable expectation.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 19:49
jkk, I don't agree,, you

jkk, I don't agree,,

you forget about circa £400m sitting in the UK - all you are looking is the loan book..

liquidation costs -- how far can a liquidator strech his and all legal fees --

PWC have not released their costs to date -- cost of bank staff and runing costs yes approx £300K / month

Posted by skintagainnow on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 19:37
It is not likely that Hampnew

It is not likely that Hampnew will be voting for anyone as he is not I suspect a depositor.

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 19:27
Hampnew, I don't agree. The

Hampnew, I don't agree.

The bankruptcy of SIB you are referring to, was caused by fraud and missing funds. In our case no funds are missing. KSFIoM loan book has been examined; loans are good quality and will be paid back in maximum 6 years.

So, even if our liquidation lasts 6 years (which it does not have to) and if it costs £1 million per month (which it never will) its total cost will be less than 10% of our deposits. Would you not agree that it is a much better option than giving away 40% of your money up front?

Vote for the liquidation, Hampnew!

Posted by jkk on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 18:48
For those of you who

For those of you who hesitate

For those of you who hesitate to vote because you feel you do not have all the relevant data to make a considered decision I sympathise but consider the following;
1. There is no guarantee that we will have all the info before we need to take a decision and we will be obliged to vote on instinct.
2. A vote for liquidation puts pressure on the IoM to come up with a 100% solution if we accept the SoA why would they bother.
3.You can change your vote!

Posted by nivit on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 17:24
Please Hampnew, lay off the

Please Hampnew, lay off the melodramatic pathetic will you.

Posted by IceCrusher on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 16:04
This is a classically

This is a classically undemocratic vote!! How can people vote when they have insufficient detail on which to form an opinion.
I would suggest that all cancel their votes until a detailed comparative study is available.

Posted by sambururob on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 15:28
May I suggest that you stop

May I suggest that you stop posting in this way it adds nothing.
Go elsewhere and spread doom and gloom.
You are not a depositor so whats it to you anyway.

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 15:12
Speaking as one of those

Speaking as one of those <£50k I wholeheartedly agree - no desire to line legal-eagle pockets, just want what's promised - now. Still don't know which way to vote though... DCS or SoA. Perhaps we won't get to choose anyway, let's see what happens on the 19th.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 15:02
Whichever process is voted

Whichever process is voted for, you might as well face it now, we are all looking at something like 23 years of pain, the process that we are going through is a template of what happened all those years ago. May I suggest that you all get used to it and readjust your lifestyles, live whilst you can. Many SiB investors died early of ill health because of the worry:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...

Posted by Hampnew on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 14:22
Bobbyshafted, that is

Bobbyshafted, that is understandable and I was not anticipating the <£50K to assist in this thrust as they should receive full compensation irrespective of the route chosen. However, there are many in this with hundreds of thousands at stake, and it may take more thousands to get it back - that is where the commitment lies.

Posted by IceCrusher on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 14:23
Is the difference not in the

Is the difference not in the manner and hence the expected amounts in which the bank contributions and the IOMG's contributions would be recovered from our bank's assets in (i) a liquidation and (ii) under the proposed scheme?

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 14:03
bobby shafted: I agree with

bobby shafted: I agree with one caveat, that all depositors (not just the <50k group) may need in the not-too-distant future to look at legal action to enforce the DCS if the SoA is rejected and the IOMG fails to implement the DCS properly, whether or not through any failure to collect from its banks. The backdrop to that might well be one in which there are resignations in the IOM regulator and the IOM Treasury and the IOM government.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:56
The voting does this not

The voting does this not depend on what funds we have deposited ? Someone with say £25K and someone with say £265K the amount makes a different to the outcome as surely one is covered while the other is not with the full amount. Surely someone with £25k wants a speedy outcome and does not the SOA offer this ? my understanding is liquidation is preferred for higher amounts than £50K but are not the largest amount pf depositors in the under £50K brackect so this will sway what happens in the court next week ?

I am wanting something to be sorted next week so we all know what is happening, surely we have all had enough of waiting for news, I certainly will be happy when this site is no more than a distant memory. I get the impression that there is no answer that is going to please everyone, I still want us all to get back our deposits but am not hearing any positive moves in that direction.

Posted by giveus backourfunds on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:48
Podather: I am not going to

Podather: I am not going to argue about this. I can assure you that I have never withheld any relevant facts within my knowledge from you or the forum or the team or anyone else. The difference is probably only one of how we have each in the past extrapolated to a conclusion from the same set of facts. Incidently, my position all along was not one of blindly supporting liquidation but one of supporting it in the absence of a better alternative and warning against accepting without critical examination the assurances being given by the IOMG.

Anyway, since at present we both share much the same view I trust you will accept that we have nothing at present to argue about.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:46
Legal Action // LJ /

Legal Action // LJ / 'Crusher

Approx 70% of all depositors are <£50k.

I do not know, but I would guess, that they (<£50k) do NOT have the resources or appetite to take protracted expensive and risky legal action, but want NOW the overdue full repayment of their deposits.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:31
Elgee, I think you will find

Elgee,

I think you will find at the end of my posting I state that I have historically held the opinion that a SOA would be better for larger depositors based on indications received from IOMG and responses to emails I received from Allan Bell etc.
My position is now based on one of fact rather than indicative and is in complete reversal to
my previous position as the facts are in complete reversal to the indications I received.
You have always posted your support for liquidation from the onset, but as like mine, I assume from a position of belief as opposed to fact
You have in this instance been proved to be correct.
Should you have been in possession of the facts, not shared them but used them to forge your opinion then the fact I now support that opinion is not surprising.

Posted by podather on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:28
Podfather, under DCS or SOA

Podfather, under DCS or SOA the £150m is still a loan,,

under DCS --- IoMG advance £150M - DCS payments are made from this ahead of the "collected levy" - the scheme has to be paid back from the liquidated assets, one of the clarification points required was who would pay it back all depositors via liquidated assetts or just those who made a claim under it. But £150m is still just a loan by another name.

SOA just term it simply as it is a loan.

Posted by skintagainnow on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:27
Bellyup: Okay, on reflection

Bellyup: Okay, on reflection I think you are right.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:24
Elgee please not the time or

Elgee please not the time or the place we are all feeling bad today - you are bigger than this.

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:14
Funding the legal fund Our

Funding the legal fund

Our household has contributed to Expat's costs on the IoM; have contributed twice to the upkeep of this site; and have contributed to the legal fund. We have also offered help to some of the more desperate and destitute of our number and I would still be happy to spend a couple of bob on the latter, but this is about as far we can go personally. We aren't huge depositers with Ksf, but what we lost was an enormous chunk of our savings and has left us feeling shattered. We simply can't afford to shunt what's left into what, at the moment, looks like a bottomless pit.

I'm extremely grateful for what the legal team is doing at the moment. We couldn't have answered the wordy obfuscations of the IoMG team without them, but heavens above, they are charging a fortune for what looks like no more than a day or two's work, looking at the final product of their (expert) musings. I accept that lawyers...all lawyers provide an eye-wateringly expensive service, but I shudder at the thought of what is left of our savings disappearing into that pit with only a very dubious promise of success at the end of the process. I'm sure I speak for many of the silent ones.

Posted by Honest Citizen on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:10
Podather: Does this posting

Podather: Does this posting of yours:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/poll/action-dag-19th-february#comment-2...

which is a good summary but a complete reversal of your previous and long-held position, mean that you apologise for attacking me all along for consistently posting to this forum exactly what you are now saying yourself?

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:13
LIQUIDATION IS THE ANSWER--DO

LIQUIDATION IS THE ANSWER--DO NOT BE SIDETRACKED BY BROWN ASPDEN BELL AND CO.

THEY ARE SHI**ING THEIR PANTS NOW.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUGGESTING PALIATIVES--THEY ARE PROBABLY MOLES.

LEY US GET IT SORTED NOW--IT HAS BEEN TOO LONG AND WE HAVE BEEN TOO PATIENT.

I REALLY .HOPE THE TEAM HAVE A CUNNING PLAN AND I WISH I WAS PRIVY TO IT.

WE WILLHAVE TO WAIT AND SEE

BOB in Davao

Posted by bobwin on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 13:04
I was hoping and praying that

I was hoping and praying that in a genuine attempt to do the right thing for depositors the IOMG would come up with a scheme which served depositors better and offered a greater and speedier return than liquidation.
How wrong I was.
The SOA they have finally proposed (if my interpretation is correct) is nothing short of a pathetic scheme of liquidation avoidance that offers depositors very little over liquidation and punishes them significantly.
The only benefit I can see could be a possible timescale advantage to the return of your funds, but being as it will take many more months to get the scheme up and running I question this.
The down sides are huge, firstly, under the SOA the £150 million the IOMG have earmarked for assistance becomes a loan rather than a contribution, which must be repaid once depositors have 60% of their funds returned. And you will get nothing more until they have had their money back.
Under liquidation this is a contribution to the DCS that they don't recoup... though should another bank fail before 9th October 2009 we would have to share this contibution with the other bank(s)
I would still take the risk of having to share it than the certainty of having to repay it.
Also under the SOA the exchange rate for converting non sterling accounts will be the mid rate on the 9th October 2008 as opposed to the date the court liquidates the bank under the DCS scheme.
Non sterling account holders deposits will shrink 20% instantly under the SOA.
Also, our legal rights to pursue the guilty parties are seriously diluted under the SOA and with the current cash on hand held by the provisional liquidator an immediate 10% of deposit return is assured, plus further payments when funds permit, allied to bank contributions to the DCS including the contribution for the year up to 31st March 09 if we liquidate soon means depositors should see a significant % of there money over a reasonable time scale and still be guaranteed up to £50k
Lastly, charities with funds in KSF UK have on a couple of occasions suggested they have receive indications that the deposits will be retuned in full.
If this is the case our £557 should also be returned, or a significant % of it and under liquidation these monies would be distributed to depositors rather than £150 million of it going to the IOMG.
I am also confident from conversation held with parties close to the situation that enough money will be returned from KSF UK to ultimately offer a high % return on deposits and I for one dont want to give £150 million of this back to Mr Brown and his ineffective and uncompassionate bunch of cronies.
The SOA is a reputation face saving exercise and looks like nothing more to me

I have posted historically that I was in favour in principal of a SOA as a high value depositor providing that scheme offered benefits over liquidation.
As far as I can see It doesn't, so I would favour liquidation now.

Taking either of these options offends me immensely and if we receive legal advice indicating an alternative route that can be taken to recover 100% of our funds by bringing to justice the perpetrators of this crime then I will dig as deep as i can and contribute as much as possible to this legal fund so that we can recover what is rightfully ours and punish those in the wrong.

Posted by podather on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 12:57
I think you're right on this

I think you're right on this LJ. We are not getting anywhere with either of these 'options' and we must now seek the third alternative: legal reparation of our monies. It is becoming very clear that there are people in the UK who are on a witch-hunt for the bad guys; the inept and the foolish - and we know they lurk in the corridors of power in the IoM. Our biggest stumbling block is getting a committment from our number to fund the legal process.

Posted by IceCrusher on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 12:44
NOT THE RIGHT POLL To vote

NOT THE RIGHT POLL

To vote for either of the Poll options is to say you are prepared to settle for compensation. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT....YOU WANT YOUR MONEY BACK 100%!

THE DAG's LAWYER SHOULD SAY TO THE COURT :

"My clients do not want compensation through an Soa or through the DCS - my clients demand total restoration of their deposits and will take legal action to secure their just & legal right to have their moeny restored in full, with interest and damages"

Posted by Lucky Jim on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 12:28
It appears to me that the SoA

It appears to me that the SoA was proposed and designed by IOMG through their advisors (Alix) as an alternative to DCS in order to mitigate the effect on the iom taxpayer.....and not nessessarily in the best interests of the depositors, so I shall vote for liquidation.

Posted by lpl on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 11:42
Bellyup, a full payout from

Bellyup, a full payout from day 1 would have been more cost effective than the current rout. This tells me that either there is a gross shortage of intellectual capital dealing with this issue or they don't think that customers are going to be necessary in the business equations of the future, or maybe both.

Posted by Hampnew on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:56
Have they got a drawing

Have they got a drawing board?

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:40
Frying pan or Fire that is

Frying pan or Fire that is the question?

All those millions trying to find a solution they could have given out to depositors with the same result but at least to some benefit.

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:39
Sorry Barrona but I think you

Sorry Barrona
but I think you are dreaming if you think they will give you your hard earned money back, it's not even on the agenda anymore. As nivit said earlier, too few have done too little.

Posted by Hampnew on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:14
This whole matter has been

This whole matter has been drawn out like a Whitehall farce. I'm still no wiser about either the DCS or SoA and accordingly, will abstain from voting. All that I am definitely sure about is that I want 100% of my hard earned money returned to me.
The IoM government have proved themselves to be weak and ineffectual and continue to obfuscate on this issue.
Why on earth don't they do the decent thing and negotiate a loan to enesure all depositors are fully reimbursed.
Don't they realise that they will not have a finance industry if they prevaricate for much longer.

Posted by barrona on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:10
I suspect Mr Wright will also

I suspect Mr Wright will also be taking his Sunday off. Perhaps tomorrow, we shall hear of his interpretation of the 'latest' SoA.

Posted by IceCrusher on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 10:01
The hearing is on Thursday

The hearing is on Thursday folks!
The affidavits are in and there will be nothing new added before Thursday.
Maybe the DAG team and their advocate have a "cunning plan" as Baldrick would say in Black Adder--and if they have, unlike Baldrick, they are keeping it to themselves so as the opposition will have no chance to make a plan to scupper it.
This vote is to give a poll of the feelings based on all the information and conversation over an extended period--it is not cast in stone.
May as well vote as I believe the chances of us depositors getting a real vote are slim to nil.

Bob in Davao

Playing golf tomorrow--badly, but beats working--fortunately, I paid my annual fees before I learnt of this disaster--might as well enjoy it.

4 men are playing a round when a funeral cortege passes--one places his cap to his chest in respect--his friends are impressed ---he says--she was a good wife for 40 years.

Posted by bobwin on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 09:50
For those of you who hesitate

For those of you who hesitate to vote because you feel you do not have all the relevant data to make a considered decision I sympathise but consider the following;
1. There is no guarantee that we will have all the info before we need to take a decision and we will be obliged to vote on instinct.
2. A vote for liquidation puts pressure on the IoM to come up with a 100% solution if we accept the SoA why would they bother.
3.You can change your vote!

Posted by nivit on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 09:32
I would suggest the DAG

I would suggest the DAG encourages members to simply abstain from voting. To vote for either of these schemes with the information provided is just plain stupid...no-one can make any informed decision based upon what has been presented and to vote for either would suggest some level of happiness which is clearly not felt by anyone.

Abstain and send the buggers back to the old drawing board!

Posted by gazfuk on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 09:06
To be quite frank I'm none

To be quite frank I'm none the wiser as it appears that many of the answers sought by the DAG have still not been addressed. I don't think there will be many definitive responses to the vote.

Posted by Done like a Kipper on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 08:44
Why would I vote one way or

Why would I vote one way or another when I still do not have all the answers to questions that the DAG has asked. To vote for something, not because you do not like the alternative but because it is unclear exactly what the alternative is seems to be irrational.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 08:37
I am not sure but I think

I am not sure but I think somewhere I have read that it has been used once before. I will see if I can find, can anyone else remember seeing anything ?

Posted by homeless on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 07:57
I shall refrain from making

I shall refrain from making any decision or 'voting' in this poll until we have a full report from our IoM appointed advocate - that's what we're paying him for.

Bobwin, you are quite right about Brown's comments - save that it has served the IOM financial services extremely well for decades in drawing in thousands of depositors suckered into believing that the IoMG had in place a properly regulated jurisdiction and a meaningful compensation scheme - miss-selling on both counts. They have misled the public at large (but avoided lying exactly to the TSC) and got way with it for years, making a mint out of us poor saps, then when the stuff hits the rotating appliance (or something similar elgee) they run around like headless chickens looking for an escape path but there isn't one - no matter how much they paid for outside 'help'. Any two of us could have sat down with a spreadsheet and the balance account and worked out this cockamamie scheme in an afternoon. These people have had months to work out nothing - they show themselves as useless and that is probably what he Deemster will find. That will put us back to liquidation and the DCS - 4 months and a few million quid down the drain later - and we don't even trust that scheme; it's so full of holes that IoMG have backed away from it like scared rabbits!

Posted by IceCrusher on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 06:51
Tony brown says the DCS has

Tony brown says the DCS has served us well---I don't think it has ever been used?
QC Moss opines that the bank is like an insurance company and in the UK, SOA's have been used for them.
I don't see the SOA being defined---STILL--and it will be most interestng to hear what the Deemster has to say about that!
What should happen is that he should tell the IOM representatives that he gave them extra time to come up with a specific written plan which, perhaps, could be voted on.
Their failure to do so and bringing in a UK QC who does not know the IOM law and precedent, is an attempt to further delay action.
The SOA should be shot down in flames--it does not give equal treatment--specifically to the non GBP investors due to the date of exchange rate calculation!
The Deemster has the authority and should use it and ignore the emminent QC.
We don't want yet another adjourment do we?
I fear that liquidation will be his decision and all that entails--but what are the real options???
IOM do not want the DCS to be triggered I believe as they see this as a public sleight on the Banking industry and the banks don't want to pay either!

Posted by bobwin on Sun, 15/02/2009 - 03:49