Do you believe we should have legal representation in place in time for the next liquidation hearing?

Yes - I can contribute up to £10
6% (32 votes)
Yes - I can contribute up to £20
13% (74 votes)
Yes - I can contribute up to £50
36% (200 votes)
Yes - I can contribute more than £50
31% (174 votes)
Yes - sorry but I cannot afford to contribute at this time
10% (53 votes)
No - I don't believe we should go down this route
4% (23 votes)
Total votes: 556
  •   
    Login to post comments
      
Lets just get an account

Lets just get an account opened for those who wish to contribute for legal representation to sue the UK Govt for the return of £557m "seized" by their own actions...where do I send my £50?

Posted by sgebbett on Mon, 10/11/2008 - 18:51
Legal funding

The KSF (IOM) depositors are a very disparate group made up of sub-groups with different interests and concerns. It may prove necessary, therefore, to pursue a number of different avenues to recover depositors’ money. It may even be necessary to take legal advice from a number of different law firms, each with different specializations.

The Skandia sub-group, for example, is made up of people who deposited money with KSF (IOM) via Royal Skandia and their interests may be very different from those of people who deposited money directly with KSF (IOM) and who are therefore protected under the Isle of Man Depositors Compensation Scheme. Of course, members of this sub-group share many concerns with other KSF (IOM) depositors (e.g. concerns about the conduct of the British government) but they also have specific concerns relating to Royal Skandia. Much of the discussion within the Skandia group, in fact, relates to possible charges of miss-selling of bond products by Royal Skandia and/or their IFA’s.

Is it your view that the different sub-groups should each set up their own separate fund and seek their own legal advice, or should we all contribute to a single fund, which may be used by all sub-groups whatever their concerns and whatever route they take to recover their money?

Posted by digger on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 14:34
I'm not sure I grasp the

I'm not sure I grasp the difference between litigation and legal representation. According to one dictionary, litigation is simply a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rights. Isn't that what we're aiming for - to enforce the legal right to access our own money?

My feeling is that if no-one represents us when the case comes to court on November 27, our interests will be peripheral to the proceedings. We need someone out there who knows the law, understands legal-speak and ensures that the interests of the depositors are not ignored.

I'm reasssured when you say you are preparing for all eventualities and talking to lawyers. I'm nervous that time is growing short.

Posted by Podcar on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 11:00
Legal Funds

The poll taken has shown support that will more than cover representation at the liquidation hearing. Discussions with London solicitors are not at the stage where funds are yet required but your point on the amount that will be required is certainly valid.

We are not in favour of making this a site where you have to pay for membership as it would exclude fellow depositors who have lost everything. As such we are completely reliant on donations form people visiting this site.

In the short term the representation at the liquidation hearing will be representing the whole group. We are all in the same boat to the extent that we are all creditors of the bank and as such warrant representation on any creditor's committee.

Going forward, we will need to take advice from solicitors on what the best path is and it will be then that it will become more obvious which interests are best served by legal action and whose are not.

I would be interested to hear any ideas you have for raising funds from 'interested non-savers'.

Posted by Diver on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 10:51
Funds for Legal Representation

Funds for Legal Representation (and Reimbursement of expenses).

Surely these Law firms you'll be visiting will reasonably ask whether suffficient funds are in place NOW to cover their "serious" charges ?

I would have happily paid, 3 weeks ago, a levy or membership of say 0.01% of my deposit as a starter towards reimbursement of expenses and early stage legal representation (in the anticipation that by now several thousand would have done similar and we'd have loadsa money).

I do not think that this notion of a whip-round / donations / pledges (however well-intended) will raise a worthwhile sum. I hope I'm wrong. In any case the generosity of a few will be insufficient if legal action is subsequently sought.

Where are ALL the rest of the savers ? They are not castaways, blissfully unaware, on some desert island. They are largely presumably either not bothered whether they get their savings back, unaware of the shortcomings of the DCS, or happy for others to do the work and happy to ignore making a financial contribution.

I think the Group should be busily recuiting paying saver / members, inviting donations from interested non-savers, and deciding just whose interests the Group is to pursue.

Presume all "in-flight" people will be prepared to contribute to the Group ?

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 10:41
Count me in.....

Thanks to Diver and Elgee (and everyone else), count me in for the legal representation, have posted my vote with amount

Posted by vikkinkit on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 09:46
Yes

Yes there will hopefully be a PayPal account attached to the Bank Account we are setting up.

Posted by Diver on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 09:28
Diver, absolutely count me in

and sincere thanks to both you and elgee for your superb efforts in this matter. I can only contribute £20 at this time... wish it were more.

Posted by SusanfromBC on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 09:17
Payment - How?

Is it practical/possible to set up an online payment system? Credit card, Paypal even through Ebay.

Posted by Peasant on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 08:49
Firstly may I thank all of

Firstly may I thank all of you who have been involved in this issue for the hard work and the amount of time you've clearly put into it.
I too, believe we should have representation although I fear that I will be unable to contribute financially as I've lost in excess of 90% of my assets in this debacle.
On this webite we've seen numerous estimates off what we might get back ranging from 10% ( depression and/or suicide and certainly regular doses of anaesthetic via alchohol) to 100% ( euphoria plus more alchohol). A lot of time has passed since the LP informed us that total deposits were 840 million and the monies under his control were 100+ million. These numbers could well have changed, I hope the money under his control has increased
I assume that when the Court takes its decision it will do so on the basis of information presented to it. This information will include up-dated numbers from the LP, and an estimate from him of the current value of the loan book, an estimate of what he might recover from the liquidator at KSFUK, the prospects for selling and the value of different parts of the business. The IoM govt will also have information on the prospects of getting money from HMG and possibly others.
We are the major creditors of the bank, we are the ones most affected by its demise and yet we do not have any of this informatation which is so neccessary for us to form an opinion as to our best course of action. The LP and the IOM govt are hiding behind a well articulated veil of secrecy -" we don't want to prejudice negotiations,"- "this is commercially sensitive informatin etc".
I really think the time has come for this information to be shared with us so that we can decide in an informed nanner on what we might do next, currently I feel we are batting blind

Posted by peterthailandudon on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 08:28
who pays - us of course

"Their solicitors Cains are very expensive" - Just remind me elgee, how many times have you instructed Cains before, and how many times have you instructed other advocates?

Surely you are not trying to whip up dissent and upset againt here?

Quality legal representation must be paid for; what are you proposing as the alternative?

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 08:24
Legal representation

Couldn't agree more. I add my deep appreciation of all you guys are doing out there at the sharp end.

Posted by mbb on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 08:09
Legal Representation

I am of the opinion that legal presentation would be very important. Problem is only the fees. Can we afford a representation? The man could be paid if he is successful and we get our money back. I would definitely contribute to a fee.

Posted by howagcr on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 07:18
who pays - us of course

The creditors. Us. It is deducted from the assets recovered by the liquidator. The liquidators (PWC) are very expensive. Their solicitors, Cains, are very expensive.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 05:18
who pays the liquidator

who pays the liquidator's costs which you say could run into £millions?

Posted by KA on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 05:11
"As I well know"? I don't

"As I well know"? I don't have any knowledge of your cicumstances and what you can and cannot do. I am also not in the IoM - s/he will be instructed by telephone.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:44
waste of time - agree

Is this all about you, or is it about an informed debate regarding a possible group action?
Does everyone who doesn't agree with you waste your time?

I think you are wasting your time actually to particpate in your case in representation at the hearing. It isnt a rational decision.

I appreciate however that you may have a view on the best interests of the depositors as a whole at heart

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:30
I'll do better than that as

I'll do better than that as you seem to take great joy in behaving like a spoilt brat - I'll not bother posting again.

You have already stated that you have everything to gain from a quick liquidation, and you also keep harping on about how much you are doing, and how you don't need to do it - well I for one will not have you shoving stuff down my throat because I am unable to assist on the ground as others are -

In short, you stick it mate.

To those who have kindly devoted their time, money and effort to supporting us, without shoving it in our faces, thank you and good luck.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:31
No need to get like that

No need to get like that because I have pointed out what is the truth - your whole post goes to show that at this point it is almost impossible to instruct an advocate with the sole purpose of opposing or proposing a liquidation on the 27th - you've said it all yourself.

Who is more important? the depositor with the most to lose, the shortest time to live, the most kids? it is simply not possible. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with the liquidation at the moment - no bugger knows at this point what is right. For sure I agreed with the first postponement, but at this point I don't know, and no advocate can advise a group on what to do. He may advise you to push for liquidation because on paper you may get paid out quicker, he may advise somone with £1M to hold back a bit rather than risk getting pennies in the pound back.

Let's say you do appoint an Advocate to oppose or request the postponement, there is nothing to stop any individuals who have the time and the wherewithall to turn up and address the court in any case.

No, I cannot come to the IoM and appoint an Advocate - as you well know. But what I can do, is to make comment as to whether I think something is worthwhile (we cannot say in the best interests) or not.

In furthering the above, i'm quite clear in my view, forget opposing or agreeing to liquidation, I don't believe that employing an advocate or asking his advice at the next hearing is in the interests of anyone - even if I had a pile of money to use, I still wouldn't use it for legal representation at this point.

I am sorry if you feel what I have to say is criticisim, because it is not, far from it. I am eternally thankful for all of the work done by everybody, and that includes posters, becuase this action group and this forum is nothing without them.
If I am unable to express my views politely without someone saying "you ungrateful bastard, i'm doing this for you, even though I have nothing to lose financially", then I won't bother posting.
I do trust that you weren't trying to say that?

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:24
waste of time

Because you are wasting my time, and while you may not consider it valuable, I do.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:21
I have actually been to the

I have actually been to the bunker a number of times, spoken to Government departments, provided information, internal consultation reports

I don't see why its your best interests personally to be represented, youve made few congent arguments to support your position then you give up.

And then you have a sulk.

Goodnight!

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:18
manx-person

Okay, as I have said below, I have given up. There's no point in my suggesting to you that you do the same as Captain, and arrange the group repn yourself, because it says on the forum that you are not a depositor.

Why are you here? To inform the debate, or frustrate the well-intentioned efforts of those of us who are depositors?

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:11
Captain

I give up. Please will you contact Diver and let him know that you wish to arrange for and instruct the IOM advocate and take care of all the objections you have raised. I have work to do and two pressing family matters to deal with, one of which involves a court appearance in person and I have not prepared. It may amuse you to endlessly dissect all the obstacles to the depositors being represented as a group, but it does not amuse me.

Please continue the debate with Mrs Mainwaring, not me.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:07
shared representation problem

Elgee - in your case the rational decision is probably not to pay for representation and rely on the DCS

If you saw an advocate thats what they would (may) suggest.

I don't see why in your case you have to accept less than the optimum solution at all.

If and I dont I had £10M withe the bank, I would be instructing an advocate myself.

If I had less I would probably speak to someone knowledgeable I knew for and hour at a cost of £300 or so and then decide whether his view of my interests were aligned with the group action.

So for that to work I would need to know in advance what the shared representation was.

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 04:02
And this is why you

And this is why you absolutely cannot ask the advocate for advice on whether the bank should be wound up.
You mention that you may suffer a small disadvantage, actually that may not be the case - you are counting on a payout from a non-existant fund that will almost certainly also wait to see what the receiver manages to get out of the liquidation process before proceeding - you may actually find that you get paid out quicker if the liquidator et al manage to resolve a few of the unanswered points that still cloud the issue.

My wife keeps saying "well at least you will get at least 50K back" - as I have reminded her, shrouds don't have pockets, and I'd rather be a thorn in the side of the DCS and refuse compensation and their right to have my deposit assigned to them rather than receive a fiver a week until I die.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:58
What would you suggest then,

What would you suggest then, because I cannot afford to spend much more time arguing about it? Do you want the advocate to convey the wishes of the group? By survey, and if so what do you do about the majority of those depositors who are participating but do not respond to the survey or do not know (I am in the last category). Will you organise and analyse the survey? Will it include all possible matters in issue in the liquidation and all possible alternatives? Should you include the wishes of Mr Claphamomnibus who has no knowledge of law but nonetheless feels that he would be content to be repaid in Icelandic herring? Or those of Mrs Claphamomnibus, who hasn't followed any of the arguments at all, but is quite sure that she knows what she wants because the answer came to her in a dream? Or only the wishes of those who are vocal? How would you do it and will you do it for us, because I certainly do not have the time?

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:58
mainwaring - advocate

If you had a matching asset and liability with the bank the case for a sooner rather than later liquidation is clear as it netts of the obligations.

So for this class of depositor opposing the liquidation could be seen to be a poor idea.

But for another class of depositor the answer could be diffenent

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:51
multiple parties

But even on this point.

There could be a different answer if you had a loan and a deposit to that of a depositor alone.

It is very important if say you needed access to the equity ASAP to provide money to live.

2 months may be the difference between defaulting on another obligation and not.

I agree that representaton is important, I just think there are a number of issues to be looked at, and that is hard to reconcile the various positions; even in the simple example I have stated.

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:46
Absolutley

It is a very valid argument. And i think that ultimately it will down to the will and financial clout behind individual depositors.

If you stand to lose £900K, really really dont want to lose it and have enough cash elsewhere to be able to pay a substantial amount towards legal costs then you will have hooked up with fellow depositors in the same situation and be instructing counsel to do what is right for you.

If you stand to lose £16K which was an inheritance from a distant uncle you didnt really like anyway and which is a 'slosh' fund not urgently needed, then you'll taking a backseat and going with the flow...

Most of us will be between those two extreams and as such have varying degrees of 'loudness'. In some cases an entire lifes money will be at risk but you cant afford to do anything other than type on forums and hope the 'flow' goes in the direction you want.

Mat

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:46
I see it, but you must know

I see it, but you must know as well as I do that the only answer is for each individual depositor to have her/his own representation, and that is not going to be possible. In the interests of economy and practicality, you have to accept less than the optimum solution.

For example, I have such a small deposit that I would obviously be compensated by the DCS. It must be in my interests to wind up as soon as possible. As some people here know, I also thought that the previous delay was not in the best interests of any depositors, but I was clearly outnumbered on that. However, I am willing to accept and even arrange for and also instruct and spend my own money in telephone calls and travel and loads of time (and believe me, I am talking enormous expenditure of unpaid time) to instruct an advocate to make submissions in favour of a postponement if thatis what we are advised to do, notwithstanding that I personally will suffer a (small) disbenefit if that submission is successful.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:45
The Advocate cannot possibly

The Advocate cannot possibly give such advise, unless of course they have second sight. I couldn't possibly agree to an Advocate who has nothing to lose giving me advice that no one can predict is good.

You could end up employing an advocate who for example may suggest that a liquidation is in your best interests, would you as a depositors who didn't agree, stand in Court with your peers and try and argue your case against such an action? You have the same rights to be heard, and if made eloquently, they are just as valid in court.

Now I believe I understand your point a bit better, first I thought you intended to use an Advocate to convey the wishes of the group to the court, but in re-reading your posts, I see you want the advocate to actually make that decision for you.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:44
multiple parties

He cannot. Nor do we pretend that he can. All he can reasonably do is deal with those matter on which there is a commonality of interest (if that is the right expression). Fortunately I do not think that the issue of postponement gives rise to a genuine conflict except in the minds of those depositors who regard it as a big issue. If the bank is going to be wound up in the end it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things whether it happens this month or in December or January. All that it means it that the DCS would not kick in until later. So I propose the following:

How about this way to deal with the matter:

If the advocate advises to go one way or the other on postponement, then we follow that advice. If s/he advises that no submissions should be made on that point, then we follow that advice. However, if s/he gives us the choice both as to whether s/he makes any submissions on that point and as to what direction s/he should go, then we instruct that we wish to take no position on postponement. That last choice cannot be any better or worse than us not being represented at all at the hearing.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:34
Surely that will only happen

Surely that will only happen at the first creditors meeting when our first task would be to seek the appointment of another liquidator? Very little will happen at the hearing itself.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:32
If I knew that, I probably

If I knew that, I probably wouldn't have had money in that damned bank in the first place....

But, whilst I will NOT be drawn into listening to "he said, she said" hearsay and stories etc because from experience we only end up getting let down in our hope and expectations, I do think there are things that can be read into statements by officials concerned with this.

Take Simpsons first announcement, his closing statements about liquidation going ahead and DCS coming to life showed exactly how he stood on this matter - he was 100% expecting at that point that he had one the lottery and liquidation was going to go ahead. Now let's look at what he mentioned in an email from PWC just a couple of days back:-

"Regarding the deposits held by the bank with the UK bank, I am in discussions with the Administrators of the UK bank but I have no information currently about the financial position of the UK bank and therefore the size of any potential recovery. My understanding is that if the UK bank goes into liquidation, the IOM bank will rank as an unsecured creditor. Clearly this issue is of enormous importance, but I'm afraid I dont have the answers yet. "

Yes I know I keep posting this, but it is a written confirmation that he doesn't know if the UK will go into liquidation or not - clearly if it doesn't then there is a greater chance of recovery of funds. And he says it himself, "this issue is of enormous importance".

As much as it may disappoint depositors not to have the DCS started (not that it matters, it doesn't have any money in the first place, and actually it could be started, a petition for liquidation only has to be presented for the thing to grind into life) I still feel that there is a whole lot to be gained, and if the bank is placed under the control of liquidators, they will certainly not give a toss about turning stones that should be turned - after 6 months, they say "we have done very well, we have recovered enough money to pay our fees, the rest of you can bugger off".

One part of me says to let the bloody bank fold on the 27th and just end the torment of waiting and reaching out for any faint glimmer of hope, yet for some reason I think that this is just what some people want - the UK government, the FSA, and maybe even Tynwald.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:30
elgee - not worried but wondering

well its not all about postponement, that was just an example of the difering views o postponement and how they can be reconciled.

Then the matter of whether the liquidator should be replaced and whether their should be a creditor committee.

There are no 'right answers' to some of these questions, they represent a personal view

How will you ensure that the competing views and the opinions of the people on these matters are reconciled, or will that be dealt with by the 'chosen few'

I think that this is fraught with details.

The advice that the lawyer will give will depend on the circumstances and wishes of the depositer

Do you see my point?

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:21
what worries you

You suggest that representation at the next hearing is all about the question of postponement, but it is not. It is about making submissions on behalf of the depositors in the event that the court orders a winding up.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:11
Thanks elgee

Thanks elgee

Posted by steveejeb on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:02
elgee - problem of multiple parties

I think this is where the difficulty is

for example

Depositor A
Has a mortgage with KSFIOM for £250,000 and has £205,000 on deposit

Depositor B
Has £250,000 on deposit

Depositor C
Has £16,000 on deposit

Depositor D
Has £90,000 in a Skandia bond that invested in KSFIOM

If there is a liquidation mooted:

Depositor A will receive £45,000 in due course - He also wont need to make the interest payments on the mortgage anymore - this is a relief as his only funds are (were) with KSFIOM

Depositor B will receive £50K in due course

Depositor C will receive £16K in due course

Depositor D will receive £23.97 in due course

Depositor A will be relieved he wont get those default notices, he can try and get some equity by a mortgage on his property once the liqudiator has released the original charge

Depositor B feels that a liquidation will stop the political and legal momentum and thinks there should be a government intervention to buy the bank, but this cant be finalised before the end of December

Depositor A thinks Mike Simpson is doing a good job, Depositor B thinks that a leading firm of UK auditors should be appointed as receiver.

So how can the advocate represent these conflicting views

and positions?

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 03:04
This is what worries me after

This is what worries me after watching what "other" lawyers are doing. Advocates may have to give proper advice with regard to the law, but as for the right course of action to take, that is down to the individual.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:56
I honestly don't know. I

I honestly don't know. I think it is quite likely that they will. However, we can speculate about their motives and I am not interested any longer in doing that.

I have never thought that the depositors would be able to influence the court's decision in this respect, either for or against postponement, in the event that the petitioners and/or the IOM Treasury took the opposite position, but one or two of the IOM advocates I have spoken to tell me that is not correct. I think it must be the case that the court will be most influenced by the liquidator's report as to whether or not the bank is solvent.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:56
Again, if there is nothing to

Again, if there is nothing to show the court that the petition should be further suspended then I am wondering what benefit instruction of an Advocate for the court hearing will have? Once it is a done deal then the next step will be the first creditors meeting where we may wish to consider representation WRT to appointment of liquidator - until that point, the process is pretty much automatic.

Of course if something was to come up before the due date that would be pertinent to the matter of liquidation then legal representation is worthwhile.

At one point based upon PWC statements I thought that there was the possibility of the recovery of some funds from the UK, but given the lackluster performance of Simpson with regard to reporting to his employers (us), perhaps the best thing is to just let it happen then for sure kick him out. He seems to be quite relishing his fees in this matter, well he hasn't got them just yet.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:52
elgee

Do you have any knowledge or feelings that the IOM "powers that be" might also be petitioning for a further postponement ?

Posted by steveejeb on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:46
On this matter and in all

On this matter and in all others in respect of the liquidation, I am perfectly happy to do whatever is advised by the advocate, since I most certainly would not want to impose my own opinion on what is done in the name of others. If anyone has any evidence that is likely to sway the deemster in the matter of a postponement, I invite them to let us (IoM or London team) know. When I say evidence, I mean facts, not argument as to why depositors might or might not benefit from a postponement.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:31
elgee - preparation

OK, I take your point, I am just trying to be helpful and think of some of the practical aspects.

You also should remember that the advocate may need to identify each person that they are represented for Anti-Money Laundering purposes, which can take some time etc.

It is only 20 odd days away etc.

In the hopper action by the time of the first hearing the advocate said she represent 3(or maybe 4) plus others, and had only received her instructions the day before.

It came over as very unprepared.

I don;t know what you want to happen on the 27th (maybe you are waiting for advice I guess) but it seems the main issue will be (at the moment) wether to remain in the 'limbo' state or proceed to a liquidation.

At the first hearing the KSFIOM and the receiver explained that there was no supporting evidence for the treasuries submission (other than the oral representations of their advocate), so I guess you might need evidence or others support to convince the deemster.

Obviously, and maybe hopefully, things might move forward here, but as in stands at the moment I think it appears that KSFIOM is unable to meet its obligations and I think there are going to have to be creative reasons, or something substantive provided by someone to stop the liquidation starting.

I think there is alot to do in the next few weeks,

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:22
read all now....

Ok, read all the comments by elgee and diver now about representation who/how/howmuch etc... The 'pay as much as you can' is the only valid way and i commend both for the process and method etc. At the moment there will be some who can contribute not much more than a sincere 'thankyou'; but (certainly from me, if not everyone in that boat) it will be perhaps the sincerest 'thankyou' even given!!!

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:58
emphatically NO

In response to your question: "does that mean that counsel will only represent those on the list? IE. If your names not on the list then you wont get your money if legal action works? How does it work?"

In respect of legal representation in IoM, everyone would hopefully benefit whether they are on this list or not. There is NO disbenefit atached to not being on the "list". It is merely a case of ths more depositors there are represented, then the more weight the court might be expected to attach to submissions from our advocate. As to your part2 question, this is not an action for damages so it is not a question of money if it succeeds.

In respect of London advice including counsel's opinion and correspondence and evidence and all pre-action matters, I do not think it matters in the least who is on or not on a list. In fact, I do not think there needs to be a list at the outset. If and when any proceedings are issued for damages, of course only those who are claimants could be awarded damages. If proceedings are, for the sake of example, for other relief such as a declaration, potentially all depositors would benefit. If proceedings either for damages or other relief were issued by way of a test case involving a single depositor, then potentially all depositors would be able to benefit by way of making subsequent claims without necessarily having to litigate. If the proceedings were by way of application for a JR of an administrative decision, there could be no damages awarded anyway and I think there need be only one representative applicant. There are too many unknowns still to be advised on in respect of litigation and it is too far in the future to give you an answer. You should be aware that the American concept of "class action" is strictly not one known to English (or Manx) law, but there are other ways of achieving the same result in those jurisdictions.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 02:01
Difficult one...

It is a difficult area.

Firstly, there are those depositors who do not know about the site - either because they still do not know what has happened (there are a lot in this category), they do not use the Internet or simply because they have not heard about it.

Secondly, there are some (dont know how many, but there will be some) who really cant afford a thing. Some folk will have been caught at the point of transfering needed funds as part of an international move etc..

A formula and process needs to be put together to ensure everyone who wants to be represented is. That some way of ensuring some depositors are not being 'subsidised' by others (IE. 'Joe Bloggs' paying £10000 towards legal fees while 'John Smith' pays only £1) and causing bad feeling among ourselves. Personally, I would just do it - When wallys at restaurants start getting picky over who pays what of the bill i usually (or did!) just pay the whole lot and 'stuff yer arguments' - but a bit different when sums in the 100's of 1000's are being talked about.

I dont think you can do it. I reckon just open the account and invite people to pay into it; those that are not too bothered about losing their savings, or are legitimatley hard up now, wont pay much - or even anything - but not alot you can do about it.

When you say 'list of those being represented' does that mean that counsel will only represent those on the list? IE. If your names not on the list then you wont get your money if legal action works? How does it work?

Sorry to sound like a picky penny pincher - I really am not usually, in the slightest! My words above even make me cringe :-(

Mat

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:45
I do not say it would be too

I do not say it would be too problematic for all depositors to be named as being represented - on the contrary. I think what diver says above - and i agree - is that it would be too problematic for all depositors to be able to instruct.

I think the minimum we will be suggesting is a list of participant depositors who wish to be represnted, with their names, addresses (and account numbers) (maybe sums deposited). But that depends very much on what the chosen advocate feels s/he needs. More complex ways of dealing with this have been suggested and in one case a detailed proposal has been made for dealing with this problem. We have to balance cost, administrative overhead, time and practicability considerations.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:42
elgee - how to organise the representation suggestion

I note that you are proposing that only a small number of 'named' depositors are to be formally instructing the advocate to appear, with the other being 'in support.'

The deemster will no doubt require evidence that those advocates appearing are instructed by bona fide creditors.

The Isle of Man Treasury is a creditor to the sum of £10M+

When the deemster exercises his discretion he may and probably will give cogniscance to the amount that the creditor is standing to lose.

If there are only a small number of creditors named, this will reduce the weight that may be given to any representations that will be made.

One just needs to see how the seating order was arranged for the advocates to realise that those that were more important players were seated towards the front of the court.

You say that it would be too problematic for all the depositors to be named.

I don;t think this would be the case.

If a 'form letter' was prepared to the instructed advocate saying that they are a depositor and they would allow the instructions to be given by one of the 'famous five' or 'four musketeers' then this may discharge the advocates professional obligations and would allow the true quantum and weight of the represented depositers views to receive appropriate consideration by the court.

What do you think?

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:20
Legal representation

Count me in - thanks for all the hard work you guys have done in putting this together. Very much appreciated.

Posted by Pat on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:15