Should the calls with Mike Simpson continue?
Background and objectives:
Dear all,
I'm wondering whether we need to continue with the calls with Mike Simpson when the CC (or Committee of Inspection) is set up. It would be hoped that information would come from the representatives on the committee - and they would also field general questions from the depositors. What do you think?
Yes - continue through liquidation
73% (111 votes)
No - the Creditors' Committee will give us the information
27% (42 votes)
Total votes: 153
Groups:
Clearly anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement would be bound by it, but SIP15 does not show this as a prerequisite, and as far as I am aware there is nothing in the ioM Insolvency rules that actually require a confidentiality agreement to be undertaken.
In any case the liquidator can elect not to disclose confidential documents to the cttee (para 9 SIP 15), and it would then be up to the cttee to challenge this in court if they thought it necessary desirabe
The Creditor Committee will be bound by a very tight and wide ranging confidentiality agreement that prevents them from disclosing to or discussing with third parties anything that is discussed at the Creditor Committee. I know this because the remainder of our cash is with Landsbanki Guernsey and this is exactly what happens. I can ask a member of the Landsbanki Creditor Committee to ask a question on my behalf, but I'm not allowed to be told the answer. Also, one of the committee drafted non-confidential minutes of the first meeting but was forbidden by the liquidator, Deloitte & Touche, to distribute these non-confidential minutes or to discuss anything that was said with any third party.
Therefore, unfortuantely, there appears to be no choice but to ask for these calls to continue due to confidentiality constraints that have been taken to ridiculous and unreasonable extremes - all to satisfy backside protectors, rather than operate for the very reasonable interest shown by depositors in non-confidential matters that continue to impact our future....
In the present circumstances I believe we should continue the conference calls. I believe it is too early to abandon them. It is a golden opportunity (if continued (and Frog has the intestinal fortitude) to put the Liquidator on the spot and ask questions from right-, left- and centre-field which clarify important issues. This way we can keep him honest, and spotlight any issues where there are compromises unfavourable to DAG - interests being made .
Living in the antipodes I would like to thank Frog sincerely for all his good work in keeping MS up to speed.
Wishing you well, Froggy, whatever you decide.
As Manx-person indicated, these things turn on the particular facts. I don;t think Habana is on all fours with other in-flight claims, but I do not know for sure.
I am reminded by Manx-person that in IoM that we have to use pre-Woolf reform terms, so "plaintiff" rather than "claimant" and of course "hereinbefore" instead of "above". That way we get a much better quality of justice, as you will all have observed.
JJB was experiencing interesting times and had for example I understand entered into a sandstill agreement with certain creditors.
If Roman2005 you were so sure that they would increase in value I am sure that you would have bought some and are no sitting on a 200% return!
It is Deemster Corlett.well at least I think so I spoke to his clerk this week who told me that it hadn't been handed down immediately without need to consult any files.
I also had a phone conversation with the advocate for the plaintiff - we dont use the English new fangled terms of claimanr - yesterday and he confirmed to me that no judgement had been given as of yet.
I have asked for a copy to be sent to me, and if I get it I will forward a copy on.
Even if the judgement is in favour of the plaintiff I don't think the floodgates will open for the 'inflighters' necessarily as there were some particular circumstances to the Habana case which may not assist other inflighters.
Elgeee, If the claimant(s) are successful what does that mean for the creditors not concerned, that we will get less money back ?
There will be a judgment soon, obviously. There are already rumours circulating on Island that the judgment is in favour of the claimant. Presumably the draft judgment has been sent, in advance of being handed down, to counsel on both sides and from there to the advocates. Could they not indicate which of them now thinks that the Deemster in question is an excellent judge?
Which Deemster heard it, do you know? Was it the one who looks a little like Greengrass in Heartbeat?
On the matter of the in-flight case - there has been a separate case brought by Habana Limited
There should be a judgment soon, the case was over a month ago.
why did Mike Simpson not hold on to the JJB shares until the price improved - as he did for the Booker shares. Afterall the price was so low that there was little risk in holding on to them!! They have increased 200% in value since April when I believe the sale transaction occured. You never sell in a bear market!
It is widely know that the price Simpson obtained for JJB shares was well below the current market price.
True, but I believe that the same conditions apply on the calls - some questions I just don't get answers on because they are priviliged:
For the ones just off the top of my head.
The CC will probably get more info about the above, but this wouldn't be allowed into the public domain - the other stuff will - and the NDA would be substantially be based on UK liquidation law.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to get out of these calls - I'm just wondering if they have passed their sell-by date. If there is a good reason to continue them, I'm very happy to do so (at no charge :) )
I think that what you say is common sense, but of course what could or could not be disclosed would depend on the terms of the confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
While it is true that a NDA would be signed by CC members, there will be a lot of information that would be deemed acceptable for general release - none of the information gained from the calls have elicited any privaliged info either, so the CC could provide a regular update on non-privaliged info, much like the calls do. I think part of the requirements for providing your vote to CC candidates is indeed that they would do this.
who is going to be at creditors meeting as you have to be present to get voted onto comittee?(and have enough support there to vote you on)
Members of the creditors committee will have to sign a non disclosure agreement so won't be in a position to share the information they receive.
If the wish is to continue to know I would suggest that the calls would need to continue.
The creditors commitee will be made up of representatives that acquire sufficient votes.
They need a majority by value and number to gain a place from those that vote.
I believe the desire is to have a varied CC of 7 members max representing all concerned parties.
We Need as much Information as possible, and not just from one source, and that information should be scrutinized and assessed where ever it comes from...Mike Simpson or Otherwise...
we should not have all or eggs in one Basket...
Aurora
I think the calls will be as, or may be more, important than they are now as is this web site. Considering the lack of speed in which information os made available through the KSF website (Nothing on the DCS yet). You are also getting to ask questions direct to MS even if he is evasive it is a very valuable resource.
Won't that depend on who is on the CC? If it is composed of IOM cronies, we may still need the calls, as we're not going to get any decent info from them. If the the CC members are truly an unbiased lot working 100% for the interests (and return) of all depositors, then the calls can probably stop as I'm sure that they cost a pretty fortune.
After failing to get on the KSFUK CC, I'm a little apprehensive who will be part of this group. How is the CC decided and by whom?