WE DON'T WANT COMPENSATION -- WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK 100%

Background and objectives: 

The IOM Government has a duty to do what every other country in Europe has done, namely to guarantee money ON DEPOSIT in any of its banks. If it can not do that then it forfeits the right to head an off-shore banking sector.

Members of the DAG had every right to expect that their deposits were safe & secured by proper financial regulation & guaranteed by the ultimate authority on the Island, namely the Government. Depositors' TRUST has been grossly betrayed and under the wording of the European Charter of Human Rights they have been deprived of their property.

How the IOM Government vouchsaves every deposit on the IOM is up to them. It is not the responsibility of depositors to tell it how to do it. Pay up or shut up your banks before other depositors do it for you!

If you want the DAG's lawyer to say this (or similar wording):

"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"

then vote in this Poll :
I do not want to be paid compensation, I want all my deposit back

I do not want to be paid compensation, I want all my deposit back
91% (313 votes)
I am prepared to settle for compensation through either a SoA or the CPS
9% (30 votes)
Total votes: 343
Groups:
  •   
    Login to post comments
      
Point on liquidation I

Point on liquidation

I understand that when liquidation costs escalate in the uncontrollable manner that is feared, it is usually because litigation is entered into by the liquidator to recover assets, especially if it is defended and unsuccessful and an adverse costs order is made. It appears that recovery of the funds in the UK might entail litigation, although that is by no means certain, and the same would also be true under an SoA unless that asset was abandoned. If there was any kind of fraud in the company being liquidated, and there is no suggestion that it was in this case, then that too would be likely to give rise to large costs.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 23:40
Point on liquidation

Point on liquidation costs.

Let's think about this.
Why will they be so high, putting the issue no doubt naievely simplistically, if to make the vast majority of the recovery Mike Simpson has to sit in Douglas waiting for cheques from E&Y in London, and making phone calls along the lines of "You got my money yet?!" As we have rightly complained all the eggs were in one basket, but doesn't this make the recovery infinitely easier?
And if we keep getting more organised we'll be oversight on the creditors' committee.
What am I missing ? (I will read essays)

Posted by follow_the_tao on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 23:31
Sorry expatfrance1, I

Sorry expatfrance1, I misunderstood your 10% estimate.

As for £150 million, Bell confirmed in his last affidavit that the monies required for payments from DCS would be available regardless whether the banks made their contribution this year or not. So the money is there and evidently can be used if necessary.

If they say the distributions will be slower under DCS it is because they want to make them slower. I am certainly not advocating spending the full £150 million all at once but that money is at their disposal if they really want to accelerate the payouts. There is absolutely no need for a completely new scheme, poorly concocted by overpriced international consultants.

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 22:36
jkk, Stop twisting what I

jkk,

Stop twisting what I said for your own objectives.

I said the LP had £140 million so that would give about 10% payout. I did not say 10% of £140 milliion. You suggest that 10% will cost £84 million so we are in the same ball park.

The £150 million from IOMG will not be paid until after October. If it is meant to cover all bank failures between now and October they are highly unlikely to pay anything out of it before then.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:40
Elgee I just don't know

Elgee I just don't know (hadn't read you post before that reply) - the info we have on the SOA is akin to a string vest, I had thought and all the research I did earlier on in this debacle indicated the IoMG would think for the long term and the best outcome for their economy -- but NO - it appears they can't - except to brush it under the table. They are becoming increasingly frustrating to deal with, at least with HMG we know our position - (something smelly to scrape of the bottom of a shoe).

However under an SOA at least PWC fees would be capped or at the very least taxed, therefore the costs shouldn't be allowed to "run away" out of all proportion.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:30
jkk but the earliest the

jkk but the earliest the £150m will be availble is 22nd October 2009.

Also the £150m for the DCS is not just thrown in to the pot to give everyone £50k.

It is specifically to be used to compensate the amount between £20k and £50k. There is not £150m to be throw into the KSFIoM DCS pot.

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:23
elgee I think I posted

elgee I think I posted somewhere else that for 4 months work the SOA is to say the least a pretty poor effort. And yes both a SoA and liquidation have to run down the assets.

I wouldn't say I fear being a creditor of a company in liquidation but I wouldn't look forward to it. As a creditor of company's in lqiuidation the only experiences I have had is of the estimated retruns falling everytime the liquidator did an update until they were nothing compared to the figures first mentioned.

I am not saying I am for or against, but just as a gut feeling I'd say the liquidator would not do it as efficently as a SoA and take plenty of fees along the way and spend plenty on other professional fees as well. That is just from my personal experience over the years.

There is no certainty the Deemster will allow the SoA to pass tomorrow so we could all be wasting our time discussing the relative merits or not as by this time tomorrow we could be in a liquidation scenario anyway. But if it comes down to it people will just have to make up their own minds.

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:19
Sorry if it was a "bloody

Sorry if it was a "bloody stupid question". Your answer is that the costs are likely to be high. I think that is quite true, although it would be hard to imagine them exceeding, say, 10% of amount deposited. I am still puzzled as to how these costs you refer to could be avoided in any of the alternatives currently on the table.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:16
Expatfrance, you complain

Expatfrance, you complain about misinformation and then you spread it yourself. Mike Simpson has confirmed that he has the funds to pay a 10% dividend within 2 -3 months from the date of liquidation. That is 10% of £840 million or £84 million (not 10% of £140 million). That sum plus £150 million approved by the Tynwald is sufficient to pay each depositor up to £50,000, or in full if their deposit is lower.

So if you are under £50k, you could already be celebrating and ordering yet another bottle of Dom Perignon at La tour d'argent.

Why do they not want to pay us? You tell me. But when they claim that their 3 distributions in 2 years will somehow speed up the process it is a BLATANT LIE.

I just cannot understand why you all do not see it. It is so obvious!

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:16
Why fear liquidation and yes

Why fear liquidation and yes I and everyone else knows that the SOA is a form of liquidation, just by different name. Ask anyone who has been through a full blown liquidation and seen the costs racked up by the liquidator and their legal teams, too in some cases recover far less than it cost to effect that recovery, in others lose the entire case with costs awarded against.
Wherever there is dispute and KSF UK is mighty a big one - 2 sets of liquidators arguing over a £400m pot you can bet your bottom dollar (if you have one left) the only winners will be the liquidators.

No I don't like the SOA - to be perfectly honest I don't see why the higher depositors should bear all the costs of the what should be covered under DCS - if all goes to plan the IoMG pays bu88er all, once over 60% the higher depositors are taxed with paying back any money forwarded by IoMT before they can receive any additional monies. However that is preferable to PWC and lawyers growing even richer on mine and others deposits.

Am I pi88ed off with it all -- too bloody right I am, I don't want to be here having to accept charity to live and answering bloody stupid questions on why I fear liquidation, anyone in their right mind fears liquidation -- except the liquidators of course.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:09
Ally: I take the point. But

Ally: I take the point. But are the matters to which you refer not reasons for fearing being a creditor of an insolvent company, rather than reasons for fearing liquidation per se, which is the usual consequence of finding yourself in that situation.

We are already creditors of an insolvent company (by its own admission on 9 October 2008). The only practical alternatives we are being offered are formal liquidation or a SoA. However, in both cases the company's assets need to be liquidated and so the same processes that take place in a liquidation will have to take place under the scheme of arrangement.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 18:01
elgee I am neither posting

elgee I am neither posting for or against the DCS. As for liquidation I have been involved in a professional capacity on both sides, as a creditor of a company that went into liquidation and also part of the management team that put a group subsidiary into liquidation. The only thing you can be sure of in liquidation is the liquidator getting paid.

An example on the IoM was SIB that went into liquidation quite a while ago. I think at one point in that liquidation over £11m was spent on legal and professional fees chasing one of the directors of the company. Eventually a settlement was reached out of Court for the grand sum of £100k. That £11m wasted on legal and professional would have been a lot better used shared out amongst the depositors of the failed bank rather then chasing the sum of £100k

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 17:54
I do not think the SoA offers

I do not think the SoA offers any guarantees as to amounts to be repaid, other than up to the limits of the DCS.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 17:31
jkk: Agreed, save that the

jkk: Agreed, save that the SoA does not offer depositors the protection and safeguards and rights to participate that they have in a liquidation under statute.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 17:28
I would ask those with an

I would ask those with an "absolute fear of liquidation" to question why they have that fear and if it is rational.

We know why the IoM government has that fear - because of the perceived stain on its reputation and that of the Island as an international banking centre and because it is afraid of invoking the DCS and it being seen to have something in common with the emperor's new clothes, but these are not matters that need to concern the depositors (the banks can be forced to contribute to the DCS if they do not do so voluntarily, or else the IOMG is likely to find itself having to make up the deficit). I suspect that if the SoA is rejected then certain prominent figures in and working for IOMG may find their careers coming to a premature and abrupt end.

All these are good reasons for the IOMG fearing liquidation, and I think that the IOMG has enjoyed some success in trying to persuade us through postings in this forum that we should share its fear. But can someone please remind me again of the reasons why we should do so, because I am unable to find any?

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 17:29
No, you're wrong skint. On

No, you're wrong skint. On two counts.

  1. DCS and SoA function in exactly the same way. The Treasury advances the funds up to £50,000 maximum and then recovers whatever general percentage of distribution was made to depositors.

  2. SoA is not a loan. Just like DCS it is a top up scheme and it will cost exactly the same. The government will not "go to Tynwald and request the funding" because they have already got it, £150 m to be exact, and no additional request for that purpose has been made in Bell's budget.

And if you fear liquidation I have real bad news for you; SoA is liquidation and will be conducted by exactly the same person, a certain Mike Simpson. It will be carried out in exactly the same manner, and will bring exactly the same dividend in exactly the same time as the liquidation by its proper name.

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 17:16
Sorry that may be the case. I

Sorry that may be the case. I am under 50k and that is what I picked out of the affidavit. Perhaps someone else can confirm.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:49
I thought SOA guaranteed >50k

I thought SOA guaranteed >50k 60% of deposit within the two years as well? that is the guarantee? Not that when it hets to 60% the govt take money back otherwise that 60% could be in 5 years time?

Posted by thesunnysouth on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:45
According to the latest

According to the latest affidavits as I understand it there will initially be 3 scheduled distributions. These will be at 3 months, 1 Year and 2 years from the start of the SoA.

These payments will be from assets that have been realised by the liquidator provisonal, however if there is insufficient money to meet the 'guaranteed' payments they will be topped up by the IOM. The first payment will be £20,000, the second will be for £15,000 and the third for another £15,000 making a maximum total of £50,000. After this any payments will come from other assets as and when they are realised, much like a normal liquidation.

Once depositors have recieved a minimum of 60% of there deposit, any future realisations will go to the IOM to pay back the top up payments. However that does not limit the final payout to 60%. If the liquidator provisonal can get a 100% return then all depositors will get a 100% return.

Also as far as I understand it, bond holders will get more out of an SoA than the DCS.

So for some the SoA may be better whilst for others liquidation may be the prefered choice. In the end it will be down to each individual to look at their own circumstances and decide what the best option is.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:31
Because the principle of SOA

Because the principle of SOA is a loan, far easier for them to go to Tynwald and request funding for a loan than a "possible" straight funding.

BTW - as Ally I'm not indicating a preference towards SOA - more a dissatisfaction and absolute fear of liquidation.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:23
JKK, The 30% you mention with

JKK,

The 30% you mention with regards to Landsbanki Guernsey was paid back in October. However, it is looking increasingly likely that it may take many many years before any other payment is made. The Guernsey government have in effect stuck two fingers up at the depositors and said it is not their problem. This is just another example of the misinformation that is being posted on the forum.

There seem to be some people that think that if the bank goes into liquidation tomorrow then Mike Simpson will start paying out dividends on Friday. That is not the case, the only fund available to pay out at the moment is the £140 million he has in liquid assets and as people have mentioned he will retain a good proportion of that so perhaps a 10% payout within 2 or 3 months.

After that, who knows. The DCS is unfunded although IOM have commited to putting in £150 after October of no other banks go bust. Then what? Maybe 10 million a year from bank contributions into the DCS to share out.

You also talk about the percentage figures for an SOA comming from a document bearing a disclaimer "Draft for Discussion, Strictly Confidential". Well several weeks ago tha is exactly what it was, a discusson document, these same figures have now been presented to the court in the last affidavit on 13 February.

There seem to be a number of people on this forum who want liquidation just so that the DCS can fail and then they can say 'See, we told you the IOM couldnt be trusted'.

I am here to get my money back, not to prove a point!

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:21
Fine, skint, so how is it

Fine, skint, so how is it going to be different under SoA?

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 16:12
jkk - the 150m is marked for

jkk - the 150m is marked for DCS payments - those DCS payments are to cover any & all bank failures up to Oct 2009 - therefore could not be distributed to the depositors of a single entity before that date.

140m with PWC - at best you will receive 10% as a stage payment in liquidation, the liquidator will retain at all times sufficient funds to ensure his own costs / his lawyers costs / court costs / contingency.

Liquidation now! you will receive 10% from PWC - approx 2>3 months & a first DCS payment around Nov>Dec, after that -- who knows -- months/ years before PWC decide to release another payment, with at least 12 months between DCS payments

Any other money coming in under liquidation (loan book / KSF UK) is pie in the sky - until the liquidator has it in his hands

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 15:58
No, Ally, they are not

No, Ally, they are not increasing the liquidity at all, and they are not "ensuring" anything. In his last affidavit Lovett merely declares that "it is anticipated the creditors will receive distributions more quickly". He does not even want to make that statement in the first person, either singular or plural.

The percentage figures you are quoting come from a document bearing a disclaimer "Draft for Discussion, Strictly Confidential". That hardly sounds like a guarantee of anything to me. And even if we accept those numbers as genuine they amount to an aggregate payment of 35% of £840 million i.e. £294 million. With £150 million from the Tynwald and £140 million Mike Simpson has in cash, they already have all the funds, which in their boundless kindness they are willing to distribute among us wretches over the period of the next 3 years.

If they were sincere about their aim to accelerate the distribution, they could have put the bank into liquidation in November and could have had all that money distributed by now, without bringing AlixPartners and all other hyenas to the trough.

I read today that depositors of Landsbanki Guernsey, which went bankrupt at the same time as KSFIoM, will receive 30% of their deposits in the coming days. Thanks to the tireless efforts of IoMG and their learned consultants we may get that privilege in slightly less than three years. And you are not ashamed to defend those scoundrels?

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 15:22
@Ally, but could we pursue

@Ally, but could we pursue the directors under SoA? I totally agree that in terms of getting back our money, there must be better avenues, but I for one will want to chase after these sons of bitches if I ever get enough money back to do so. No one should be in a position to act so recklessly or negligently that they bring down this calamity upon the heads of thousands of ordinary decent people saving for, or in retirement. Whether the FSC advised the move or not, these geezers get paid shed loads of loot to make the decisions: this decision was the worst one they ever could have made - and flew in the face of common sense and good judgement.
Ice

Posted by IceCrusher on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:45
Hampnew We can play on words

Hampnew

We can play on words but what I am saying is the regulator (the FSC) knew of the movment of funds and raised no objection to that movement.

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:40
Ally- I am not a lawyer. But

Ally- I am not a lawyer.

But I know that it is not the FSC's brief to give advice. I believe that their constitution specifically bars them from giving advice, so no defence there whatsoever.

They are not lawyers either.

Posted by Hampnew on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:34
jkk Under the DCS the IoM

jkk

Under the DCS the IoM have made up to £150m availble to pay compensation between the £20 and £50k band.

Under the SoA they have said they will ensure that the 3 payments are made on time representing 12.5%, 7.5% and 15% of funds. So they are increasing liquidatiy if recovered assets do not cover those percentages.
So even depositors over £50k would received 35% back within 2 years as the IoMG would provide the extra liquidity to ensure those payments were made. (They would of course recover the funds at a later date when assets were converted in to cash.

As they are ensuring all depositors receive those stated percentages (or stated minumum amounts) they are adding greater lqiuidity to the scheme than they would under the DCS where they would only be topping up compnesation claims between £20-£50k.

As for having asked Tynwald to be able to use funds for a SoA I must admit I don't know the poistion on that, I might of missed it, but as I haven't seen it I would assume they haven't yet asked.

Again I would like to point out that this post is neither for or against the SoA

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:32
A legal action against the

A legal action against the bank directors may not bring an immediate monetary reward but it may uncover evidence of criminal negligence on the part of FSC and IoMG. The fact that IoMG is trying so hard to declare a moratorium on suing the Company is a fair indication that they are afraid of something and have something to hide.

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:31
Ice - I am not a lawyer.

Ice - I am not a lawyer. However I think it would be a very hard case to prove against the directors. The most obvious defence they have is that they were advised to move the funds by the regulator (the FCS). I think any action against the directors would result in very little if anything being recovered. I would suggest other avenues would be better pursued.

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:24
Ally, there is no "extra

Ally, there is no "extra liquidity" in SoA. The amount that IoMG have at their disposal for the top up scheme is identical in SoA and DCS. They never applied to the Tynwald for any extra liquidity for SoA and have shown no intention of ever willing to do so.

Posted by jkk on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:18
What about the Directors of

What about the Directors of the bank though Ally? They were complicit in moving the assets to London - they more than anyone else should be under investigation surely.
Ice

Posted by IceCrusher on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 12:59
Concern about the SOA As I

Concern about the SOA

As I understand the Affidavits posted last week – the SOA provides for us to receive an assured sum of £50,000 each, and (but?) also provides the figure of a 60% return of our deposits. Is this a guaranteed figure, or is it also a “speculative” one, as per the previous Affidavit? This is not made clear.

I’m also concerned about the IPRR – as I understand this, once we have, any and all of us, received our £50,000, we have to wait for further “dividends” until other creditors have received up to the same percentage of our total deposit that we have received. This seems very fair indeed, but also suggests a very great deal of uncertainty. How long are any of us likely to have to wait between getting our £50,000 and getting anything further?

Another issue being debated – my understanding from reading the Affidavits is that we are barred from pursuing proceedings against the Company, but not against any Third Party, nor is the Company barred from pursuing Third Parties. However, the Affidavit submitted by Gabriel Moss, which provides legal details regarding Schemes of Arrangement, in its “Claims against Third Parties” section (Paragraphs 29-33), seems to suggest that the Company may bring claims for breach of duty, etc., whether or not the Liquidators Provisional remain in office; but that Third Parties may be summoned to provide information, etc., only as long as the LPs remain in office; and, crucially, that ANY CLAIMS OF FRAUDULENT TRADING can only be made (by Liquidators) if a winding-up order is made – thus, it seems to me, not if an SOA is in place.

In our own case, we are about to retire, and leave the country we are living in, and we need funds urgently. Our idea of, finally, having a home of our own, has evaporated, and we hope now only to have enough to be able to rent a roof over our heads. We will need to find jobs and continue working (this, in the current economic climate, is worrying enough). The SOA provides the security (ha!) of having assured payments over the next two and a half years, but what (as we get older) then?

The DCS + Liquidation route, however, is – to us – a completely unknown quantity, especially in terms of a time frame.

I try to accept what has happened. I try to adapt. But back comes the knowledge that we have saved hard to have (just) enough to provide ourselves with a home and an income to last us through to the end of our lives – and it would do that, even with 0% interest. The current economic climate would have hit us hard, but we would have been in the same boat as everyone else, and we would have been able to make decisions (perhaps we would have needed to continue working anyway) based on our being in control. As it is, we have been completely disempowered, and all control taken away from us – and it is this that I resent more than anything. (And we have to read newspaper articles sympathetic to the dilemma of KSFUK depositors who have to decide between different rates of interest on their deposits!)

I know that there are DAG members, and perhaps other non-DAG depositors, in far, far worse straits than ourselves: those expecting babies, those needing to pay for their children’s university education, those older than us, and so on. This situation is just so outrageous: we seem to be hittting walls whichever way we turn: where IS the humanity?

But we have John Wright and Edwin Coe – presumably they will have looked closely at all of this, and will be alert to the problems (for us all), and will advise us accordingly.

Posted by Hoping and coping on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 12:43
jkk I don't disagree that

jkk I don't disagree that there could be a number of resons why the IoMG have pursued a SoA. As I stated in my post, the posting was not meant to be for or against a SoA. The fact is the IoMG have stated that they will inject the funds into the SoA so whether I support it or not the SoA will have extra liquidity than a liquidation and so should pay quicker.

As for legal action, I am not a lawyer, just an accountant. However on reading the SoA document the only bar on legal action I can see is against the Company. So everyone is still free to sue the FSC, IoMG or anyone else they can thing of.

Posted by Ally on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 09:34
Thanks for your kind

Thanks for your kind wishes.

Your calculations and mine are in the same ballpark.

Since information is limited , seems we are about right.

Now we have EPS 2 which adds 94 million up front---yes it will be offset I know---seems there is 100 million from Simpson--getting closer to what is needed.
Question is where will the remaining money to fund the DCS come from and when?

Is the 94 million for EPS part of the 150million agreed by Tynwald?

Still don't know really--maybe the court hearing will clarify tomorrow!

Posted by bobwin on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 02:53
'In the region of 100k' How

'In the region of 100k'

How much in the region ?

This SOA is clear alright.

As clear as mud

Posted by bellyup on Wed, 18/02/2009 - 00:47
Ally, if IoMG is prepared to

Ally, if IoMG is prepared to inject £100 million or £150 million into the SoA why can't they pay it into the DCS? Why invent a scheme when there is already one in existence, approved by the Tynwald on top of that?

Why do they pay insanely high fees of AlixPartners and other hyenas to provide them with something they already have? Why did they decide to forfeit their £10.4 million deposit in the bank?

There must be a reason for all that and I suspect that the moratorium on legal action may just be that reason.

Posted by jkk on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 23:12
No way Jose, or should I say,

No way Jose, or should I say, thesunnysouth. The word guarantee does not even appear in the terms of SoA!

The 60% you mention is the level at which the dividend payments to high value depositors are halted, and all liquidation proceeds go to Treasury from then on. That's all. No guarantee and not in 2 years. Just read Lovett's latest affidavit.

Posted by jkk on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 22:47
No guarantee in SoA to 60% As

No guarantee in SoA to 60%

As far as I can see, the figure of 60% is not a guarantee.. just a figure at which Treasury will claw back their money.. The only guarantees are to the limits of DCS

Posted by Nixi on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 22:39
jkk, my posting is meant to

jkk, my posting is meant to be neither for or against the SoA but hopefully to clarify.

The IoM Treasury will make available in the region of £100m to speed up the relase of funds to depositors. Yes this money will be repaid to IoMG but obviously this injection of funds will speed up payments while the liquidation would have to wait to turn these assets in to cash before it could make similar distributions. If someone injects £100m of cash into any scheme then it will quite obviously be able to pay quicker than a scheme that didn't have an injection of £100m cash.

As for legal rights. The SoA only seeks to stop legal action against the company. As the Company is in effect bankrupt exactly what purpose would taking action against the company achieve? Nowhere does the SoA say it seeks to stop legal action action the FSC, IoMG or indeed anyone else.

Posted by Ally on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 22:33
JKK. The difference is that

JKK. The difference is that the IoMG have guaranteed the 60% wheeas the Liquidation has no guarantee. If PwC think that the liquidation sale is not getting enough then they will not sell and we wait. Under the scheme we get 60% in two years. Where is that guarantee under liquidation?

Posted by thesunnysouth on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 22:23
I am not a legal eagle but I

I am not a legal eagle but I have noticed a very peculiar trait in Lovett's proposals. As you may have noticed, the conditions of the proposed SoA change quite dramatically from one affidavit to another. In one version Mike Simpson is dismissed from his post the day the SoA is activated, in the next one the liquidator provisional stays throughout the whole process and even runs the show; in the third affidavit the forex rate date is set for 15 May, in the next one the date is set back by full 7 months.

There is however one item which remains constant and it is the moratorium on legal proceedings against "the Company". We would need a good litigation lawyer to find out what legal action against the bank we might possibly take, but I think Lovett would not put this clause in several times, if it were not important for IoMG.

Posted by jkk on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 22:09
Can you clarify why you think

Can you clarify why you think you lose these rights under the SoA?
Also - it seems to me the rights we are talknig about are (i) sue FSC; and (ii) sue directors.
We already know there is no directors' liability insurance so there is no point in spending a lot of our cash suing Dockers and the boys. As for the FSC - if , as I suspect is the case, the position is the same as in UK, they don't have any "direct liability" anyway. For instance, with the FSA mishandling of EQuitable Life (an ominous start) after years of enquiries ruling "FSA responsible" whether anyone gets any compo is ultimately a matter for the Government's discretion. Is it not the case that IOM Govt has assessed how much it is worth to them paying us off/ how much they can afford and this is what is being offered to the SoA? Why do we think they are going to vote us more money in the future if some ombudsman decides the FSA was at fault - which seems 100% clear already anyway?
I can understand we might wish to see Dockers' head on a stick and all that - and someone to say "naughty naughty" to the FSC but will this add to our ultimate recovery? Doesn't look like it to me.

Posted by steveservaes on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 18:04
Sunnysouth, Both options, SoA

Sunnysouth,

Both options, SoA and liquidation are financed from exactly the same sources; i.e. proceeds from the liquidation of bank's assets and IoMG's £150 million.

The Treasury does not have enough money to offer 60% in two years to depositors, elderly or otherwise, who had large sums deposited in the bank. Such money will have to come from liquidated assets and these will be identical in both cases. There are no objective reasons why the payoffs should be speedier in either SoA or liquidation.

The only difference is that under SoA you lose the right to recover the remaining 40% through legal channels, but all the rest is exactly the same in either option.

Posted by jkk on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 17:53
Bob, If an elderly depositor

Bob,
If an elderly depositor had a large sum deposited and was offered 60% in two years with the prospect of more if E&Y pull their finger out, or £50k now but you have to fight for the rest, which would you choose? At least with 60% my mother can at least start looking at bungalows again and possibly with a depressed housing market, afford one. With £50k and a fight i am afraid there is only one winner and that is the IoM.

Posted by thesunnysouth on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 16:20
Bobby, Are you suggesting

Bobby,
Are you suggesting that if sufficient funds were available from the bank that everyone gets £50K whether that is their total deposit or whether they have £500k deposited?
Higher end depositors would never vote for that, particularly with the words 'hopefully obtain full payment'. Some would get 10% or less of their deposit and others (<£50K) 100%. The purpose of the DCS is to compensate up to £50K.
May I ask that it is not proposed by the DAGs lawyers?

Posted by thesunnysouth on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 16:15
LJ: It is an unsurprising

LJ: It is an unsurprising result though, isn't it? Do you think there has ever been an insolvency in which the creditors did not want all their money back? While I see no harm in the DAG advocate saying what you ask him to say to the court, I think I have said before that the judge would think or say "well obviously they would like all their money back".

It might be more helpful to the legal team if you now asked: "do you want all your money back and are you willing and able to contribute 1% of whatever you have at stake to the legal fund?" Or 2% or whatever you consider a reasonable figure?

On the same issue, at the risk of being pedantic, any claim brought against the regulator or any other (juristic) person in this matter would be a claim for compensation (or damages, if you prefer). Damages in tort (eg negligence) are usually sought at a level which compensates for all losses in such a way that it puts the claimant back in the position he would have been if the tort had not occurred. However, if suing in contract, for example if a claim were brought against the bank or its guarantor, damages would be sought so as to put claimant in the position he would have been if the contract had been performed (eg. had the bank been able to pay the balance in your account). If you think about it, you'll see they are not quite the same.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 15:46
As at 3.23pm 17 Feb 92% of

As at 3.23pm 17 Feb 92% of members have voted: we don't want compensation - we want our money back 100%. This is 9% of the DAG's membership and clearly shows an indisputable TREND in support of the DAG continuing to fight to get justice served.

Of course, the Court is going to make a decision one way or another, but it would be a powerful 'flag' if our solicitor were to tell the Court not only what the DAG really wants but that it is going to fight through the courts to get it.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Tue, 17/02/2009 - 15:23
<50k now. I think elgee did

<50k now. I think elgee did all of these figures some time ago. Can't find it. I think the result was that the DCS could pay everybody already. I don't know why we are being made to wait. This is an awful compensation scheme. Prefer Kirin.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:57
This is not the case. I

This is not the case. I personally as a FOREX depositor who was previously for the SOA am not going to accept it now without a fight since the exchange rate calculation date is not the same as in the DCS. As a consequence all FOREX depositors are at a severe disadvantage in the SOA and it is certain that smaller FOREX depositors with less than 50K£ equivalent in the pot will receive 20-25% LESS from the SOA than they would from the DCS. Thus the main principle for the SOA that EVERYONE should receive THE SAME OR MORE has been violated. If SOA is indeed implemented I intend to challenge it legally.

Posted by klauseriksen on Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:04