What Would you Like to do about the liquidator ?

Poll to close at 12pm Sunday as time is short.
Background and objectives: 

Creditors have the opportunity to approve an application to court for the replacement of the current provisional liquidators, PwC, as part of the process for the first creditors’ meeting.

DST has been investigating the options open to creditors. These are as follows:

(a) leave PwC in place and effectively approve their appointment as liquidators; or

(b) appoint a “conflict” liquidator to work alongside PwC. A “conflict” liquidator is appointed alongside the current joint liquidators as another joint liquidator. A conflict liquidator deals with specific issues that are agreed with the creditors’ committee. These would typically include investigations where the incumbent liquidator is perceived to have, or potentially have, a conflict of interest or where the creditors’ committee elects to have the conflict liquidator pursue other specified claims, such as contentious issues or forensic accountancy. DST's understanding is that this would not necessarily lead to an increase in costs as the scope of work for each firm would ensure that there was as little duplication of roles between the two firms involved as possible; or

(c) replace PwC. This is likely to be contentious to implement and would almost certainly involve a higher level of costs initially as the replacement liquidator would need to get up to speed on all of the issues relating to KSFIOM and handle the handover of intellectual property. It would however mean that the liquidator was one that was chosen by creditors.

DST understands that the hourly charge-out rates for a conflict liquidator and a replacement liquidator will be less than PwC’s, which are high (in keeping with their “Big Four” status). The indications DST has received after meetings with alternative accountancy firms are that the charge-out rates for the conflict liquidator and a replacement liquidator would be in the region of 20-30% less than PwC’s.

The candidates for the role of conflict liquidator and the liquidator are in the top ten UK accountancy firms. The conflict liquidator would be based in London; the replacement liquidator would be run in a similar way to PwC, with a representative both in London and on the Isle of Man.

Each option has certain advantages and disadvantages associated with it and DST wish to canvas DAG for its preferred solution. Please choose which option you would prefer DST to pursue on your behalf.

Leave PwC in place
13% (78 votes)
Appoint a "conflict" liquidator to work alongside PwC
48% (296 votes)
Replace Pwc
39% (239 votes)
Total votes: 613
    Login to post comments
About 60 quid ( at 1%) Not

About 60 quid ( at 1%)

Not really quite the same as having ones lifes savings at stake Elgee.

Posted by bellyup on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 19:14
Yes, but otherwise I could

Yes, but otherwise I could not have seen the result (it does not display until after you have voted). Also, I still have a personal interest in the liquidation, and maybe the DCS, because of interest accrued from Oct 2008. I think that is true of everyone in my position, but of course it is a very small amount.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:57
Elgee, I guess we just don't


I guess we just don't know. There are many more sub-£50K depositors than over £50K as depositors of the bank, so a bias is quite possible - though whether anyone in this position would be bothered to vote is unclear. I would think some would.

The point I'm making here is that while it is a poll, it shouldn't be used as a mandate for action by anyone unless the voting is clear (which it isn't) - and that was what you were suggesting.

Did you vote?

Posted by frog on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:52
Frog, we are unable to get

Frog, we are unable to get that data from Andy, so we do not know. It is rather unlikely, don't you think, to be biased by sub-50k depositors or to be biased by non-depositors? The poll was only a poll, which was intended to obtain an indication, and not a full vote on the issue

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:38
Well I'm not so sure that

Well I'm not so sure that this is statistically signifcant as Elgee says - for example, how many are even depositors? - and how many have more than £50K? - surely these are factors that should decide - not raw numbers where anyone can vote.

Posted by frog on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 18:07
Replacing the liquidator

Replacing the liquidator guarantees NOTHING other than extra cost.

The way this is going, there will be nothing left in the pot.
PWC liquidator costs are already sucking our funds dry on a daily basis.
Replacing them will just be adding another suction pump.
The remaining bank staff and directors are also drinking our juice on a daily basis.
DAG's lawyers will have their fill from our assets if the IOM courts say they can.
The DCS payments will have to be recouped.
DCS payments and any dividends will no doubt be delayed if the liquidator is replaced.

I trust the majority on the creditors committee (whoever they will be) can see this.

Posted by chris watson on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 17:46
It is not logical to replace

It is not logical to replace the LP. Just simply it will cost more and bring more complications. Nothing can beachived batter by replacing, just more delays and more expense. Batter to have more close look and meetings with the current LP for batter work.

Posted by steelwood on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 17:24
Although Mike Simpson has

Although Mike Simpson has proved disappointing to remove him would entail appointing someone else.
There is no guarantee how this person ( who must be from the IOM) might turn out he could be just the same or worse.
What would be guaranteed would be more costs and yet more delays

Posted by bellyup on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 16:24
Some 550 people responded to

Some 550 people responded to the poll. That is a more than adequate representative sample and numbers in each choice were such that the statistical errors were well under the levels required to declare the results statistically significant and DST needed to make a decision urgently.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 15:30
It seems to me that the

It seems to me that the voting process of whether or not to retain the existing liquidator has stalled for whatever reason. Perhaps DST are trying to prevent the opposition (IoMG) from finding out what the final tally is with regard to the depositors choice of a liquidator. I can't see the voting process coming to an end without some explanation. Only I small percentage of known depositors have voted so far.

Posted by Expat13 on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 14:45
Thanks Belly up, you have a

Thanks Belly up, you have a point--just venting my spleen-we all have a threshold eh?

I am just pig sick of these over paid morons playing with our money and frankly trying to justify it.

Like one of my bosses said, I don't mind people thinking that I am a c**t, but when they try to prove it, I get annoyed.

Like the Fayle saying that payments will be made by cheque---what century are they in--when I was a kid, cheques were frowned upon and that was a long time ago!

I e mailed him and said the only way I would acept a cheque would be if he personally paid it to my account.

I notice that Simpson gives the option for e transfer for liquidation payments--why not DCS?

Seems like another amateur show.

Posted by bobwin on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 05:53
expatfrance1 When I refer to


When I refer to more votes I am referring to all those depositors that have yet to vote. There is only a small percentage of depositors that have voted so far.
In my view employing a conflict liquidator is going to bejust as costly if not more so than just retaining PWC. I personally don't think that employing a conflict liquidator is a very wise choice although I am prepared to go along with whatever the majority want. Unfortunately the majority have yet to vote.

Posted by Expat13 on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 16:17
Not everybody can visit this

Not everybody can visit this site everyday some are only able to make it during the week ends or during the week so look at the numbers of the poll only some 600 out of 2700 voted so far how many have actually read it?

Posted by banditman on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 14:41
@Bobwin You could nip along


You could nip along to the Manxforums and add your 2 cents . There are 3 threads running on this subject there or you could start another of your own.

The idea is not to be rude or abusive ( they will do that ) but simply, coolly and calmly to state our case and keep the threads at the top of the forums where they get maximin viewing.


Posted by bellyup on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 13:44
Is the Liquidator Poll still

Is the Liquidator Poll still open ? Some people have not voted yet.
Unless the Creditors Committee is powerful - we had better have a liquidator we know is on our side.

Posted by sabi Star on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 11:34
I dont think he did adjourn,

I dont think he did adjourn, he actually reserved judgement.
This means, AFAIk that he didn't give the decision immediately, and that he will reflect and give the decision later.
It merely means that he wants time to consider the arguments and make a decision.

Posted by manx-person on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 11:19
I think you are right Fish

I think you are right Fish but I already sent in the Special proxy one, filled in per the instructions. I now notice that the DST state they prefer the General Proxy. Some clarification would be appreciated. I've still time to send another one but don't want to cause confusion.

Posted by Estes on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 09:28
Adjournment is totally

Adjournment is totally fucking unbelievable--the DD was reluctant to adjourn when the matter was first raised,

They are totally fucking corrupt and bent and self interested.

I wish I had a gun.

Here it cost $200 only---they are not worth that much--they are all arseholes of the 10th degree.

Anyone who trusts the IOM gov or judiciary or financial services pratts needs a brain transplant--fuck them all and all who sail in them--the internet will destroy them for sure.

Yes I am pissed off-anyone want to fight?

Posted by bobwin on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 08:24
Simpson is an accountant and

Simpson is an accountant and they are made to look interesting by actuaries.

I am good at numbers but also have some humanity--a feel for empathy--sorry Mike you don't have this 6th sense--numbers are great--but you have to listen to the people and act accordingly--your action in regards to costs is totally unacceptable--the loser pays is the golden rule--tell your pals in IOMG/T to pay their round--they called the tune which we did not want and THEY must pay the fiddler.

Get off your comfortable chair and do something positive.

I would like to be abusive but I will not lower myself to the IOM values.

This whole debacle is caused by the actions and inactions of the shopkeepers in Douglas--they will live to regret their position--for sure.

Posted by bobwin on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 08:13
The Deemster adjourning the

The Deemster adjourning the vote on costs is, for me, the last straw. It epitomises the corruption/self-service of the Isle of Man Government. Simpson is, I am convinced, one of them (or has been bullied into being one of them). He needs to go!
PS. Anyone know how long the adjournement was for? Probably at the minimum 90 f****** days.

Posted by uptight61 on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 07:04
Hampnew is right: Get it off

Hampnew is right: Get it off the island!

Think! What was and has been our problem: Being on the IoM.
Apart from Guernsey that is close but not as bad, it would be fair to say that THE WORST PLACE IN THE WORLD IS THE IOM.
When we want a line of attack this is it: The worst place in the world.
Can we get this message out?
Now to return to MS. As far as I know this guy is just a slightly better than average student that got picked up by PWC. Why should he be any better than just a little better than average. There are technicians amongst us that realise that most jobs just require 'bog standard abilities'. What sets one worker apart from another is their motivation. Simpson does not display appropriate motivation, that is appropriate from our point of view. Hampnew makes the pertinent point that from the IoM's vista he's perfect.
We have got to start thinking dialectically.
Is he sorting the situation out or not? What attitude has he displayed?
Let's find Hampnew's references.
Woolly thinking is why idiots kept talking to IoMG thinking that they would finally get through.
I remember an album title from the 70's, by Walsh : You can't argue with a sick mind. I don't want to argue, I don't want to debate, I don't want a stream of obfuscatory excuses. When I worked I prided myself on one thing more than anything and that was : I deliver.
Is MS delivering? I know that he wouldn't be working in my team. I don't about the rest of you, but remove the rose tinted glasses. Look at the position that is developing on the Mainland, the bankers have taken over the government: Look at King criticising the our friend Alistair the Chancellor. Look at the USA.
I was sitting in a restaurant tonight. I bumped into a Yank in an office somewhere, he was looking for info, and we went out to eat.
Our conversation in English drew the attention of two other Americans in the place. Separately they came over to introduce themselves. What I found staggering was that they were all of the same mind. They were all absolutely disgusted with the American Government, it would be fair to say that these people were all educated and well-informed, as far as I could see we were meeting by accident.
'We' have met by accident on this site. It might be fair to say that there is a unifying current of opinion here.
We are finding something out about the situation, about the IoM. Some slowly, some more rapidly, some still mystified.
The people we are 'in discussion with' are all in their 'comfort zone'. We have to displace them from their cosy little world. They aren't going to like this. Everybody in the same comfort zone is suspect, exactly as Hampnew has pointed out.
This is politics, this isn't conspiracy theory, or lunatic fringe thinking, mindless criticism, or pointless stirring.
This is the reality. This is actually the reality of power politics but on a small scale. Corruption, at whatever level, is reprehensible. This is why when Bell makes idiot and obfuscatory statements in the HoK's the parish council with a few notable exceptions applaud him, they make not like him but in the land of the blind the one eyed monster is king.
We know the story by now, it's rather late, but the time for half measures and ill-informed accomodations has long passed. This is hard.ball. I won't be sending Chief Minister Brown a Christmas card this year. And after 36 years of voting Labour in the UK I won't be voting Labour, There is something rotten in state of Denmark.

We need tospeak with one voice. We need sensible debate here to agree on that one voice. Then we need to start singing in every associated location. We lobby with anybody in our half of the room.

Posted by follow_the_tao on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 06:47
Expat13, Why do WE need more


Why do WE need more votes to support removing PWC as liquidator? That's the whole idea of of a poll, you ask people to vote and then abide by the result, whatever that might be. This poll has already been extended because depositors got it 'wrong' and did not vote the way some wanted, is it now to be left opened indefinatlely until the 'correct' results is attained? What next, more people voting than are actually registered to vote?

Posted by expatfrance1 on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 06:36
We need more votes in support

We need more votes in support of removing PWC as liquidator.

Posted by Expat13 on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 03:28
What was the final result of

What was the final result of the poll about changing the liquidator?

Posted by banna on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 15:07
I missed the poll. Please

I missed the poll. Please cast my vote for the third option: 'Replace PWC'.

Posted by sunny1 on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 11:29
DAG's version of the special

DAG's version of the special proxy form is indeed the one DST say they prefer us to use. This is to give proxy to Robert Coates to vote "in accordance with DAG stategy team instructions in all votes". But are they absolutely sure that this will be accepted? The instructions on the Special Proxy form supplied by KSF state that special proxy can be used to vote for or against one or more of the proposed resolutions and that one should "insert the word 'for' or the word 'against' ..." for specified resolutions.

I would hate my vote to be wasted, especially as I intend to delay applying for the DCS in order for it to count.

Posted by anrigaut on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 10:24
So is it to be GENERAL or

So is it to be GENERAL or SPECIAL Proxy form?
Confused? I am.

Posted by sabi Star on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 09:22
Concerning the Robert Coates

Concerning the Robert Coates proxy that's not what the DST notes say. They specifically state that they prefer a special proxy form but one which states that COATES can only follow DAG directions. There's even an example to this effect provided on this site under the 'DAG REPRESENTATION ON CREDITORS COMMITTEE' link. This is for the DST to confirm but I read it all last night and I'm pretty sure they prefer the special proxy.

(Hope I got this right...just trying to be clear)

Posted by BustedFlat on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 07:55
Could I warn anybody who

Could I warn anybody who wants to give a proxy to Robert Coates that I believe the correct form to use is the General Proxy not the Special Proxy? The latter reduces our representative to a mere messenger and he will be unable to negotiate properly.

At least that is my reading of the Complete Liquidator's Form pages 10 and 11. The General Proxy gives the representative who is actually at the meeting the ability to vote according to his best judgement on the three questions in hand. The most crucial of these is the replacement of Mr. Simpson who is chairing the meeting and may only be too keen to disallow any incorrectly submitted Special Proxies the wording of which is very specific.

Posted by fish0143 on Wed, 24/06/2009 - 01:52
Did everyone receive an email

Did everyone receive an email about the poll - we never did and have just found this.

Posted by rapata on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 18:22
I ve been away from the site

I ve been away from the site and nothing has improved in our lives over this, . Simpson is crap, has only the isle of man treasurys intrests and he simply has to be replaced, but we want a real fighter for depositors., someone who feels for what we are going through not this man. I want my money back and as much of it as possible,..

Posted by hippychickrobbed on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 18:04
Who's for Simpson? It's

Who's for Simpson? It's interesting that no-one has commented in support of keeping Simpson or commented why they support him being kept with a little flee on his back to bite him! Key comments have been about why Simpson should go and many have said they have switched their vote to this end. I too have switched my vote. The man was a disaster waiting to happen, & it has.
Wisely we got shot of Wright (the benefits have outweighed the sickening costs) & we should do the same with Simpson who on performance has been all absurd cost & no benefit.

Posted by conned on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 17:56
What was the reason the

What was the reason the Deputy Deemster decided to defer his decision about the costs of the failed SOA?
What date is his decision now going to be taken?

Posted by sabi Star on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 17:56
Since the Deputy Deemster has

Since the Deputy Deemster has once again sided with the IoM Government with his deferred decision on the issue of costs for the failed SoA this is all the more reason to get rid of the IoM Government appointed PWC ASAP.

Posted by Expat13 on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 16:12
Cassandra again: Will no one

Cassandra again: Will no one Rid us of that IOMG toady?

For goodness sake, it is time to take the gloves off and carry the fight to our adversaries. Thus far, the score stands at around 50:2 in favour of IOMG / DSC / HMT. As the relegation of KSFIOM depositors draws closer, it is high time for a new coach. Mr Simpson has had many opportunities to come up to speed during the past 8 months. A better document than the SoA could have been produced in a few days by a solitary mediocre business school student. Instead of making the grade, Mr Simpson has repeatedly shown himself to be the creature of IOMG. We need a Liquidator who is skilled, experienced, and works only for our interests. We need to sack Mr Simpson for insufficient competence and because his loyalty is not with us depositors.

For starters, begin with someone who does not think that we depositors should pay for the SoA diversion, as Mr Simpson apparently does. Someone who does not need to hire in a colleague from another firm to show him how to sort things out - or to create a proper balance sheet. Someone who does not have to employ half of the former bank staff, some of whom assured us that everything was honky-dory up through October 8, in the midst of a run on the bank. (I wonder how many of them or their rellies were caught out, like we were?) . Hopefully, a Liquidator can be found who feels incensed at the outrageously shabby treatment and contempt we have suffered at the hands of IOMG / DSC / HMT, someone who has a successful track record and sufficient contacts and gravitas to represent us effectively, where it counts. Someone who knows who, where, and how to apply their efforts to achieve the desired outcome. Someone with dogged determination to claw our money back, whatever it takes. Does Mr Simpson fulfil any of those criteria!? Wait a few weeks and it may not matter. We need our own person as liquidator, and soon!

Posted by drglowry on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 14:05
I'm Under £50K but completely

I'm Under £50K but completely agree that the "services" of MS and his buddy Spratt in London ( I stll have no idea what,if anything, he has achieved for the depositors) should be dispensed with ASAP.
I don't see how this could affect the timing of the first DCS payout which is ,or should be funded by the IOM treasury's £150M contribution plus whatever has been obtained from the banks

Posted by mikeinfrance on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 12:46
Vote change and multiple

Vote change and multiple emails -
I too have changed my vote from conflict liquidator to remove PWC. I have found MS totally unconvincing in his phone sessions, his refusal to even investigate why most depositors in France (and elsewhere) never received their SOA voting documents and now his obstinate refusal to ask the Treasury to pay PWC's costs for the SOA (despite his mutterings to Frog about this). Like many others with no relevant experience, I had gone for the 'soft option', fearing the cost in time and money of starting again from scratch (and maybe ending up with someone no better). But the postings here have convinced me. Nevertheless, I would be happy to go with whatever DST believes to be for the best provided it includes some sanction of the present liquidators.

Re multiple emails: I too am getting these. I have subscribed to postings from DST ONLY (not 'this posting'). Most DST postings are blogs with no comments, so that has been fine. But this poll was started by DST and it appears that we get all comments made to their poll. It's not really a problem for me - I just delete them - but I imagine it could be more so for those with less easy internet access.

Posted by anrigaut on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 12:32
Good points rugrat, let's

Good points rugrat, let's hear from the strategy team. Also I'm bemused as to why people have voted to retain PwC, I totally respect everyone’s opinion but as our interests clearly haven't been protected by PwC why retain them?

One theory I have is that perhaps depositors who have less than GBP50K feel that to change liquidators may slow their reimbursement via the DCS?! I don't think it does mean any additional delay but the Strategy Team might want to clarify this and if my theory is correct then perhaps those voting for no change might be persuaded to vote to remove PwC to help those poor smucks like me that have considerably more then 50K tied up and subject to the whims and prevarications of the IoMT and PwC.

Posted by simonc on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 12:22
Just think what would have

Just think what would have happend if we had not replaced our friend MR WRIGHT. That has prooved very worth it.

Chambers ran rings around them all this morning regarding the costs. Judgement to be given at a later date. I think that the main reason for this is because PWC refused to ask for the Treasury to pay their costs. Finally however, they left it to the Deemster's discretion. I personally found the whole session a complete laugh, with the exception of Mr Chambers, whom, I thought was spectacular! I will be very surprised if he does not get the judgement on costs that he wants. Fingers crossed and hoping.

Posted by Julie on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 12:06
Given Simpson´s perceived

Given Simpson´s perceived failure to act in the interests of the creditors, and his generally weak performance, should we not all file complaints to PWC Global?

If the SOA costs that Simpson incurred are not picked up by IOM surely we should look to PWC for these, as Simpson failed to adequately protect creditors viz a viz SOA costs.

Posted by icdbrazil on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 11:48
Too many emails? Regarding

Too many emails?

Regarding emails from the site (typically those showing when people have posted a comment, etc) please read this.

Specifically, check the Subscriptions menu in the left side-bar to see your settings for the current item (this poll). Uncheck this post there if you want to stop receiving email when people post a comment.

Posted by ng on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 11:09
It's not just you simonc! I

It's not just you simonc!
I have been wondering why the "conflict" option remains so high, and was shocked to see 77 people voting to keep PwC. I myself have changed from "conflict" to removing PwC after thinking about it and also reading the reasoning of some of the others. Perhaps many feel that changing horses midstream is too sudden a move or perhaps it could cost a lot more, or that perhaps PwC will punish us somehow. I think it will cost more in the long run if we keep PwC, and a long run it promises to be. (Funny how you can lose the use of your money in a few hours, but it takes years to get it back even if you are in the right.)
What might encourage people to switch, and more people to vote to start with, is for the DST to make its strategy clearer as it did during the SoA saga. I had no doubts to vote for the defeat of SoA after reading the learned reasoning of the DAG legal team.
Would someone from the Strategy Team please make a statement with regards to a preference to replace PwC, perhaps even suggest an alternative liquidator, and show how it would cost less to replace PwC?

Posted by ruggrat on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 11:08
It seems that most people are

It seems that most people are saying the same thing i.e. get rid of PwC and Simpson but the vote still seems firmly in favour of a "conflict" liquidator. Many people seem to have changed their vote too from the conflict option to simply removing PwC but yet the votes still don't seem to be moving - I'm wondering why not? Is it maybe a technical glitch or is their a silent majority votong for the conflict option? Perhaps the IT guys at DAG could check the technical aspects especially where people have changed their votes? I'm not suggesting anything untoward is going on but the "exit polls" so to speak don't seem to be reflecting the actual recorded vote!! Or is it just me?

Posted by simonc on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 10:36
Have changed my vote. Have

Have changed my vote. Have now decided it would be better to get rid of PWC altogether and not bother with a 'conflict' liquidator either but to have a new liquidator who will fight our corner like a warrior instead of a wimp.

Posted by peter and louise on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 09:41
Hurrah - I will be pleased to

Hurrah - I will be pleased to see the back of Simpson. No more having to listen to um, er, um, er, um, ers again.

As well as all the points from Lucky Jim.

Posted by merlina on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 09:27

NEW LIQUIDATOR NEEDED...... as to costs, the benefits of replacing the liquidator will far outweigh the costs, especially if just one liquidator is appointed. The KSFIOM books are not that complicated compared to the likes of KSFUK, Lonro, etc.. A competent accountant would soon sort out the issues especially if his/her contract included being paid on results!

Posted by Lucky Jim on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 08:23
Personally I am VERY GRATEFUL

Personally I am VERY GRATEFUL for the e-mails - which are only one occasionally. I am being sent information I find very useful - many people cannot study this site all day and night - so being sent an e-mail of what is going on - is, I imagine, appreciated by most.
I do not understand why anyone is getting 20/30 a day.
Also - people are doing it for free. Even if you do not agree with the contents of the e-mails - you are getting a "personal service" which I think is GREAT!

Posted by sabi Star on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 08:01
In the short term there wil

In the short term there wil be costs to bear by replacing Simpsosn but longer term (we're talking 6 years) I think it will pay dividends. One must think long term rather than the immediate future in this matter.

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 07:20


There has been a significant swing in the poll as members are changing their minds in favour of replacing Mike Simpson, the liquidator.

He MUST go because he has lost the trust & confidence of the depositors, as:-
1. he has shown himself not to be up to the job
2. his has seriously compromised his impartiality
3. he is not pro-active in support of the depositors
4. his appointment was not with the backing of the DAG
5. he is absurdly expensive
6. he appears not to have a good working relationship with the receiver of KSFUK
7. he backed the SOA when the DAG was clearly against it

The Poll is still open -- if you have voted differently it is not too late to change your vote in favour of securing a new liquidator who will declare undivided allegiance to the DAG.

The DAG must demonstrate unequivocally that it means business and is determined to be in control of the recovery of all money legally stolen from them.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 07:05
Hear, hear. Initially, I

Hear, hear. Initially, I voted for the conflict liquidator but have reconsidered my position. Best to have a fresh start with, hopefully, no interference from those losers at the Isle of Man Treasury/Government

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 23/06/2009 - 05:29