Home | Business | It’s official – KSF (IOM) ‘bust’, and will be liquidated
Newsletter
Email:
Poll: Reciprocal Health Agreement
What should be done about the loss of the Reciprocal Health Agreement

It’s official – KSF (IOM) ‘bust’, and will be liquidated

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

His Honour inquired if anybody else wanted to oppose the Order and, noting there seemed to be no opposition, he would make the Order for a compulsory winding-up. He said he would also make an Order to appoint the provisional liquidator and an Official Receiver as the company can not pay its debts.

Finally, after 7 months of pointless prevarication, Kaupthing Singer Friedlander (IOM) Ltd was, this morning (Wed 27th May), officially placed in liquidation, at Douglas Court House; and an ‘official receiver’ appointed.

Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett granted the Order sought in the joint winding-up petition of the ‘company’ and the Financial Supervision Commission (FSC), having first listened to a number of submissions by advocates representing some of the different parties involved in the affair.

Mr Clucas, representing KSF (IOM), suggested to his Honour a few housekeeping issues should be addressed before the substantive matter was finalized; and his Honour agreed a few “loose ends” should be dealt with first.

Turning to Seth Caine, representing the provisional liquidator, Michael Simpson, his Honour inquired about the last minute change of votes, in respect of the Scheme of Arrangement (SoA).

Mr Caine replied there had been a few amended votes submitted after the scheme meetings; and a number of complaints had also been submitted regarding the receipt of voting papers.

His Honour noted that the court had also received numerous complaints.

Mr Caine then produced a summary sheet of the votes showing the results, with and without the votes received after the scheme meetings, and the revised votes; but explained, even if they included the additional and revised votes, the overall result would remain the same. That is to say the SoA would still have been defeated in two of the three classes.

So there would have been no change to the result, his Honour inquired by way of clarification; and Mr Caine confirmed this was correct.

Mr Caine mentioned correspondence from two people, who were not depositors but believed to be representing their parents, who had claimed their parents had not been able to vote; but they had been unable to confirm whether the parents had voted or not.

A further handful of less than 20 depositors also complained but they had all submitted proxies; so as far as Mr Caine was concerned they had not been disenfranchised.

His Honour put to Mr Caine some people appeared to be getting hard copies of the papers some days after they should have received them.

Mr Simpson countered this by saying some depositors as faraway as Japan had received the papers in plenty of time; and they couldn’t account for all the “vagaries” of the various postal systems.

His Honour suggested there may have been some depositors in remote places with no access to computers; and wondered how they could have got and returned forms.

Mr Caine admitted they had no idea how many depositors would have been in that situation; and that all he could say was that he knew people in some pretty far flung places did receive them – so he couldn’t explain why some others did not.

Mr Caine said an affidavit had been submitted by James Ferris (of PWC) which dealt with the issue of the voting; and his Honour said as the matter was of considerable concern, Mr Caine ought to summarize it for the record.

Mr Caine ran through the salient points, including depositors in places such as South Africa and Botswana, had their papers faxed or emailed because of concerns over the security of the post, fraud and personal security of the depositor; especially where they may not wish the authorities to know they had money held outside the country. (Yes, he really said this – Ed).

He explained an Excel spread sheet, with 11,274 entries, was compiled; but the company, contracted to print and post the papers, printed 11,602 address labels, so he was sure, as he could be, they hadn’t missed anybody out. The scheme papers were printed on the 24th April 2009, and of the ones posted only 42 were returned, not at this address. He added, in respect of the returned packs, they could only send them to the address they had on record.

An employee of the print company confirmed the number printed and posted; which were divided into three categories: UK including IOM and Channel Islands; European area and, thirdly, the rest of the world. The UK post, of 5000+ was sent via Royal Mail and the remainder was sent via Pitney Bowes; and apparently they reported no problems.

His Honour then pointed out subsequent to that ‘posting’ a letter, dated 12th May 2009, was sent, without the approval of the court, regarding the change to the financial figures.

Mr Caine acknowledged it had not received the approval of the court but for “expediency” it had been sent out to assist creditors.

His Honour sought confirmation it was regarding the ability to ‘revise’ a vote if a depositor wished to do so, having received the new information; and that the revised vote would be take into account at the sanction hearing.

Mr Caine confirmed this to be the case; but as no application was being made to sanction the SoA today, it didn’t matter.

His Honour then asked if anybody else present had any comment on the “integrity of the voting”; but nobody did.

Mr Caine was then invited to run through Mr Simpson’s affidavit, which, essentially, dealt with the arrangements for the scheme meetings, a report of the meetings and the results. In summary, he said the SoA failed to gain sufficient support in classes 2 & 3.

His Honour remarked there was one very ‘large’ creditor in class 3, who he suggested was effectively able to “scupper the entire scheme”; but then added it was perhaps “speculation”.

However, it was pretty obvious he had, like other observers, noted the ‘elephant in the room’; which seems to have escaped the attention of the Treasury etc when they were running up vast costs in preparing and promoting their, clearly doomed from the start, SoA.

His Honour passed over the costs issue for moment, saying he would return to that matter later, and deal first with the actual winding-up petition from October 2008; albeit he noted a subsequent petition had added a bit more precision.

Mr Caine ventured that although it was perhaps slightly presumptuous, in advance of the granting of the Order and the official appointment of Mr Simpson and Mr Spratt, they had done some preparation work in order to save time later.

His Honour did not appear to be troubled by this and turned to Mr Clucas to address the court on the current position of the company.

Referring to the petition, and the supporting affidavits of Mr Weldon (FSC) and Mr Doherty [MD, KSF (IOM)] he ran through a brief history of events since October 2008; leading to the statement, “the company is unable to pay debts when they fall due” so the situation, in essence, remains the same. Therefore, they were seeking an Order, today, to wind-up the company; subject to any objections.

Mr Wild, representing the FSC, said he could confirm what Mr Clucas had just said, and they were now effectively putting the petition forward again, with the supporting affidavits of Simpson and Doherty; and also sought a winding-up Order.

Mr Chambers QC, representing the Depositors Action Group, concurred and invited his Honour to make the Order.

His Honour inquired if anybody else wanted to oppose the Order and, noting there seemed to be no opposition, he would make the Order for a compulsory winding-up.

He said he would also make an Order to appoint the provisional liquidator and an Official Receiver as the company can not pay its debts.

Mr Caine suggested it may be beneficial to preserve some of the powers of the provisional liquidator, as explained in an affidavit from Mr Simpson, dated 22nd May 2009, so work could continue pending the outcome of the creditors’ meeting.

Mr Caine pointed out meetings were normally called within 4 weeks, as required by the Companies Act, but given the wide spread of creditors more time should be allowed to call and prepare for the meeting. It was suggested 6 weeks should be allowed. He emphasized there would be no prejudice to creditors, by this extra time, if all the powers were granted to the provisional liquidator so he “could crack on” and avoid any “hiatus or delay”.

His Honour appeared content and clarified the first creditors’ meeting would either confirm the appointment of Simpson and Spratt as liquidators or determine alternative liquidators; and the formation of a Committee of Inspection.

Mr Caine confirmed this was so, although he said the court makes the official appointment.

It was then confirmed how voting papers, for those creditors who will be unable to attend in person, will be sent; and this includes electronically, simply to save time.

If depositors were unable to return the proof of debt in time, Mr Caine said they would consider accepting any previous document sent so the depositor was not “shut out” from the voting.

They wanted to retain some of the powers, he explained, so any action could be brought or defended, during the period to the creditors meeting; especially as the provisional liquidator is already involved in some litigation.

It would also allow them to continue to operate, or appoint people, in other jurisdictions, if they needed to sell assets; and so they could also declare and pay a dividend. Mr Caine said the provisional liquidator is holding a considerable amount of money and was keen to make a payout.

His Honour wondered if what was being proposed was under the Act or the ‘rules’; to which Mr Caine said it effectively made no difference, but it was under the rules.

His Honour, having looked again at his papers, stated he now saw what he meant.

Mr Caine reiterated what was being proposed was for the benefit of the creditors as it enable certain work to be done in advance of the creditors’ meeting.

His Honour noted the ‘River Plate case’ was cited as the authority for what was being proposed.

Mr Caine confirmed this, and said they were also seeking to assist the manager of the Depositors Compensation Scheme, but in respect of the ‘Statement of Affairs’ which has to be produced, they were seeking the leave of the court to produce a version with the names “redacted to protect the anonymity of creditors”.

Mr Caine said they also needed to deal with the list of contributors; but there is only one he explained, the holding company.

“It will be a short list”, remarked His Honour.

By dealing with all these matters together, Mr Caine said they hoped to be able to send out everything they needed to in “one fell swoop”.

He then repeated Mr Simpson is “anxious to make a dividend payment as-soon-as-possible”.

In respect of the ability to sell property, it was clarified this was to help deal with the issue of set-off; and they had asked, for the avoidance of doubt, this power to be specifically included.

His Honour inquired if anybody had any comments or an objection to the relief sought, and again nobody had.

A quick discussion was held on the River Plate case, which Mr Caine said was the best they had to help with this situation; before His Honour checked with all the advocates present they were content.

All were content and His Honour said he would make a consolidated Order; to which Mr Clucas helpfully said he had already prepared a draft; albeit with a number of typos.

He did a quick canter through it, with the odd point being clarified, and it was agreed, with a couple of amendments, it would be served on all noticed parties.

All that was left to resolve was the issue of costs, and this is where proceedings became a bit livelier.

Mr Chambers said he had prepared a short skeleton argument to support DAG’s claim for costs, at which point Mr Gough, representing the Treasury, immediately interjected he had only received notice of it on Tuesday afternoon. He went on to claim it was not ‘normal’ some of the relief sought as he claimed it was seeking Treasury to pay some of their costs.

Mr Gough complained some more, stating the CEO was off-island and he needed time to take instructions and prepare a response; and wanted until Friday to do so. They could perhaps come for half a day next week to hear the issue of costs; and he was sure it would be interesting to hear some of the arguments.

His Honour was unimpressed and said the Treasury should have expected DAG to claim costs, and he did not want to increase the already considerable costs.

However, Mr Gough gained some support from Mr Clucas and Mr Caine, and although Mr Chambers opposed an adjournment, His Honour very reluctantly agreed to adjourn this one issue until 15th June 2009.

Mr Chambers said he would do his best to get back from South America in time, where he was involved in arbitration.

His Honour closed the hearing by making it clear he would not allow the hearing to exceed half a day under any circumstances.

After the hearing the Manx Herald spoke to Mr Simpson and Mr Ferris to try and clarify the size of the first dividend payment.

He wouldn’t be drawn beyond saying it will be at least 14.5p in the £. He said he hopes it will be more, but it will depend on the payout from London, expected in June, the exchange rate, the number of claimants and the return of other deposits etc.

DAG members have said they believe it should be more, and also expect to receive at least one more dividend before the end of the year.

They are also considering their options in regards to their support or not for Mr Simpson to continue as liquidator.

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (7 posted):

Brian Mallett on 28 May, 2009 02:08:47
avatar
Since I am one of the many overseas depositors that did not receive a voting package it is my opinion that delivery of the packages were deliberately delayed in an attempt to rig the vote in favour of the SoA.
Since it was Mike Simpson the provisional liquidator that was responsible for ensuring that all depositors received their voting packages I do not feel that this person can be trusted to continue as liquidator in the winding up of KSF IoM. Rather than being impartial I feel that Mike Simpson is tending to side with the IoM Government along with the FSC and the IoM Justice Department. Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett seems to give the impression that he is acting in a fair and impartial manner, but I am nor so sure. In view of the way the IoM Government has treated KSF IoM depositors over the last eight months, I do not trust anyone associated in with the IoM Government
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
7
David R Morrison on 29 May, 2009 12:44:40
avatar
" the CEO was off-island " : this is a joke isn't it?
"Mr Gough, representing the Treasury, immediately interjected he had only received notice of it on Tuesday afternoon": What goes around comes around Mr Gough, your team has insulted the court twice by breaching it's deadlines.
My question is exactly who pushed the proposed scheme through and for what?
The IoMG was an inconsequential creditor and hijacked the liquidation process. The question I want to know is why? If any concrete and to the advantage of the depositors had come out of the process my question would be unnecessary, but nothing has been gained, in fact a lot of depositors have been put through a totally unjust torture. Just how insensitive is the IoMG?
I remember reading a commentary that said, more or less, 'take it easy with the House of Keys, for those of you used to governments the House of Keys is equivalent to your Parish Council.
I don't wish to inflame an already sad and incendiary situation but what is required here is that those in charge rise to the situation and stop trying to hide the truth, the time has gone.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
4
DJ on 29 May, 2009 01:18:32
avatar
Liars.

I have never had ANY mail take more than 10 days to reach me from the anywhere in UK. The KSF (Before Darling) statments used to take 7-8 days. The SoA voting papers took (if we believe the send date the court was told) 23 days. Andrew Corlett has been lied to.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
James Brougham on 29 May, 2009 03:34:15
avatar
As of today, May 28th, I have STILL not received my voting papers, although all other mail from Mr SImpson DOES arrrive promptly.
One does indeed wonder why...
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
bob on 29 May, 2009 07:32:10
avatar
The post boy says the mail was shipped out well it ain't got here yet but the amendment arrived in a few days.
WHY HAVE THEY ALLOWED 6 WEEKS FOR THE CREDITORS COMMITTEE VOTE IF THEIR SYSTEM WORKS---THE GUY IS BEING VERY ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH.

LIAR LIAR LIAR I SAY.

COSTS--WHAT A BIG SURPRISE! THEY LOST SO THEY BLOODY PAY--ADD MY LOST INTEREST AND THE COST OF BORROWING MEANTIME AND THE DAMAGES FOR DISTRESS AND DOMESTIC AINGST
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
IceCrusher on 29 May, 2009 07:36:41
avatar
Firstly, I commend the Manx Herald for it unique approach in bringing this "sad, sad situation which is getting more and more absurd" to its readers.

I cannot be the only observer wondering how a single (admittedly large) issue could possibly attract so many errors and of such magnitude that they beggar the belief of any mortal man. The failure of KSFIoM is either the work of a mighty clique of connivers, or conversely, the number of incompetents at work in the island's many hierarchies is disproportional to the population at large. The Peter Principle writ large, exists here as in no other place on earth; more competent staff resign than incompetent people get fired, the end result over time being that those who should definitely not hold any position of authority are eventually elevated to such positions by simply 'hanging on in there'.

To be a depositor caught in this 'through the looking glass world' is to suffer a daily diet of gut-wrenching, mind-numbing, tension-building trauma as one numbskull after another appears in this malady of errors and does his/her best to wring the last vestiges of sanity from us. We scream that it’s unbelievable nearly every day, but every day is ground hog day and we go through the agony again and again.

Depositors do not trust any Government official on the Isle of Man - why? Because their very aura gives off a bad smell; you do not get good fruit from a bad tree and you do not trust those whose actions can be seen, felt and heard to go against the good and right-minded in favour of the corrupt and the petty; we humans have the unique ability to identify that behaviour instinctively, we know only too well what the IoMG/T are trying to make us suck up.

There was an elephant in the room; who put him there? Who failed to see him and why did he not trumpet his own presence - and his power? Time is money and a million quid or so was a pretty cheap way of stultifying 11,000 depositors, keeping their attention focused on arguing the merits of a thousand or so pounds here, and a week or a month there, whilst millions have been siphoned off in the real world on the other side of the looking glass.

Deputy Deemster Corlett does a good job with the mouth music, but then caves to every Treasury demand made in every futile hearing in his court. He talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Has he yet given his summing-up of the last hearing by the way?

Mr Simpleson is hand-in-glove with IoMT; the SoA was a joint presentation from the liquidators provisionally and the Treasury - does anyone believe that to be non-conflicted?! These jokers are allegedly liquidators yet they can't add up a column of six numbers without error. Even their quick email asking depositors to effectively reconsider their vote in light of suddenly announcing a 'loss' of £128M contained yet more errors (add up the numbers for the medium asset realisation and see for yourselves!) I wrote to liquidators 1 & 2 and finally received a non-reply apologizing for any confusion on my part! (Not of course, for their own mathematical inadequacy causing the confusion!) They cannot shake off the aura, it pervades everything they do, say and write, and we know it.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
9
bob on 29 May, 2009 07:49:08
avatar
Well said LG(TV's monitors etc?)They are a bunch of bankers very big bankers--does 2 hands equal group sex?
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Tags
No tags for this article
Rate this article
5.00