Home | Comment | KSF (IOM) SoA gets ‘improved’ terms but still the doubts remain
Newsletter
Email:
Poll: Reciprocal Health Agreement
What should be done about the loss of the Reciprocal Health Agreement

KSF (IOM) SoA gets ‘improved’ terms but still the doubts remain

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

It is pretty shameful that this SoA is the ‘best’ the IOM can offer depositors, given that they thought they could believe, and rely on, all the ‘headline grabbing’ ‘well-regulated, compensation scheme’ claims made by the Island’s finance industry and Government.

Following the announcement that the UK administrators of KSF (IOM)’s ‘sister bank’, in London, may be able to return 50%, or approximately £200million, of the funds currently held ‘frozen’ in the UK, the IOM Treasury has amended the Scheme of Arrangement (SoA) to take this news into account.

The Treasury is now proposing that depositors will get their protected amounts of £50k, or £20k, within a year of the SoA gaining approval rather than the two years previously proposed. They also say they will not seek to recover the Treasury funded ‘top-up’ money, paid into the SoA, until creditors have received 70% of their money back.

The 57 page SoA document, and the even longer, 71 page, explanatory statement – neither of which will win an award for plain English – sets out, in some complexity, what the terms and conditions are of the Scheme; and these seem quite heavily stacked in favour of the scheme promoter and ‘managers’.

Several depositors have been in touch with us and expressed their serious doubts about whether it will be in their interest to vote for the Scheme.

In the opinion of the Manx Herald what is on offer, particularly to larger depositors, and bond holders, is not a ‘good deal’; but the reality is that the alternative, liquidation and DCS, is probably no better and possibly worse.

It is pretty shameful that this SoA is the ‘best’ the IOM can offer depositors, given that they thought they could believe, and rely on, all the ‘headline grabbing’ ‘well-regulated, compensation scheme’ claims made by the Island’s finance industry and Government.

To rub salt in the wounds, sign the SoA - and it turns into a disaster – you have signed away the right to hold the perpetrators to account.

It seems the only winners, as usual, in this fiasco will be the lawyers, the treasury consultants and the SoA ‘administrators; who will all get paid handsomely for their time.

Small depositors, with less than £35k at stake, may not do too badly; but any with foreign currency accounts, and larger amounts, probably less so; as exchange rates and potential loss of capital and interest will hit them hardest.

There is of course the possibility that a ‘miracle’ will happen and the additional funding needed to guarantee 100% return of depositors’ money will become available from one source or another; but the Manx Herald suggests creditors shouldn’t hold their breath.

The meetings to vote on the SoA are set for19th May and will be held in Douglas.

Meanwhile Manx Herald hears that a further scandal could be brewing involving another major deposit taker on the Island; and we are making inquiries to see if we can to verify the information we have been provided with so far. We shall of course report on our findings in due course.

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (4 posted):

Jim on 04 May, 2009 01:09:40
avatar
The plain truth is the IoM Government is doing what it is obliged to do, namely (1)take care of its own interests as the elected government, (2) be seen to be looking after the taxpayers who are its electors (3) avoiding a reputation-damaging recourse to a discredited compensation scheme on the back of a failed bank in a major off-shore financial services industry. In this light the interests of depositors are an entirely secondary consideration.

The fact is that one of its key agencies (the Financial Supervision Commission which is supposed to protect depositors savings in the Island's banks) committed a very serious error of judgement. It allowed £550Million of depositors' savings to be upstreamed to KaupthingUK so that it would be protected, when in fact it wasn't simply because the FSC failed to have it ring-fenced! Not only that, the amount in question was transferred contrary to banking regulations anyway. Where are the heads rolling? Nowhere! On the contrary they have been protected from being sued. That really stinks of moral bankrupcy.

Then to add insult to injury the IoM Government cocks the snook at the UK's policy that requires it to uphold the trust put in KSFIOM by restoring all savings to depositors. It is now the only government in the whole of Europe that has not restored deposits placed in Kaupthing banks in their jurisdiction.

The big question is, WHY NOT? What exactly is going on in secret behind the scenes of this duplicitous & thoroughly discredited Island? We may never know until someone with high moral principles working in the financial services industry comes forward & lets the Manx cat out of the bag.

The Depositors' Action Group says with moral authority & right on its side: "we trusted you with our life savings and we will not accept anything less than full restoration of our money that your FSC failed to protect."

Jim for Justice
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
3
conned on 04 May, 2009 01:44:39
avatar
Why can't the Government simply do what others have done? They have the means to return 100% so what excuse do they have for not doing it? Doesn't it think it important for the future credibility of the Island's financial services industry to show strong moral integrity in resolving this fiasco, or is it all about screwing depositors just to make the most money for the Island? Where is the integrity that makes them find £1,000,000 to come up with a SoA that is clearly protecting its interests and not that of depositors?

conned depositor
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
2
Jar on 05 May, 2009 03:23:59
avatar
I would like to know just what it is the Manx Government and treasury are hiding?? There must be something, as they are trying to sell me something that is disadvantageous to me but advantageous to them in the guise of a compemnsation scheme.
I think forensic accounting might just reveal some very shady dealings withing the Bank in question and members of the Islands FSC. Why will the IOM not follow recent UK Government policy to compensate ALL depositors within their jurisdiction 100% - just what is their problem? I understand the money is on the Island to do it. The rainy day has now arrived and you are supposed to spend it now and give us back our funds.
The only conclusion I can come to is you are a callous bunch of people who sit in the Irish sea who have no wish to have their lives disrupted by 8000+ depositors wanting the return of their funds, you believe we will all go away quietly. Well we won't you were happy enough to take our money and now it's time to give it back. By trying to fob us off with an offer of 70p/£ you are a disgrace to all financial communities around the world, you failed to protect us and as a consequence your reputation will be damamged and your leading industry will eventually fail.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
5
determined depositor on 07 May, 2009 08:31:09
avatar
To add injury to insult the Isle of Man has not been able to keep its word to the court. Errors in the Scheme of Arrangement posted on the provisional liquidator's site remain. Depositors all over the world are still waiting for their voting forms. I am in Spain and have not received mine so what about those in less accessible areas and with less reliable postal services. What if they have no access to a computer. I think we can deduce from this that the Isle of Man and its schemes are not reliable! They will never get my vote.

Determined depositor for 100%
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
3.00