Manx Herald Isle of Man

Outlook slightly brighter for KSF (IOM) creditors but Treasury refuses to pick up court costs

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:23:00 -0400

Mr Simpson says the latest recovery will help close the gap between the calculated liabilities of the company and the amount of recoverable assets; and as this gap closes the more attractive the business may become to any prospective purchaser.

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:30:48 -0400

The ill fated SoA was the brain child of the IOM treasury and was strongly pushed by them. As a direct result of this the bank's depositors have, after 8 months still not received any funds from the bank. Depositors with other Kaupthing banks across Europe have by now received all or much of their money back. The only exception to this is the IOM!!
Now that the depositors of the bank have voted against the SoA it is only just that any costs incurred by the Bank directly related to the SoA should be borne by its sponsors and not by the innocent depositors.

Manx Codger

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:30:50 -0400

Its shocking to think that the additional costs in time and money involved in considering and arguing over the SoA should be bourne by the depositors when it was someone else's idea. It makes me think that there is no penalty to dissuade the IOM Govt body that proposed it from coming up with another similarly poor proposal next time a similar situation presents itself. That can't be right or sensible.. can it?

Codpeace

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:02:58 -0400

The only poor judgement id that of the bank Directors and FSC! First in allowing the Derbyshire guarantee to be replaced by a guarantee that a child could have written, then allowing the Kaupthing to purchase it without declaring to the customers that they were Iclandic. (the brochure described them as Northern European). Thr final poor judgemnet was placing all the funds in the UK without some security. The bank had a AAA rating - how can the depositors be blamed for poor judgement?? The IOM regulator is paid 250,000 a year to and failed miserably to regulate the situation. The IOM should stop wasting money and cover any shortfall to 100% like all the others.

IceCrusher

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:56:02 -0400

I am perplexed as to why the 'possible' addition of £93M from Booker shares (pending other claims) is seen as such a benefit, when the loss (miscalculation by Simpson and Spratt) of £128M was not considered a great loss.

Similarly, why is it that the £70M that is likely being paid out to 'inflighters' will only 'slightly' reduce payouts to other depositors?

I add 128 to 70 and get £198M down, with only £93M up (possibly) from Booker. That looks like being down by more than a one hundred million pounds (£100,000,000) than what was on the books just before the vote - how does that improve the sale of the bank or loan book? Sounds like fudging cobblers to me.
Ice

Jim

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:34:42 -0400

Tony Brown, Chief Minister, told the Treasury Select Committee on 3 February that his government would be resolving the Kaupthing bank issue by implementing its well-proven DCS. Then why didn't he do just that ? Why all the hugely expensive SoA hanky-panky? The simple answer is that it is on record of having considered that a SoA over the DCS was first & foremost in the best interests of the IoM. Any so-called benefit to depositors was an entirely secondary consideration.

The FSC & bank Directors made a serious error of judgement which they know fully well, but the incestuous system has been busy throwing money at a scheme of obfuscation to cover up for the gross regulatory failure that took place prior to 8 October 2008.

No doubt the people of the IoM will be pleased to sacrifice any moral notion for justice to be done in favour of an unjust resolution that makes the depositors pay for yet another failure of their rotten government. The need for a clean up in politics is not confined to Westminster; it reaches into the black heart of this rotten Crown Dependency.

Jim for Justice

David R Morrison

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:37:23 -0400

The critical point in the whole Kaupthing debate is thus: the IoM profited, and the IoMG is behove to the financial community which is not accepting an appropiate level of responsibility for the situation and is set on avoiding just costs. It is not really the reponsibilty of the Manx tax payer, it is the responsibility of the finance industry. But they hide behind the skirts of the like of Cashen and Gelling, and then IoMG goes along.
It is this simple.

The 'players' are not that innocent. The governement and the captive press in the IoM know, they just dissemble.

Let us look at the situation before the nemesis. Cashen and Gelling, you Manxes know who these people are, were receiving a salary for guarding over Kaupthing. I believe these people are inticately linked with the current Government. They failed spectacularly to protect, or even act with an appropriate modicum of common sense care over their charge. It seems to me the IoM Establishment has set its' mind to protect their progeny from scutiny.
Now I believe that anybody reading this is perfectly capable of inferring the reason why.

The 'cheapness' of Bell in wasting millions in simply postponing a liquidation in order to obfuscate probably the worst bank failure in Europe during this credit crisis stands out. He was simply abusing the fi¡unds of the very same depositors to confound them, the irony is surreal. Iceland is a small island, the IoM is a small island, islands are not having much luck at the moment. Sure so far the ioM has escaped, but let us be aware that what goes around around comes around, the world is going to get tired of 'low-cost' administrations who undercut the market. The time will come. Let's work to find a better solution, or else.

S Griffiths

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:27:29 -0400

So let me get this straight - if IOMG think the Liquidator of KSFIOM should pay their bill for their failed SOA idea, does this mean the Liquidator will pay my invoice for all my letters, e-mails and time spent writing to MP's to try to get our money back.

chris watson

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:18:41 -0400

My understanding regarding SOA costs:

IOMT pay there own.
DAG are asking for their own expenses in opposing the SOA to be paid by IOMT.
DAG are also asking for IOMT to pay for PWC costs.
If the courts rule the banks assets should be used to pay for PWC costs, then DAG ask that these should not be paid out until all other creditors have been paid.
If the court rules that PWC need not wait, then they will be paid out of bank's assets.
If court rule DAG costs should not be paid by IMOT, DAG argue their costs should be paid jointly by IOMT and from bank's assets.

With regards to Winding Up Petition costs:

DAG ask for their costs to be paid by IOMT.
If the court's rule against this, DAG will take their costs from bank's assets.

chris watson

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:38:35 -0400

I find it odd that 7 people have given my original post "thumbs down", when I am reporting exactly what was presented in a "skeleton argument" to the IOM court by DAG's very own Strategy Team!!!!

Hey-ho