KSF Megathread 2

[Tugger]

I honestly disagree, Theo. I watched the Kaupthing fiasco develop and the first thing the government did was up the DCS maximum payout to £50 grand from £15. They then provided early payment schemes (the first for £1,000, the second for £10,000), and then tried to put in place a scheme of arrangement that would have been worthwhile if the eventual payout was still low.

[bellyup]

Except that neither of the so called early payments were early and the DCS trundled reluctantly into action nearly a year later.

 

The SOA caused yet more distress and delay to the depositors and has left them with a bill for costs.

[Gladys]

Said it before: I haven't got your money, someone else has; so chase them please.

[Tugger]

Except that neither of the so called early payments were early and the DCS trundled reluctantly into action nearly a year later.

 

The SOA caused yet more distress and delay to the depositors and has left them with a bill for costs.

 

Ah, go fuck yourself. The early payments were both earlier than you'd have got from the liquidator, we bumped up the payments that you were entitled to under the DCS out of the goodness of our hearts, and the scheme of arrangement was for depositors' benefit, and cost us much more than Kaupthing. It was piblic knowledge beforehand that if the bank folded you would get a maximum of 15 grand out of our government. We should have stuck to that

[bellyup]

Except that neither of the so called early payments were early and the DCS trundled reluctantly into action nearly a year later.

 

The SOA caused yet more distress and delay to the depositors and has left them with a bill for costs.

 

Ah, go fuck yourself. The early payments were both earlier than you'd have got from the liquidator, we bumped up the payments that you were entitled to under the DCS out of the goodness of our hearts, and the scheme of arrangement was for depositors' benefit, and cost us much more than Kaupthing. It was piblic knowledge beforehand that if the bank folded you would get a maximum of 15 grand out of our government. We should have stuck to that

 

 

piblic knowledge?

 

Is this some sort of perversion aimed towards bank depositors?

 

You did not bump up the payments out of the goodness of your hearts but to come inline with the UK banks.

It cost you nothing , the DCS is funded by the banks.

 

The SOA cost the IOM plenty but that is not the depositors fault it was the IOMs scheme that the depositors didnt want and has cost them around 350k in court fees.

Money that is taken from people who have already lost their savings.

How fair is that?

[censorship]

Now, if I'd known she was involved I might have paid more attention! Slightly better spokesperson than Arseache, sorry Bellyup

[Dave Hedgehog]

She actually posts on here as Bellyup

[b4mbi]

is this a meeting of the law and common sense?

 

how unusual.....

 

And does it mean that the government who had money deposited in the company can offset their deposit against amounts owed to them in respect of the DCS?

 

i.e. taxpayers get 100% recovery of amounts deposited?

[Tugger]

It doesn't look like common sense to me. A company and its owner are separate entities.

[bellyup]

ttp://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/elle-macpherson-wins-ruling-agai...

 

Supermodel Elle Macpherson has won a landmark ruling against liquidated Isle of Man bank Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (KSF), in a case her legal team claims will give hope to those entangled in disputes with insolvent lenders.

 

Macpherson took the liquidators of KSF to the Isle of Man High Court, after they refused to allow her to offset deposits she had with the bank against money owed by her nominee company to KSF for a mortgage on a house in London.

 

The case saw Macpherson’s legal team invoke a legal principle dating back 300 years in order to win.

 

Speechly Bircham won the case on the grounds of a legal principle that had not been used successfully on behalf of a claimant since the 1870s. The judge ruled that Miss Macpherson and her company were ‘in-equity’ one and the same.

 

Macpherson had set up the Isle of Man registered nominee company in 2006 to allow her to purchase the property while keeping her address private.

 

When she decided to sell the house in September 2009 Macpherson tried to offset the amount she had deposited with KSF against the money her nominee company still owed for the mortgage.

 

But KSF’s liquidators refused, arguing the borrower was a company, albeit owned by Macpherson, while the deposit was held in her personal capacity.

 

Charles Gothard, Speechly Bircham’s head of international tax and trusts, said: ‘We hope this verdict will throw a lifeline to a lot of people caught up in complex battles with insolvent banks and lenders.'

 

‘Macpherson’s case highlights the importance of looking beyond statutory and dry legal rights, to the intentions and equities that underpin relationships with banks, particularly where there are complicated connections between lenders, individuals and the companies they control.’

 

Macpherson said she was extremely pleased with the ruling: ‘I am very grateful for the tenacity and commitment of Counsel and the brilliant team at Speechlys who provided clear insight and were able to establish a robust defence in this difficult case. I am extremely pleased with the ruling.’

 

 

Is there no end to the injustices against the KSF depositors?

Now they will have to pay court fees to Miss Body .

[bellyup]

It doesn't look like common sense to me. A company and its owner are separate entities.

 

Its grossly unfair to ordinary people who have deposit accounts.

[bellyup]

is this a meeting of the law and common sense?

 

how unusual.....

 

And does it mean that the government who had money deposited in the company can offset their deposit against amounts owed to them in respect of the DCS?

 

i.e. taxpayers get 100% recovery of amounts deposited?

 

If the IOMG did this it would be the height of infamy and would sink the IOM as financial centre.

[John Wright]

IOMG are going to get back virtually every penny advanced under the DCS anyway, seeing how succesfully the liquidation is being run

 

The real problem was that the DCS as administered was not fit for purpose and the attempts at a rescue scheme were allowed to delay payments. When something like this happens there must be the ability to make immediate hardship payments to depositors who have genuinely last everything and no hanging about waiting for improbable rescue sv chemes.

 

The depositors are getting a much better deal under DCS and liquidation than that suggested by the scheme

 

We now have a new scheme and it is to be funded and it appears to remedy some of the problems with earlier versions

[bellyup]

An extraordinary verdict by the IOM high court

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/07/elle-macpherson-kaupthing-legal-verdict?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

 

It does seem that the Miss Mcphersons of the world are treated differently than the rest of the human race.

 

Really does seem that there is one law for on and one for another.

[b4mbi]

Really does seem that there is one law for on and one for another.

 

 

It's always been that way, and I can't see it changing anytime soon...

 

For instance, the director of KSFIOM who "restructured" his personal finances around the time of the collapse..... when all others were trying in vain to move their funds somehow he managed to.... Don't blame him, after all, who wouldn't?

Always the case that everyone is treated equally, just that some are more equal than others.

 

 

BTW I'm still owed 49% of my money, but am fortunate enough that I didn't put all my eggs in one basket (just quite a lot of them) and am young enough to re-lay those eggs.

 

I do have to say that I admire bellyup for still being outraged about the many injustices of this sorry case.

 

Thankfully I have managed to put it down to just another of those life experiences, but fully appreciate that if my circumstances were different it would be very difficult to move on, so I sympathise with his continual postings.

 

How would you deal with the situation if you'd worked hard all your life, provided for yourself and then had ALL your savings that you planned on enjoying a comfortable retirement with stolen?

 

It would be heartbreaking lesson to learn late in life not to put all your eggs in one basket.

 

I definitely think the IOM Govt (Regulator) has a moral responsibility in this case, as a bank account (regardless of return rates) is NOT an investment product. You have no reasonable expectation that you face the possibility of losing all of your money if you put it into a bank deposit account.