Newsbot Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Taxpayers will not foot the legal bill of depositors in Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM), the High Court rules. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/8138368.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 [/Awaits several pages of bellyup whining] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Only several? I expect something to rival war and peace ( in length but not quality ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Taxpayers will not foot the legal bill of depositors in Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM), the High Court rules. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/8138368.stm That'll learn em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris watson Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. Indeed, the IOM taxpayer will be picking up a lot of costs. And as I understand it, the great majority (in number) of depositors were in favour of the SoA. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. The basic legal principle is that the loser pays. What argument did the "bank" lose? It looks rather like a vulture free for all on the corpse of the bank. At this rate those chappies on £300, £400, £500, £600, £700, £800 ++ per hour can rabbit on and on pontificating schemes and stuff until the assets have entirely disappeared. I wonder what the advocate for the bank has to say about all this apart from "here's my latest invoice". It's times like this that I feel a blast of Gwendoline Lamb might be appropriate. Gwendoline_Lamb_0011.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris watson Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 It looks rather like a vulture free for all on the corpse of the bank. At this rate those chappies on £300, £400, £500, £600, £700, £800 ++ per hour can rabbit on and on pontificating schemes and stuff until the assets have entirely disappeared. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. Indeed, the IOM taxpayer will be picking up a lot of costs. And as I understand it, the great majority (in number) of depositors were in favour of the SoA. S No they werent that's why it was voted out. It was a scheme that was only advantageous to the IOM to avoid having to trigger their DCS. So it wasted a million plus of tax payers money and has cost the innocent depositors 620K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Oh God, do we really need another KSF thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. The basic legal principle is that the loser pays. What argument did the "bank" lose? It looks rather like a vulture free for all on the corpse of the bank. At this rate those chappies on £300, £400, £500, £600, £700, £800 ++ per hour can rabbit on and on pontificating schemes and stuff until the assets have entirely disappeared. I wonder what the advocate for the bank has to say about all this apart from "here's my latest invoice". It's times like this that I feel a blast of Gwendoline Lamb might be appropriate. Gwendoline_Lamb_0011.mp3 More bleating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The depositors are indeed like lambs to the slaughter attacked by vultures from all sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The depositors are indeed like lambs to the slaughter attacked by vultures from all sides. I had every sympathy with the depositors until DAG's well-orchestrated and vitriolic attacks on the Isle of Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 The depositors are indeed like lambs to the slaughter attacked by vultures from all sides. Do you write for the Watchtower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 This "news" does not mention that the IOM taxpayer will nonetheless have to pay for Treasury's costs in creating the doomed SOA (at a cost of over 1million sterling, mostly for offshore consultants). The liquidators costs in co-operating with Treasury on the SOA, and DAG's own legal fees incurred "defeating" it (although not all depositors wanted it defeated), will be paid for out of the remaining banks assets, and therefore by the creditors. The basic legal principle is that the loser pays. What argument did the "bank" lose? It looks rather like a vulture free for all on the corpse of the bank. At this rate those chappies on £300, £400, £500, £600, £700, £800 ++ per hour can rabbit on and on pontificating schemes and stuff until the assets have entirely disappeared. I wonder what the advocate for the bank has to say about all this apart from "here's my latest invoice". It's times like this that I feel a blast of Gwendoline Lamb might be appropriate. Gwendoline_Lamb_0011.mp3 I missed this So right. Poor woman I hope that history does not repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.