bellyup Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. The majority of depositors voted for continuing to support the SoA. It didnt receive the support by the requisite majority at the time of the sanction vote. Did you appear in the proceedings? If not why not as a depositor it was your right. You would have had an ample chance to let the deemster know your views. In fact there was an open offer for anyone who contacted me for the appearance application papers to be prepared by an advocate at no charge - no one seemed interested though. If the depositors hadn't supported it in the early stages there would have been no delay. Have you read the Judicial Review judgement yet, or are you still guessing what the FSA did and why? I didnt vote for the SOA and neither did hundreds of others . I was not there like many other depositors I dont have the wherewithall to be running back and forth to the IOM ( lost all my savings remember) However we - the depositors had representation. I know of no such offer such as you describe - this is not sayings that you didnt make one it just means that I dont know about it. As i dont know you -are only a poster on a forum after all this is hardly surprising The depositors did not bring in Alix partners - the IOMG did this on the advice of John Spellman Trying to blame the victims is coming a bit strong! It does seem extraordinary why a team of experts took 8 months and 1.7 million ( three times the original figure that was quoted in th MHK ) to produce such an unsatisfactory arrangement . Anyhow the SOA was DEAD in the WATER the minute that E&Y gave out that they were expecting a minimum 50p in the pound return from KSFUK. After this even the SOAs own advocates couldnt make a credible case for it. Well of course not everyone voted for the SoA. Who said anything about travelling (You could have been a party to proceedings but not attended, jsut submitted your representations in writing) Did you see how the "representation" worked in the early stages? Has the 50p been realised yet? Of course at the time the SoA was started the forecast returns were unknown. Have you read the judicial review yet? Please do. No I gave my proxy to the people I considered would do it best for me. They had the advice of qualified lawyers . As a lay person not a legal wannabe I see no point in buying a dog and barking myself. At the time the SOA was STARTED the forecast returns were unknown - by by the time it was finally presented they WERE- did you go to the government 'roadshows ' and see what a lame performance Alix partners put on ? How could they convince the depositors when it was patently obvious that it was not only NOT in the interests of many depositors it had positive disadvantages? Sign away on the dotted line your rights to any further legal action - no way Jose. Liquidation is not good but its a known legal procedure , far better than an unproven, unprecedented SOA run by the IOMG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I see no point in buying a dog and barking myself. Dog or no dog, you're without doubt barking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. The majority of depositors voted for continuing to support the SoA. It didnt receive the support by the requisite majority at the time of the sanction vote. Did you appear in the proceedings? If not why not as a depositor it was your right. You would have had an ample chance to let the deemster know your views. In fact there was an open offer for anyone who contacted me for the appearance application papers to be prepared by an advocate at no charge - no one seemed interested though. If the depositors hadn't supported it in the early stages there would have been no delay. Have you read the Judicial Review judgement yet, or are you still guessing what the FSA did and why? I didnt vote for the SOA and neither did hundreds of others . I was not there like many other depositors I dont have the wherewithall to be running back and forth to the IOM ( lost all my savings remember) However we - the depositors had representation. I know of no such offer such as you describe - this is not sayings that you didnt make one it just means that I dont know about it. As i dont know you -are only a poster on a forum after all this is hardly surprising The depositors did not bring in Alix partners - the IOMG did this on the advice of John Spellman Trying to blame the victims is coming a bit strong! It does seem extraordinary why a team of experts took 8 months and 1.7 million ( three times the original figure that was quoted in th MHK ) to produce such an unsatisfactory arrangement . Anyhow the SOA was DEAD in the WATER the minute that E&Y gave out that they were expecting a minimum 50p in the pound return from KSFUK. After this even the SOAs own advocates couldnt make a credible case for it. Well of course not everyone voted for the SoA. Who said anything about travelling (You could have been a party to proceedings but not attended, jsut submitted your representations in writing) Did you see how the "representation" worked in the early stages? Has the 50p been realised yet? Of course at the time the SoA was started the forecast returns were unknown. Have you read the judicial review yet? Please do. No I gave my proxy to the people I considered would do it best for me. They had the advice of qualified lawyers . As a lay person not a legal wannabe I see no point in buying a dog and barking myself. At the time the SOA was STARTED the forecast returns were unknown - by by the time it was finally presented they WERE- did you go to the government 'roadshows ' and see what a lame performance Alix partners put on ? How could they convince the depositors when it was patently obvious that it was not only NOT in the interests of many depositors it had positive disadvantages? Sign away on the dotted line your rights to any further legal action - no way Jose. Liquidation is not good but its a known legal procedure , far better than an unproven, unprecedented SOA run by the IOMG. A proxy, are you sure? Did they have the right to represent you legally? Or did they just take your money? You will note that the "DAG advocate" was in fact only instructed by (as I recall) three people, and they had no formal mandate to represent the contributors to the legal fund. I didn't go to the roadshow; in any case it was voted down - as you say the circumstances changed. And they didn't convince the depositors, did they - at least not by the requisite majority required. Lets hope you put these "retained rights" to good use. BTW - What do you think of the judicial review judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Is there some reason you two are bloat quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Is there some reason you two are bloat quoting? Sorry - I am just replying, accepting the defaults - I'll try and cut bellyup's verbiage out ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 A proxy, are you sure? Did they have the right to represent you legally? Or did they just take your money? You will note that the "DAG advocate" was in fact only instructed by (as I recall) three people, and they had no formal mandate to represent the contributors to the legal fund. I didn't go to the roadshow; in any case it was voted down - as you say the circumstances changed. And they didn't convince the depositors, did they - at least not by the requisite majority required. Lets hope you put these "retained rights" to good use. BTW - What do you think of the judicial review judgement? They represented the way I wanted to vote at the time. I have no reason to regret voting against the SOA . I would rather have the Liquidator handling this affair in a proven legal way rather than bumbling incompetents who do not have my true interests at heart . Nothing about the SOA inspired confidence. MP you keep banging on about the Judicial review as if it is the holy grail. I have said i have not read it - Obviously you have - why then dont you just send me a copy/link and i will read it to please you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 A proxy, are you sure? Did they have the right to represent you legally? Or did they just take your money? You will note that the "DAG advocate" was in fact only instructed by (as I recall) three people, and they had no formal mandate to represent the contributors to the legal fund. I didn't go to the roadshow; in any case it was voted down - as you say the circumstances changed. And they didn't convince the depositors, did they - at least not by the requisite majority required. Lets hope you put these "retained rights" to good use. BTW - What do you think of the judicial review judgement? They represented the way I wanted to vote at the time. I have no reason to regret voting against the SOA . I would rather have the Liquidator handling this affair in a proven legal way rather than bumbling incompetents who do not have my true interests at heart . Nothing about the SOA inspired confidence. MP you keep banging on about the Judicial review as if it is the holy grail. I have said i have not read it - Obviously you have - why then dont you just send me a copy/link and i will read it to please you. I am glad then you voted against the SoA since you didnt want it. Obviously? I think you assume too much - Anyway I am not your research assistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What are you doing Manx-person? You didn't even have to include Bellyups last reply in yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 No I gave my proxy to the people I considered would do it best for me. Pity the proxy did not extend to your right to bleat on in forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What are you doing Manx-person? You didn't even have to include Bellyups last reply in yours. No but I chose to, that OK with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 MP you keep banging on about the Judicial review as if it is the holy grail.I have said i have not read it - Obviously you have - why then dont you just send me a copy/link and i will read it to please you. I am glad then you voted against the SoA since you didnt want it. Obviously? I think you assume too much - Anyway I am not your research assistant. Well if you haven't read it either why are you so anxious about it just forget the whole thing. I am glad that I voted against the SOA because it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to stitch up the depositors . Had the IOMT grasped the nettle from the first it would have saved delay, additional distress and the IOM would have been better off by 1.7 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then. Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then. Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) . "Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements? if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then. Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) . "Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements? if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place. Hey what I am your research assistant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.