Memorandum submitted by Kaupthing Singer
& Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM) Depositors Action Group
SUBMISSION REMIT
The Justice Committee has requested submission
of evidence in relation to the role and performance of the Ministry
of Justice in respect of the Crown Dependencies.
The Justice Committee inquiry will focus on:
i. How, in practice, the UK Government represents
the Crown Dependencies internationally;
ii. The role of the Ministry of Justice in managing
the United Kingdom's relationship with the Crown Dependencies
including inter-departmental liaison and co-ordination; and,
iii. What, if any, changes are required, in terms
of either policy or practice in order to improve the Ministry
of Justice's management of the relationship between the United
Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander
Depositors Action Group ("KSFIOM DAG") welcomes the
Justice Committee's ("JC") ongoing Inquiry into the
UK Government's ("HMG") and in particular the Ministry
of Justice's ("MoJ") relationship with the Crown Dependencies
and hopes its submission will be taken into consideration.
2. KSFIOM DAG's objective is to ensure that
all individuals who held deposits with Kaupthing Singer &
Friedlander IoM Ltd ("KSFIOM") or were invested through
Life Companies at the time of its collapse, are immediately reunited
with 100% of their funds.
3. It is the contention of KSFIOM DAG that
both the MoJ and Her Majesty's Treasury ("HMT") have
failed to fulfil their constitutional duties to the Isle of Man
("IoM") appropriately in HMG's negotiations with Iceland
in relation to KSFIOM.
4. It is a further contention of KSFIOM
DAG that the MoJ has not only abdicated its responsibilities to
the IoM but that there is a clear conflict of interest in HMT
representing the IoM's interests, despite Lord Bach's assertions
to the contrary. It is therefore imperative that HMG reviews its
policies to ensure that the interests of both the IoM and KSFIOM
depositors are thoroughly and fairly represented, regardless of
the UK's political agenda.
5. Finally KSFIOM DAG believes the MoJ has
either failed to inspect the efficacy of the IoM's financial regulatory
system thoroughly or does not have sufficient powers to do so,
despite the IoM being a Crown Dependency.
INTRODUCTION
6. KSFIOM DAG was formed following KSFIOM's
collapse on 8 October 2008. It is the registered body responsible
for representing the interests of those 11,500 individuals
adversely affected by KSFIOM's demise.
7. Many of the individuals KSFIOM DAG represents
have suffered extreme hardship and misery, including the loss
of homes, businesses, the breakdown of marriages and serious ill
health, due to the ramifications the collapse of KSFIOM has had
on their lives.
8. KSFIOM DAG's members include over 2,500 retail
depositors, afforded full or partial protection (up to £50,000)
by the IoM Depositors' Compensation Scheme ("DCS"),
as well as trustees, unprotected Life Company bondholders and
holders of business accounts who were afforded low or no protection.
According to KSFIOM DAG's internal polls, some 87% of its members
are UK citizens, with 30% residing in the UK. These individuals
remit tax to the UK directly or via income declaration or withholding
tax and are therefore deserving of an appropriate level of support
from HMG.
9. Furthermore, a substantial proportion
of KSFIOM DAG's members (4,500) had originally opened accounts
with The Derbyshire Building Society (IoM) ("DBSIoM")
which was acquired by KSFIOM in September 2007 with the IoM
financial regulator's approval. According to John Aspden, CEO
of the IoM financial regulator, the FSC, and Aidan Doherty, Managing
Director of KSFIOM, the FSA was also kept informed about the the
Derbyshire Building Society's disposal of DBSIoM to KSFIOM and
raised no objections.
10. Upon completion of the transaction,
DBSIoM depositors were dependent on Khf's Parental Guarantee ("PG")
and had no option to switch or withdraw accounts which hadn't
matured without incurring large financial penalties. This was
despite the Khf PG offering substantially less financial reassurance
than that provided by the previous parent.
11. On 22 January 2010 the Icelandic
Winding Up Committee for Khf ("WUC") rejected the PG
on the grounds that it was a flawed, non-binding agreement. As
a result, the PG which KSFIOM depositors were lead to believe
would offer 100% protection in the event that KSFIOM was unable
to discharge its liabilities, was rendered worthless.
12. In Autumn 2009 KSFIOM depositors
recieved a maximum of £50,000 under the IoM's DCS, however
15 months on from the bank's demise and over 4,000 depositors
and bondholders have been told by KSFIOM's administrators, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
that they may have to wait until the end of 2017 to recover
whatever percentage of their funds remains after liquidation.
Based on current projections, this will be circa 80% of their
money. Polls undertaken by KSFIOM suggest that 75% of its members
are over the aged of 50 and 17% are over the age of 65 (with
many much older), meaning that some are unlikely to live to see
their funds returned or have settled lives in their retirement.
Failure of MoJ and HMT to appropriately represent
KSFIOM's interests with Iceland:
13. The Isle of Man Government ("IoMG")
makes an annual voluntary contribution towards the cost of its
defence and international representation by the UK. In 2008-09 this
amounted to £2,559,278.55. The IoM therefore has the right
to expect fair representation from HMG on its behalf.
14. It is KSFIOM DAG's contention that both
the MoJ and HMT, to whom the MoJ delegated its consitutional duties,
have failed to ensure robust and fair representation of the IoM's
interests in negotiations with Iceland.
15. In a letter from the MoJ to KSFIOM DAG
dated 27 April 2009, the department stated that "The
UK Government will continue to work with the Icelandic authorities
and through the International Monetary Fund to ensure fair treatment
for all depositors and other creditors".
16. Despite this promise, there has been
nothing on record since October 2008 to suggest any meaningful
dialogue with the Icelandic Government in order to secure their
commitment to underwriting the Khf Parental Guarantee, on which
both the IoM and KSFIOM depositors were dependent.
17. This is evidenced in letters recieved
by KSFIOM DAG from HMT under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
18. Since late October 2008, no delegations
to Iceland have been undertaken on the IoM's behalf, despite evidence
that suggests HMT has held several follow up meetings with the
Icelandic Government to secure the reimbursement of Icesave funds
to the UK:
i. Extract from letter written by Paul Morran,
Information Rights Unit, HMT, dated 8 January 2009:
(a)"Two Treasury officials attended meetings
on both the 11 October and 21 to 23 October 2008.
The lead official was Gary Roberts, head of Financial Services
strategy at the Treasury. A junior Treasury official accompanied
him."
ii. Extract from letter written by Kate Jenkins,
Information Rights Unit, HMT, dated 9 June 2009:
(b)"You asked: what other visits have been
made to Iceland since the two mentioned in the attachment (our
response to your earlier request on 13 December 2008) and
in particular can you identify those, where the Treasury officials
have acted for and discussed the problem of the Isle of Man subsidiary
of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander.
…I can confirm that no treasury officials
have attended meetings in Iceland between 13 December 2008 and
12 May 2009 (the date of your request) to discuss Kaupthing
Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man)."
iii. Extract from the Independent on 5 January
2010:
(c)Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"We have spent many months in very productive meetings with
Icelandic authorities and the Icelandic government to enter an
agreement to make sure that the money was reimbursed to us."
19. Additionally, Lord Bach's submission
to the JC on 26 February 2009 implied that HMT intended
to write to the Permanent Secretary of the Icelandic Ministry
of Finance in order to draw his attention to the attempts made
by the IoM and Guernsey to clarify with the relevant Resolution
Committees the position over the discharge of their obligations
in relation to the Parental Guarantees given by Kaupthing and
Landsbanki. As of 29 January 2009, KSFIOM DAG had seen nothing
to suggest that a response was ever recieved or that HMT followed
up on this commitment.
20. It is therefore KSFIOM DAG's belief
that Lord Bach's assertions at the 10 December 2008 JC
hearing that HMT was in "ongoing negotiations" to secure
conditions on the IoM's behalf in relation to the IMF loan were
probably, at best, overstated.
21. Given HMG's apparent inertia, KSFIOM
DAG would question the purpose of the various meetings and weekly
videoconferences held between the IoMG and HMT as referenced in
evidence provided by Patrick Bourke, Head of the MoJ's European
and International Division, at the December 2008 JC hearing.
It would also question whether they have been the most effective
use of UK taxpayers' (who include the majority of KSFIOM DAG's
depositors) money.
Abdication of MoJ responsibilities and conflict
of interest in HMT representing the IoM in relation to KSFIOM:
22. It is a further contention of KSFIOM
DAG that the MoJ has not only abdicated its responsibilities to
the IoM but that there is a clear conflict of interest in HMT
representing the IoM's interests in relation to KSFIOM in Iceland,
despite Lord Bach's suggestions to the contrary.
23. KSFIOM DAG believes that the interests
of the IoM and HMT are at a clear juxtaposition, not least because
the actions taken by the UK authorities in relation to KSFUK,
where some £532m or over 50% of KSFIOM's assets were held,
ultimately precipitated KSFIOM's collapse. Deprived of access
to its funds, KSFIOM was forced to call upon Khf to provide liquidity
and when it was advised the Icelandic Parent would be unable to
meet its PG, KSFIOM was placed into administration.
24. HMG has and continues to put the interests
of the UK public purse and its political stance towards Iceland
first and foremost, despite its supposed commitment to ensuring
fair treatment for all depositors and creditors.
25. It is interesting to note that at the
December 2008 JC hearing Lord Bach stated that he did "not
think that it has been suggested by the Crown Dependencies that
there is somehow a conflict".
26. This was at clear odds with the IoMG's
written submission in which it made its concerns about HMT representing
the IoM's interests abundantly clear.
27. Additionally, Patrick Bourke suggested
at the same hearing that he did not believe the IoM would thank
the MoJ if "he personally was negotiating with Iceland on
matters beyond his ability".
28. Once again this contradicts the IoMG's
written evidence which suggests that "when a difference in
policy/opinion arises between the Isle of Man and the UK in instances
where relations need to be entered into with other countries'
it would like 'every effort made to include an Isle of Man and
MoJ representative in those talks."
29. KSFIOM DAG believes that these contradictory
submissions demonstrate that the MoJ has either chosen to ignore
the IoMG's concerns in favour of the UK's political agenda or
was not cognizant of them. If the latter is the case, KSFIOM DAG
would call into question the strength of the MoJ/IoMG relationship.
Management of the UK's relationship with the Crown
Dependencies including inter-departmental liaison and coordination
30. At the December 2008 JC hearing,
Lord Bach stated: "We represent the interests of the Isle
of Man where it is appropriate to do so but we are part of Her
Majesty's Government, and of course that is our prime responsibility".
31. This comment implies that HMG's interests
will always supersede those of the Crown Dependencies, despite
their reliance upon the UK to represent them internationally.
32. In light of this remark, KSFIOM DAG
believes there are two options open to HMG to rectify this conflict
of interests: Either granting IoM full autonomy or exerting its
"residual responsibilities and powers" so that the UK
and IoM's interests are fully aligned and British citizens with
deposits in the Crown Dependencies are protected.
33. It is KSFIOM DAG's firm opinion that
the latter is preferable. According to Tony Brown, Chief Minister
of the IoM, the island "channels" circa £50 billion
from its deposit taking businesses and funds under management
to the UK annually. This "high degree of economic inter-dependence
between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom" has been
highlighted elsewhere by the IoMG and also Lord Bach. KSFIOM DAG
therefore believes it is imperative that HMG ensures the IoM's
financial sector falls under FSA regulation.
34. Additionally, KSFIOM DAG believes that
the IoM is incapable of shouldering systemic risk effectively.
The WUC's rejection of the PG is a clear example of the FSC's
serious regulatory failure as it is now apparent that the regulator
did not undertake appropriate due diligence before accepting the
PG. It also allowed KSFIOM to use the PG as a core marketing and
retention tool, as late as October 2008. As a result, KSFIOM depositors
have been exposed to the full financial risks associated with
the bank's failure.
35. By their own admission at recent Tynwald
hearings, the IoM authorities have neither the human or financial
resource to cope with financial disasters similar to the collapse
of KSFIOM, nor the necessary powers to ensure depositors within
its financial institutions are afforded appropriate protection.
There is no bank or government of last resort and the DCS, only
increased after KSFIOM's collapse, has taken a year to pay out.
Additionally, the island's prevailing financial model is based
on upstreaming deposits either to London or Parent Companies in
other jurisdictions.
HMG inter-departmental coordination:
36. Better inter-departmental liaison is
required between the MoJ and other HMG departments, in particular
HMT, in order to improve understanding of the IoM and how best
to represent its interests. The IoMG itself has suggested that
"whilst the MoJ is well aware of the Isle of Man's constitutional
position, it is clear to the Isle of Man authorities that other
UK Government departments, which must act internationally on behalf
of the Isle of Man, neither fully understand nor value this position."
37. A subsequent note submitted by Lord
Bach to the JC in which he was forced to clarify that he was "satisfied
by the steps taken by the UK Government in the interests of the
people whose deposits the UK regulatory authorities are responsible
for", as opposed to those who deposited monies with banks
in the Isle of Man and Guernsey, supports the argument that an
improvement in coordination is required if HMG is to present a
uniform, cross-departmental view.
38. The same can be said of Lord Bach's
admission that it wouldn't have come as a suprise if the MoJ hadn't
been made aware of HMT's intentions to freeze KSFUK's assets before
the action took place.
REQUIRED CHANGES
TO POLICY
AND PRACTICE
39. KSFIOM DAG would recommend a review
of the following:
i. The constitutional responsibility of the UK
to the Crown Dependencies so that the IoM always receive fair
representation by the UK, regardless of HMG's separate political
agenda.
ii. The processes that led the MoJ to delegate
its responsibility for the IoM in relation to KSFIOM to HMT, despite
the obvious conflict of interest.
iii. UK departmental responsibility for informing
UK citizens of the risks associated with banking in the IoM and
other Crown Dependencies.
iv. Whether the IoM has the necessary skills,
experience or processes in place to ensure effective self-regulation,
as well as the conflicts of interest of those holding positions
in the IoM's political, judicial, regulatory bodies and financial
services industry.
v. Coordination between HMG's inter-governmental
departments so all are fully cognizant of the UK's constitutional
relationship with the IoM.
QUESTIONS TO
BE PRESENTED
BY THE
JUSTICE COMMITTEE
40. KSFIOM DAG proposes that the following
questions be posed to MoJ representatives participating in the
JC Inquiry:
i. Can the MOJ provide clear evidence that HMG,
via HMT, is continuing to press the Icelandic Government for full
compensation of KSFIOM depositors?
ii. What detail was discussed by HMT and the
Icelandic authorities at 11 October and 21 to 23 October
2008 meetings in relation to KSFIOM?
iii. Why have no further meetings relating to
KSFIOM taken place between HMT and the Icelandic authorities since
23 October 2008?
iv. Did HMT ever request that the Khf PG be honoured
as a necessary pre-requisite to Iceland securing IMF funding?
If not, why not?
v. Did HMT follow through on its commitment to
writing to the Icelandic Ministry of Finance? If not, why not?
vi. Was a response from the Icelandic Ministry
of Finance received and if so, what did it say? If no response
was received, did HMT follow up on this?
vii. Have the IoMG consistently pressed the MoJ
for full and fair representation in Iceland and if so, why has
this request apparently been ignored?
viii. Did HMG agree with the IoM's decision not
to follow the UK's lead in relation to KSFUK and compensate KSFIOM
depositors in full? If not, why didn't HMG exert stronger pressure
on the IoMG to fully compensate depositors?
ix. What role can the MoJ play in ensuring robust
financial regulation on the IoM and are any steps currently being
taken to protect British depositors in the Crown Dependencies
going forward? If not, why not?
REQUEST FOR
DISCLOSURE
41. KSFIOM DAG would request the release
of the following information for the sake of transparency:
i. Minutes from the meetings HMT held with the
Icelandic authorities on 11 October 2008 and 21 to
23 October 2008;
ii. Minutes of any further meetings held with
Iceland specifically relating to KSFIOM since the 23 October
2008;
iii. All correspondence and minutes of meetings
between the IoMG, the MoJ and HMT/FSA in relation to Khf, KSFUK
and/or KSFIOM;
iv. An overview of the MoJ's internal process
and policy in relation to the Crown Dependencies, in particular,
that which lead them to abdicate their responsibilities to HMT
in relation to KSFIOM;
v. The letter written by HMT to the Permanent
Secretary of the Icelandic Ministry of Finance and any response
received.
CONCLUSION
42. The MoJ operates at a substantial cost
to the UK tax payer. Many British tax payers who live or work
outside the UK have had to resort to banking in the Crown Dependencies
given the limited UK banking facilities available to expats.
43. It is therefore imperative that HMG
reviews its policies to ensure that the interests of the IoM and
KSFIOM depositors are thoroughly and fairly represented.
44. The MoJ must also give full consideration
to whether the IoM's financial regulatory system is robust enough
to shoulder future systemic risk, particularly if British citizens
are to be protected and the UK's reputation for sound regulation
is to remain untarnished.
APPENDIX
OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
RELEVANT LINKS
| No.
| Evidence | Links to Evidence
|
| 1. | About KSFIOM DAG. |
—KSFIOM DAG website
http://79.170.44.113/ksfiomdag.com/
|
| 2. | KSFIOM DAG Depositor polls.
| — KSFIOM DAG website
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/poll/distribution-depositors-citizenship-and-residency
|
| 3. | Evidence suggesting the FSA were kept fully informed about the disposal of Derbyshire Building Society (IoM) and raised no objections.
| — 13 November 2009—Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors' Compensation Scheme
(Response to question 259)
http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/committee/eptksf131109.pdf
— 28 October 2009—Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors' Compensation Scheme
(Response to question 52)
http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/committee/eptksf281009.pdf
|
| 4. | Khf Parental Guarantee.
| — KSFIOM DAG website
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option= com_kb&task=file&file=90&Itemid=106
|
| 5. | Derbyshire Building Society Parental Guarantee.
| — Taxnews.com (It should be noted that the IOM FSC will not permit the public disclosure of the DBS guarantee. As such the associated link above just alludes to the document.)
http://www.tax-news.com/archive/story/Acquisition_Of_Derbyshire_Offshore_Announced_ xxxx29089.html
— Letter from Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit, HMT, dated 19th December 2008 re DBSIoM:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4468/response/10796/attach/2/foi%20smi%203.pdf
|
| 6. | WUC rejection of PG and KSFIOM DAG open letter in response to announcement.
| — KaupthingSingers.co.uk
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4174
— KSFIOM DAG— open letter following rejection of Khf PG by WUC
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=195 &Itemid=106
|
| 7. | PwC's predictions of likely recoveries for depositors in KSFIOM.
| — KaupthingSingers.co.uk
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=20835
|
| 8. | IoMG annual contribution towards the cost of its defence and international representation by the UK.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry: The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies —Evidence from the Isle of Man Government
(Paragraph 25)
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/justicecommitteesubmission.pdf
|
| 9. | Letter to KSFIOM DAG from the MoJ dated 27 April 2008 promising that "The UK Government will continue to work with the Icelandic authorities and through the International Monetary Fund to ensure fair treatment for all depositors and other creditors".
| — KSFIOM DAG website
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=192& Itemid=106
|
| 10. | Further follow up from HMT stating that HMG "continues to work closely with the Icelandic authorities to ensure fair treatment for depositors and creditors of the failed Icelandic banks, including KSF IoM."
| — Whatdotheyknow.com
(Paragraph 7)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/10387/response/27207/attach/2/9%20332%20reply.pdf
|
| 11. | Letter to KSFIOM DAG from Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit, HMT, dated 8 January 2009.
| — KSFIOM DAG website
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article= 133&Itemid=106
|
| 12. | Letter to KSFIOM DAG from Kate Jenkins, Information Rights Unit, HMT, dated 9 June 2009.
| — HMT http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=189& Itemid=106
|
| 13. | Independent article dated 5 January 2010.
| — The Independent
http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/5434299.html
|
| 14. | Submission made by Lord Bach, dated 26th February 2009, to the JC's Second Special Report.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken: Government Response to the Committee's First Report of Session 2008-09
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/323/9780215529091.pdf
|
| 15. | Evidence from Lord Bach suggesting HMT was in "ongoing negotiations" to secure conditions on the IoM's behalf in relation to the IMF loan.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Response to question 15)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 16. | Quote from Patrick Bourke re meetings and video conferences taking place between HMT and IoMG.
| House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Response to question 9)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 17. | Lord Bach's assertions that there are no conflicts of interest in HMT representing the interests of IoMG in relation to KSFIOM in Iceland and that he does not believe the IoMG would percieve there to be any conflicts.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Response to question 3)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 18. | IoMG's written submission which highlights concerns with HMT representing IoMG's interests with Iceland.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry: The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies —Evidence from the Isle of Man Government
(Paragraph 13, 16 and 19)
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/justicecommitteesubmission.pdf
|
| 19. | Patrick Bourke's suggestion at the JC December 2008 hearing that he did not believe the IoM would thank the MoJ if he personally was negotiating with Iceland on matters beyond his ability.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Response to question 14)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 20. | IoMG written evidence to the JC suggesting that "when a difference in policy/opinion arises between the IoM and the UK in instances where relations need to be entered into with other countries, they would like every effort made to include an IoM and MoJ representative in those talks."
| —House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry: The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies—Evidence from the Isle of Man Government
(Paragraph 30.9)
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/justicecommitteesubmission.pdf
|
| 21. | Statement from Lord Bach claiming: "We represent the interests of the Isle of Man where it is appropriate to do so but we are part of Her Majesty's Government, and of course that is our prime responsibility."
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Response to question 7)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 22. | £50bn Funds upstreamed annually to UK from IoM's deposit-taking businesses and funds under management.
| — Iomtoday.co.imhttp://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Chief-minister-wants-Isle-of.4284265.jp
|
| 23. | IoMG and Lord Bach comments relating to the "high degree of economic inter-dependence between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom."
| — House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry: The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies—Evidence from the Isle of Man Government
(Paragraph 8)
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/justicecommitteesubmission.pdf
— 20 November 2009—Isle of Man Government—Website Press Release
http://www.gov.im/lib/news/cso/ukbenefitsfromis.xml
|
| 24. | Use of PG by KSFIOM for marketing and reassurance of customers.
| — KSFIOM DAG website
(Response to Q3)
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/derbyshirebrochure_0.pdf
— KSFIOM DAG website
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article=99
— It should be noted that KSFIOM DAG has lodged with its solicitors a great range of email letters received by depositors from the bank directors and managers promoting/reassuring them about the PG. These letters go up to 8th October 2008. They have not been redacted but could be made available should the JC wish to see them.
|
| 25. | Evidence suggesting that the IoMG has neither the resource, systems or structures in place to remain independent and also highlighting the various conflicts of interest within the IoM's political, financial and judiciary bodies.
| — KSFIOM DAG—Foot Report Submission
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=129
— KSFIOM DAG—IoM Tynwald Select Committee Submission
Main Submission:
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=106& Itemid=106
Appendix of Evidence:
http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_kb&task=file&file=108&Itemid =106
— 13 November 2009—Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors' Compensation Scheme
(Responses to questions 224, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 254, 255, 256, 257, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466)
http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/committee/eptksf131109.pdf
— 28 October 2009—Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors' Compensation Scheme
4(Responses to questions 8, 9,10, 18, 20, 72, 73, 157, 188, 20)
http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/committee/eptksf281009.pdf
|
| 26. | Evidence submitted by the IoMG to the JC suggesting better inter-departmental liaison is required the MoJ and other HMG departments.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry: The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies —Evidence from the Isle of Man Government
(Paragraph 19)
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/justicecommitteesubmission.pdf
|
| 27. | Note submitted by Lord Bach to the JC in which he was forced to clarify that he was "satisfied by the steps taken by the UK Government in the interests of the people whose deposits the UK regulatory authorities are responsible for", as opposed to also those who deposited monies with banks in the IoM and Guernsey.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Footnote to answer to question 21)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| 28. | Lord Bach's admission that it wouldn't have come as a suprise if the MoJ had not been made aware of HMT's intentions to freeze KSFUK's assets before the action took place.
| — House of Commons Justice Committee—Crown Dependencies: Evidence taken—First Report of Session 2008-09
(Answer to question 5)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/67/67.pdf
|
| |
|
APPENDIX OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Letter sent to depositors of the Derbyshire Offshore
in November 2007, announcing the sale of DBSIoM to Kaupthing
Point ii refers to Khf having given an "irrevocable and
binding undertaking to ensure that, while KSFIOM remains its subsidiary,
it will at all times be able to discharge its financial obligations
as they fall due."
IMPORTANT CUSTOMER ANNOUNCEMENT
DERBYSHIRE BS TO
SELL DERBYSHIRE
OFFSHORE TO
KAUPTHING
Derbyshire Building Society has decided to sell its offshore
subsidiary, Derbyshire Offshore to Kaupthing Bank hf. The transfer
of ownership has received regulatory approval and is expected
to take place in late December but no late rthan 28 December 2007.
Following completion of the transaction, Derbyshire Offshore will
be integrated into Kaupthing's existing Isle of Man operation,
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited.
We refer to each of your accounts with The Derbyshire (Isle of
Man) Limited. In accordance with our terms and conditions (the
"Terms & Conditions") of business with you in relation
thereto, we hereby give you notice that with effect from the completion,
which will be no earlier 21 December 2007 ("Transer Date")
your account(s) will be transferred to Kaupthing Singer &
Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited of Samuel Harris House, 5-11
George's Street, Douglas, Isle of Man which will be laiable to
repay such funds to you in our place.
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
agrees to operate your accoutn with it in accordance with the
Terms and Conditions, save that with effect from the Transfer
Date in the Terms and Conditions:
(i) each reference to "The Derbyshire (Isle of Man) Limited"
will be replaced by a reference to "Kaupthing Singer &
Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited; and
(ii) the reference to the Derbyshire Building Society having
given an irrevocable and binding undertaking to ensure that, while
Derbyshire Offshore remains in subsidiary, it will at all times
be able to discharge its financial obligations as they fall due
will no longer apply but will be replaced by reference to Kaupthing
Bank hf having given an irrevocable and binding undertaking to
ensure that, while Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of
Man) Limited remains its subsidiary, it will at all times be able
to discharge its financial obligations as they fall due.
20 November 2007
|
