DST Correspondence With PWC and Cains 02/07/09 - 10/07/09

DST Correspondence With PWC and Cains 02/07/09 - 10/07/09

-------- Original Message 1 --------
Subject: our telephone conversation today
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:30:50 +0100
To: alison.m.tomb

Alison,

We spoke earlier. I am going to stay away from the conflict liquidator issue, since this is a matter that the DAG lawyers will be speaking to you about, save to notify you formally that it is the intention of DAG to propose a resolution to creditors whereby BDO Stoy Hayward's Malcolm Cohen is appointed as conflict liquidator. We note that you have informed us that PWC and the JLPs refuse to work alongside a conflict liquidator. Nonetheless, our proposed resolution stands because an overwhelming majority of our depositors have made it very clear that based upon the events of the past 9 months they have no confidence in the present liquidators either to pursue claims against third parties and directors in the interests of depositors or else that they have no confidence in their continuing as liquidators at all.

There are several other matters which I would ask you to address urgently:

[truncated]

-------- Original Message 2 --------
Subject: our telephone conversation today
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:21:16 +0100
To: alison.m.tomb

Alison,

I note that I have had no reply to my previous e-mail (copy below). In respect of issue (i), I note that the deadline is 12 noon today.

[signature deleted]

-------- Original Message 3 --------
Subject: [Fwd: our telephone conversation today]
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:40:50 +0100
To: alison.m.tomb

Alison,

I am disappointed to note that you have not acknowledged my notice (copy below) of DAG's intention to propose a resolution in respect of a conflict liquidator.

[signature deleted]

-------- Original Message 4 --------
Subject: KSFIOM
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:05:50 +0100
From: alison.m.tomb

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man)Limited (in liquidation)

[addressee]
I note your disappointment that I have not acknowledged your comments with regard to a resolution being put forward at the meeting in respect of a joint appointment with Malcolm Cohen of BDO. I was not however aware that you were expecting an acknowledgement -as discussed this is a matter that we will address at the meeting.

With regard to your queries:-
[truncated]

Alison Tomb
For Mike Simpson
Joint Provisional Liquidator and Joint Deemed Official Receiver

-------- Original Message 5--------
Subject: Re: KSFIOM
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:08:07 +0100
To: alison.m.tomb

Alison,

Having further considered our telephone conversation on Thursday, I would be grateful if you would clarify the following in respect of the proposal by DAG to introduce a conflict liquidator.

Are you saying that:

(a) the JLPs and/or JDORs will take steps to prevent the creditors expressing their wish to appoint a conflict liquidator by means voting on a resolution;

or

(b) the JLPs or either of them will not accept appointment as (joint) liquidators if a resolution is passed by the creditors to appoint the DAG- proposed conflict liquidator or to appoint another non-PWC joint liquidator?

I would be grateful for an answer to this as soon as possible. In any event, it would appear that DAG's resolution(s) in this respect should be put before your proposed resolution 1.2.1.1. Lastly and incidentally, 1.2.1.1 is somewhat odd in that it begins with the words "whether or not", rather than "should" or something similar, so that the single resolution appears to permit two mutually exclusive options if passed and this is presumably not what is intended.

[signature deleted]

-------- Original Message 6 --------
Subject: Fw: KSFIOM
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:54:39 +0000
To: alison.m.tomb

Alison,

May I have your response to enclosed copy email as a matter of urgency?

[signature deleted]

-------- Original Message 7--------
Subject: Fw: KSFIOM
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:51:10 +0000
To: alison.m.tomb
Alison,

Notwithstanding your failure to reply to my email (copy below) or reminder, I am informed that today at the meeting PWC claimed that DAG's proposed resolution was inadmissible as a matter of law.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not it would have been proper for you to have advised me that this was your position when I gave notice of the resolution, rather than mislead me into believing that it was merely a matter of PWC refusing to work alongside another liquidator, I would be grateful if you would now set out arguments for your proposition in this respect.

[signature deleted]

-------- Original Message 8 --------
Subject: Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:04:07 +0100
From: Seth Caine

[addressee deleted]

Your email to Alison Tomb dated 7th July 2009 has been passed to us for our
attention.

With regard to the contents of your email, it is incorrect to state that at
the First Meeting of Creditors of KSFIOM held on 7th July 2009 "PWC claimed
that DAG's proposed resolution was inadmissible as a matter of law".
Rather, Michael Simpson, in his capacity as joint deemed Official Receiver
and Chairman of the Meeting, followed the correct procedure under Section
179 Companies Act 1931, which requires the Official Receiver to summon a
Meeting of the creditors "for the purpose of determining whether or not an
application is to be made to the Court for appointing a liquidator in place
of the Official Receiver".

If a resolution to make an application to the Court to appoint a liquidator
in place of the Official Receiver is passed at a First Meeting of
Creditors, then at that stage the Chairman of the Meeting will accept
nominations as to who should be put forward to the Court as the proposed
liquidator. You will appreciate that more than one person may be nominated
to be put forward as liquidator, by different creditors, and if so then the
Meeting will have to determine, by way of further resolutions which nominee
shall be proposed to the Court to be appointed as liquidator in place of
the Official Receiver.

At the Meeting held on 7th July 2009 the first resolution put forward by Mr
Simpson, pursuant to Section 179 was whether an application should be made
to the Court to appoint a liquidator in place of the joint deemed Official
Receivers. That Resolution was not passed by a majority in value and
number of creditors voting at the Meeting, either in person or by proxy.
Accordingly, there was no need for DAG's proposed resolution to be put to
the Meeting, since the creditors of KSFIOM had determined not to make an
application to the Court to appoint a liquidator in place of the joint
deemed Official Receivers.

At the meeting it was made clear by PWC that they were not prepared to act
with BDO as joint Liquidators of KSFIOM, in any event.

We trust that this clarifies the position.

Cains | 15-19 Athol Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 1LB

-------- Original Message 9 --------
Subject: Re: Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:10:24 +0100
To: Seth Caine
Seth,

Thanks you for your e-mail, the contents of which are noted.

I am afraid that your arguments look dubious to me at first sight, and far from persuasive, but I am going to consider them further before getting back to you.

[signature deleted]

IMPORTANT

Please note that the content of this site is no longer regularly updated, and much of it may be outdated.

See this page for alternative sites.

Main Menu