Kaupthing Bank has secured sufficient funds to repay all deposits back to depositors of Kaupthing Edge Germany. Kaupthing Bank has been committed to paying back all priority claims as quickly as possible and has placed great importance on settling the claims of the depositors of Kaupthing Edge Germany. When this repayment has been made, Kaupthing Bank will have repaid all deposits defined by Icelandic law as priority claims, i.e. deposits made at the parent company and at branches belonging to the parent company.
Despite great efforts, due to various complications, this process has been more time consuming than originally anticipated. Most of these difficulties have now been resolved. However, Kaupthing Bank is still working on some technical issues with regard to the payment procedure.
Furthermore, DZ Bank AG, which was appointed as the payment agent for Kaupthing Edge Germany customers, seized EUR 55m, which in the opinion of Kaupthing Bank should have been used to reimburse German Kaupthing Edge depositors. There is every indication that this matter will have to be resolved in court but it will not affect the Bank’s decision to pay out all deposits.
Kaupthing Bank and the German authorities have had comprehensive discussions on this matter in the last few months to develop a solution which fully ensures the secure repayment of deposits to the Bank’s customers.
Kaupthing Edge depositors will receive a letter from the Bank outlining the payment procedure. Customers will have the opportunity to change their contact and account details. Thereafter, the balance of deposits as it was when Kaupthing Edge Germany was placed into moratorium will be repaid.
Kaupthing Bank would again like to thank Kaupthing Edge Germany depositors for their continued patience. As before, depositors are encouraged to visit the bank’s online information centres www.kaupthing.com and www.kaupthingedge.de. Further information and instructions will be posted on these websites later this month.
(Kaupthnig press release)
What about the depositors in Kaupthing Isle of Man? We are retail depositors with a guarantee from Kaupthing hf. We have not been repaid. When will this happen?
I’m happy to be proved wrong, but the Kaupthing hf guarantee is worthless as Kaupthing hf is in receivership. The best it gives you is a relatively low priority claim.
KSF (IoM) was not a branch, it was a separate corporate entity. The KE operation in Germany was a branch and so was Kaputhing hf itself.
In other words, the fact that the liquidation of Kaupthing has generated enough money to pay depositors in its foreign branches 100% does not directly affect your situation.
Thanks for your comment. But how so? What the article seems to be saying is that HF is paying its debts. The German retail depositors are creditors and so are the IOM depositors who are owed the guarantee money in the same way the German retail depositors are owed their balances. They are both species of unsecured debt. And while retail and wholesale deposits may be treated differently by governments for compensation purposes, I am not aware of any law saying they can be treated differently as a matter of corporate insolvency. Perhaps the law in Germany is different – or perhaps this has something to do with the IMF loan and some prioritisation by HF?
>The German retail depositors are creditors and so are the IOM depositors who are owed the guarantee money in the same way the German retail depositors are owed their balances.
This is the key part.
Under Icelandic law, depositors are given priority. But IoM depositors are not depositors with Kaupthing hf, they are depositors with KSF.
I’ve not been following the IoM stuff closely, so I don’t know the ins-and-outs of the guarantee. Chances are, assuming that it is considered valid, it’ll just get thrown into the pot with all the other unsecured creditors.
Sadly. Kaupthing Isle of Man depositors are in position they are because of the money that Darling and Brown seized.
No doubt you claims are not bottom of list because of law passed October 2008 in Iceland putting depositors higher, but that bigh chunk of money is not under control of Kaupthing resolution committe.
It is under control of UK Government along with other UK assets from Kaupthing Singer Friedlander.
Sad but true. The UK took GBP 550 million of KSFIOM monies and won’t give it back claiming it not their money. Well they hold it. Why will they not give it back to KSFIOM?
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/03/16/kaupthing-uk-legal-case-makes-high-court-progress/
thanks bromley
i hadnt read the article properly about the icelandic law
ironically it was the crazy IOM FSC (the regulators) decision to send 550 million to KSFUK that has caused the IOM problem since Brown won’t return it.
this was done to avoid hf exposure
ironically it looks like we would have been better off putting our cash straight into hf!
Just a point of order on Fisy’s Brown/Darling bash. As I understand it, which may well be imperfectly, there’s no reason why that £550m should be treated any differently when liquidating KSF UK. If you were a creditor of KSF UK you’d be pretty annoyed to see £550m being punted out of the door before your settlement was reached.
That’s not to say that it’s “right”. The Isle of Man FSC should be shot for this one – they’re an independent body and should have known better than to deposit those funds in the UK over IoM.
For KSF IoM depositors’ recoverability, I suppose the question is how solvent KSF UK is compared to Kaupthing hf. I’ve not seen anything on that.
Sadly I think you are right Bromley on how the 555 mill must be treated in the insolvency.
Whether there was any wrongdoing by Brown and Darling must – I assume – now be determined by the judicial review proceedings being brought by HF against HMG. Beyond that it seems we will never know – because of the “secret powers” used by HMG to protect/bring down KSFUK (depending on what the underlying truth is).
The Isle of Man FSC have just rewarded their head, John Aspden, with a whopping pay rise, on top of his already galactic salary. Not sure many KSFIOM people would agree with that.
In my view, once it became clear that the options for KSFIOM were (subject to commercial considerations) sticking most of their funds in KSFUK as an unprotected wholesale deposit or stopping sucking in new funds, the IOM FSC should never have allowed the bank to carry on getting in new savers’ money, since the viability of the bank was totally in the air after the 555 million went into KSFUK.
Bromley86: That’s my understanding as well. The KSF IoM money was deposited with KSF UK, not with Kaupthing banki hf. Hence they have to see how much can be recovered from KSF UK under British bankruptcy laws. IoM savers might like to take heart from the fact that the administrators of Heritable Bank (a Landsbanki subsidiary) reckon they can get back at least 70–80% of depositors’ money: all the same, Heritable and KSF UK are different companies, obviously.
The IMF money is not paying for the Kauthhing debt — it is all coming out of asset liquidations.
For Landsbanki IceSave iceland govenrment forced to take loans to repay it from UK and Holland,
“Furthermore, DZ Bank AG, which was appointed as the payment agent for Kaupthing Edge Germany customers, seized EUR 55m, which in the opinion of Kaupthing Bank should have been used to reimburse German Kaupthing Edge depositors. There is every indication that this matter will have to be resolved in court but it will not affect the Bank’s decision to pay out all deposits.”
That German bank took advantage of situation. LIke Norwegians did with subsidiary of Glitnir bank:
Glitnir ASA in Norway Sold under Value
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=318683
The subsidiary of Iceland’s Glitnir Bank, Glitnir Bank ASA in Norway, was sold for NOK 300 million (USD 42 million, EUR 33 million) on October 21, 2008, or ISK 5.5 billion, but its current worth is estimated at ISK 36.5 billion (USD 281 million, EUR 217 million).
>If you were a creditor of KSF UK you’d be pretty annoyed to see £550m being punted out of the door before your settlement was reached.
Do you not see that it is not FSF UK money at all and should have be immediatelly wire back to KSFIOM.
UK FSA did not keep IOM up to date so they just put the money there as usual even though FSA new they were going to bring down FSIOM.
It stinks.
As I maitain since start of this whole mess — but as you can begin to see more concretely as things move forward in liquidations and administrations, situation is not as bad in assets of banks (not even Landsbanki and certainly not in Kaupthing Singer Friendlander) as Brown Darling made out.
ING was main competitor pushed out by IceSave and Kauthping Edge. This was about giving the Edge funds to ING for nice discount.
Re: assets, Norwegians for example already got themselves a good deal from subsidiary of Glitnir in less than a few months, and this is during worst banking crisis for decades!!! Same for other asset.
But what bring down value is not loan to Icelanders but that in cases of some Jón Ásgeir did pay too much for companies he bought.
>The KSF IoM money was deposited with KSF UK, not with Kaupthing banki hf
Yes, and that is what make Brown Darling actions in not sending money straught back and instruct FSA/adminstrators to do so the dirtiest thing of whole episode!!
They very quick send Edge accounts over the iNG.
*UK FSA did not keep IOM up to date so they just put the money there as usual even though FSA new they were going to bring down FSIOM.
I mean to say
UK FSA did not keep IOM up to date so they just put the money there as usual even though UK FSA new they were going to bring down FSF UK.
On Apr 21, 2009, Fisy said:
“Kaupthing Isle of Man depositors are in position they are because of the money that Darling and Brown seized”
Darling and Brown didn’t seize anything.
There isn’t any cash in the bank, its all loaned out earning interest, well the %0% that hasn’t been stolen by the Icelandic owners or turned bad by bankruptcy of the borrower (etc). The Liquidator will return the loans as it can.
steveservaes said:
“in my view, once it became clear that the options for KSFIOM were (subject to commercial considerations) sticking most of their funds in KSFUK as an unprotected wholesale deposit or stopping sucking in new funds, the IOM FSC should never have allowed the bank to carry on getting in new savers’ money, since the viability of the bank was totally in the air after the 555 million went into KSFUK.”
You cannot seriously believe that when you deposit money in a IoM bank it stays there rotting while paying the depositor interest?
Banks put the money to work. The choice was putting the money in Iceland or the UK – which would you now prefer, a 50%+ from UK or the 0% if the funds had gone to Iceland?
Fisy. One of us doesn’t understand jurisdictions and receivership. I’m going to assume it’s you ;) .
It’s a shame that your conviction about the ability of Landsbanki to repay at least the EEA guarantee wasn’t shared by the Icelandic Prime Misister or Finance Minister. If it was then the UK authorities wouldn’t have had any justification for the freezing order.
I’m not sure why the UK would want to bring down KE just to transfer the deposits to another foreign, EEA passported, bank.
Strange question.
As I understood the matter – now you are under protection of Brown and Darling. So – call THEM!
Peter London – of course the deposits in the IOM Bank are loaned out to earn interest. What I was saying is : the IOM Bank should not have been allowed to take in more deposits to invest once it had embarked on the crazy policy (either instigated or approved by the FSC) of putting all its eggs in the KSFUK basket. The FSC would not – or should not – normally allow a new bank to advertise for deposits with such a business plan, and it seems to me that here the FSC should either have forced KSFOM to diversify (even if this meant poorer returns) or go into administration (provisional liquidation in the IOM) leaving those depositors unfortunate enough to be already in the bank, to bear the consequences. They should not have allowed continued trading and in fact sucking in huge amounts of new deposits with headline rates. Crazy stuff.
>As I understood the matter – now you are under protection of Brown and Darling. So – call THEM!
Not so. Different jurisdiction and different compensation scheme. It is the same with Guernsey (and would be the same with Jersey, but I don’t think there was an Icelandic bank based there).
Pretty sure that the UK is responsible for any IoM negotiations etc. with Iceland though, so I suppose it’s true in that sense.
Peter – London you seem pop up whenever there is critizism of Brown-Darling. (It’s not criticism of UK and people but Brown Darling. )
you do understand that this £550m was sent from KSF IOM to FSF UK as effectivly “overnight money” and has nothing to do with KSF UK other than being held “safe” for FSF IOM depositors.
The IOM authorities have complain that UK FSA not keep them informed as they usually did and that if UK FSA kept them informed that “overnight money” would not have been sent as IOM FSA would have advise against it.
When asked Darling give some very weak excuse why this money not returned to its owner in IOM.
Although who know I think it probably would have been safer that this money was sent to Kaupthing hf as it is then would be back with FSF IOM by now most likely.
Darling Brown really have let down reputation of UK even more by not refuding this money to KSF IOM.
UK meant to formally protect interests of IOM and other Crown dependency. And this how they do it??
It really stinks. Even above all bad action of Brown Darling over Landsbanki.
Fisy.
In your desire to have a go at Brown and Darling, you’re mixing up two things. The first is whether the UK government/FSA had any duty to the IoM FSC regarding pre-notification of their actions. I can’t comment on that as I don’t know, other than to say I think it unlikely.
The second is what happens after the door is shut. At that point, the administrator has to act for the creditors as a whole. Neither Brown nor Darling could intervene, even if they wanted to.
Are you saying that any money KSFIOM deposited with Kaupthing hf would have been treated as a deposit and so prioritised under Icelandic law? Seems unlikely, but you may be right.
>Banks put the money to work. The choice was putting the money in Iceland or the UK – which would you now prefer, a 50%+ from UK or the 0% if the funds had gone to Iceland?
Stop this falsehood talking Peter – London.
Its very clear why they took this money, so all money minus the discount could be sent to ING — as this would make Darling Brown look better as the “small guy” would get money in ING and Darling Brown gets to look like he is fighting against evil foreigners
But then… ooops.
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/news-item/ksfiom-action-group-claims-treasury-use-british-savers-assets-cover-icelandic-debts
“The UK administrators are currently hiding under the anti-terror legislation so our liquidator can’t get any access to these funds. The administrators have been instructed by Her Majesty’s Treasury to seize the funds to cover the guarantees the Government have offered to all UK savers but depositors in the IOM aren’t covered by these guarantees.
The Government thought these assets belonged to the Icelandic bank in London, they don’t, they belong to the Icelandic bank in the Isle of Man.”
Instead of giving it back — and showing how bad faith they acted — they just keep the money and tell KSF IOM depositor “tough luck you should not be using offshore bank!”.
When in fact most are UK citizen just who are expat and could not open bank account in UK because of strict anti moneylaundering regulations of the UK banks on account opening.
Gold plated version of EU directives on this that are over top and make banks in UK super cautious in account opening.
One final comment on how much this issue stink.
How is it that Dave Whelan and Stockcube Plc get they millions of money paid bad at request of UK government but not KSF IOM and its UK citizen?
Because they have tie to Labour party maybe?
Sorry Fisy, but you’ve just ruined any credibility you might have had.
1. You’re quoting from a site that’s as un-impartial as they come. There’s nothing wrong with them feeling that way, given the situation, but it’s hardly the same as linking to a reputable source.
2. Anyway, even if we ignore that, the central premise of that link is that the UK used anti-terror laws to freeze the KSFIOM money. A fair mistake for them to make back in October, but that’s not the case for you after all this time.
3. Got a link for your latest assertion, or can I assume you’re taking it out of context? You’re good at coming up with things that, if true, would be damning. However, I’ve yet to see where you got your info on the last one you mentioned (EU financing SD party).
>Sorry Fisy, but you’ve just ruined any credibility you might have had.
>You’re good at coming up with things that, if true, would be damning.
This things you said made me smile.
You of all peoples should know by now Brumley86 that I not post something unless I know it true and that truth will come out soon enough.
Sometime I short for time so do not post all source to begin with for that reason.
And other times some people who think it is hidden or forgetten need to be left to sweat a while.
>1. You’re quoting from a site that’s as un-impartial as they come. There’s nothing wrong with them feeling that way, given the situation, but it’s hardly the same as linking to a reputable source.
Never gave it as unbiase source. I give it as illustration of narrative, with obvious source so it of course clear that they have they bias. No reader going to be that dumb I think Brumley.
These people have they money stolen by UK Treasury and they are mad about it!!
Reason for taking down Kauptning Singer Frieldander was to take Edge deposits over to ING — because of Darling and FSA panic — and for no other reason.
And that is why judicial review granted by UK judge.
>2. Anyway, even if we ignore that, the central premise of that link is that the UK used anti-terror laws to freeze the KSFIOM money. A fair mistake for them to make back in October, but that’s not the case for you after all this time.
Actually, central premise of narrative is that there was gag order.
The fact is that Justice Floyd ordered the court file sealed at at time appointed the adminstrators on 8th October under instruction of UK FSA. Perhaps it was because of anti-terrorist gag order or not,
We still not know. And that the problem still to date. We dont know why he invoked it.
They at say then reason for not getting answer was gag order. And in that http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org were spot on.
That they not got answers at time may also be because of huge problem caused by Landsbanki put on antiterrorist list and government of iceland and authorities of Iceland ( we can assume include central bank ) which was not clear to anyone that it was just Lansabanki until 17th October.
That is when UK Treausry finally force by pressure of Icelander government and worldwide financial institution to issue detailed 44 point 5 page official follow-up notice only then did it become clear “what was meant”:
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/13/former-icelandic-pm-haarde-on-hardtalk/#comment-65178
I say sorry to other readers but I have now quote lot of stuff here to Brumley86 benefit because he keeps on being hard of reading these long documents that do not help hes case.
>you do understand that this £550m was sent from KSF IOM to FSF UK as effectivly “overnight money” and has nothing to do with KSF UK other than being held “safe” for FSF IOM depositors.
>The IOM authorities have complain that UK FSA not keep them informed as they usually did and that if UK FSA kept them informed that “overnight money” would not have been sent as IOM FSA would have advise against it.
>The Government thought these assets belonged to the Icelandic bank in London, they don’t, they belong to the Icelandic bank in the Isle of Man.”
>Instead of giving it back — and showing how bad faith they acted — they just keep the money and tell KSF IOM depositor “tough luck you should not be using offshore bank!”.
Maybe you not think following is good enough source, Brumley86.
Yes it does not tell whole story but it is ok on KSFIOM issue despite bullsh*ting of some Labour lords and Darling himself trying to protect hisself. Despite even this and that this committe made up of Labour member in slight majority still fairly reasonable collection of facts –
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/402/402.pdf
page 27:–
“Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited
54. On 9 October 2008, the Isle of Man Court made a Provisional Liquidation Order in relation to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited [KSF(IOM)].
The liquidation of this bank was particularly controversial as it was caused, in part, by steps taken by the UK Government to transfer deposits from the KSF UK branch to ING.
KSF(IOM) had previously transferred £555m of unsecured funds into KSF(UK) following consultation with the [UK] FSA. Many KSF(IOM) depositors were UK expatriates or people living in the UK who were retail depositors and for legitimate reasons found themselves banking in the Isle of Man with what had until recently been the offshore arm of the UK banking group, Singer & Friedlander.
55. It is the contention of the Isle of Man Government that there were considerable shortcomings in the communication between the regulatory authorities in respect of the action which the UK was planning to take in relation to KSF(UK), a UK incorporated company authorised by the [UK] FSA to take deposits.
[b]This contrasted with the prompt and reliable exchange of information that had been in place previously, up to and including the handling of Bradford & Bingley just a few days earlier.[/b]
56. The Isle of Man Government told us that [b]KSF(IOM) was a solvent bank that had been rendered insolvent by the actions of the UK authorities, when the UK was attempting to protect its own position against Iceland[/b]. Had the existing regimes and protocols been adhered to then the situation could have been managed with significantly less impact on the Isle of Man even if it could not have been avoided altogether.
57. In submitting questions to us, members of the public time and again demanded that the UK Government should accept responsibility and return the £555m lost by Isle of Man savers. When we put this issue to the Chancellor at the beginning of our inquiry, he replied that the £555m did “not belong to the UK Government”.
In evidence to us, Lord Turner indicated that KSF(IOM) was in the same position as any other creditor although in a later session Hector Sants acknowledged that this was [b]not correct given the special powers that had been taken by the Treasury in relation to any payments to be made to the Isle of Man.[/b]”
Like I say this hole matter in very specific way and action of Darling Brown stinks to the heavens.
>How is it that Dave Whelan and Stockcube Plc get they millions of money paid bad at request of UK government but not KSF IOM and its UK citizen?
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4073
“2 April 09
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander UK Limited (In Administration) (“KSFUK”)
A number of creditors have contacted me following reports in the UK press regarding compensation being provided to certain creditors of KSFUK. KSFIOM creditors have expressed their concerns regarding these particular creditors potentially being granted preference over other creditors of KSFUK, such as KSFIOM.
It is our understanding that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”) has paid compensation in full to both Mr Whelan (to allow for the purchase of the fitness clubs business from JJB plc, which will be rebranded as DW Sports Fitness) as well as deposits due to Stockcube plc. Stockcube plc has announced that its cash on deposit as well as interest due from KSFUK has been compensated by FSCS.
The joint Liquidators Provisionally wish to clarify their understanding that compensation to these parties has not been provided by KSFUK, but by the FSCS. KSFIOM cannot claim compensation from the FSCS in this regard.
Sale of JJB plc shares
The joint Liquidators Provisionally can confirm that KSFIOM has also disposed of its shareholding in JJB plc. The joint Liquidators Provisionally have no further news regarding the realisation of assets at this time.”
*They* get it and preference from Financial Services Compensation Scheme in what is so clearly political preferences — but *not* the normal UK citizens in KSFIOM despite it all being unsecured creditor money in essense?
And this argument hiding behind technicality of that KSFIOM monies are not covered and not under control of UK government is complete utterly nonsence of the most stinking order.
They even pay these guys back they *interest* for gods sakes.
>Because they have tie to Labour party maybe?
Come now Brumley96 now you can use Google as easy as I can on this last one. It is so simple to discover and post back to rest of us.
That’s low, Fisy. I take it you’re referring again to the thread where you refused to make a point but wanted me to read the regulations governing the ECB? As I said then, feel free to make a point that I can respond to.
Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the SD were funded by the EU.
Any back-up for that, or is this just more unsubstantiated opinion?
Actually it wasn’t. “The UK administrators are currently hiding under the anti-terror legislation so our liquidator can’t get any **access** to these funds.”
As I said to you last time, you potentially have a great point over the court-sealing. But you need to show that it’s not normal to do so, otherwise it’s worth nothing.
That quote adds nothing new to the exchange. BTW, did you read what Darling said there about the £555m?
>That’s low, Fisy.
As you know I am not one for ad hominem Brumley86 — but it not good idea to do this accussation about credibility. You should know better.
I still find you reactions strange — it is as if Brown Darling are you best friends and when facts not flattering to them ( let us say at the least ) comes — you seem not to accept them what they are — facts. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I say:
“Reason for taking down Kauptning Singer Frieldander was to take Edge deposits over to ING — because of Darling and FSA panic — and for no other reason.
And that is why judicial review granted by UK judge.”
Brumey86 say:
“Any back-up for that, or is this just more unsubstantiated opinion”
Well, that seem to be opinion of administrators. But perhaps they not know.
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=20165
“Under the [UK Treasury] Transfer Order, the transfer of the Edge deposit accounts to ING was to be effected and was the Overriding Objective of the Administration.”
This despite that Kaupthing was sending in this bank wires just then at that moment almost to fund the outgoings from Edge.
>BTW, did you read what Darling said there about the £555m?
Yes. And I aslo read this:
“In evidence to us, Lord Turner indicated that KSF(IOM) was in the same position as any other creditor although in a later session Hector Sants acknowledged that this was [b]not correct given the special powers that had been taken by the Treasury in relation to any payments to be made to the Isle of Man.[/b]”
You do know that Hector Sants is head of UK FSA right? So he should know.
For gods sakes not taking into account general screw up in trying to protect against problem that not exist in taking account to ING — not returning this GBP 550 millions that they seize by accident is most stinking thing.
Not even Hector Sants is defending this one.
( I tried this formatting I heard about for emphasis but it does not seem to work for me. :( )
Nice to see you in one sentence claiming never to resort to ad hominem and in the next sentence referring to my supposed love of Brown and Darling :) . Perhaps you’d like to point to one of those “facts” that you refer to that I ignore? Note that a fact is something you can support, not just something that seems obvious to you for whatever reason.
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.
Regarding the judicial review. I was asking if you knew the reason for it being granted or whether you were just inferring. That’s the difference between fact and opinion.
Unless I’m missing something, the quote you give doesn’t do anything other than state what we all already know. No one denies that the FSA action was to protect those balances.
Regarding that statement by Hector Sants. That’s a good quote that you’ve found. But do you understand it? No you don’t, but that doesn’t stop you going on make an unfounded claim about what Sants does or doesn’t think.
Reading between the lines I’d say that the Treasury have likely included a provision in that sealed order we talked about that says that they can block a payment made by the administrators to a related third party. Not that they will. Not that they can order the administrators to make a payment that the administrators would otherwise not have made. Anyway, judge for yourself when you read the source for the quote that you provide (I’ve included the first sentence of the next question for context):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/98/8121509.htm
You might want to read that Q124 and the answer. I’ve not included it here for brevity.
Regarding Whelan. I hadn’t seen your response on the 1st about Whelan. Bearing in mind I have no knowledge of this other than what you quote, it clearly says that the UK deposit compensation scheme, not the company under administration, paid him and Stockcube and it also quite clearly said that there was no similar claim available to KSFIOM. You might be correct that there was some political reason for doing this, although I doubt it and you’ve still not presented any evidence to support such an assertion. The FSCS is not a fiefdom of the government and the one thing you can say for the Opposition in this country (whichever party it happens to be) is that they’ll look for every opportunity to attack the government.
So, going back to you’re original question/assertion, my guess would be that Whelan/Stockcube cut a deal to access their monies earlier than they otherwise would. The benefit to the UK (not Labour specifically), would be that JJB was saved from going under, jobs were safeguarded and we avoided having another empty shop on the high street of every town in the UK. Seems like a good deal to me.
http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/04/28/jjb-avoids-administration/
Formatting It’s pretty much the same as you’re used to, except “” replaces “]”. Quote changes to blockquote.
Arrgh. Formatting. I see that even using the symbol screws with the text (a load got chopped out of that last paragraph).
You, like me, are used to using square brackets. Instead, use the brackets that look like arrow heads (i.e. the less than and greater than symbols).
Just a followup on Stockcube.
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/stockcube-plc-gets-100-return-ksfuk