Basically, the issue is whether each individual deposit should be treated as a single claim against Landsbanki or two separate ones (by TIF and FSCS).

If its treated as single claim, TIF will receive the first 20K Euros of each deposit from Landsbanki, which it can then use to pay back towards the IceSave loan. FSCS will then receive any amounts that are left above 20K Euros towards their own claims.

If its treated as two separate equal claims, TIF will only get a percentage of the first 20K Euros, and FSCS will get equal percentage for the amount above 20K Euros it paid out to depositors. The way the IceSave agreement is written, TIF will have to pay additional amounts back to FSCS, even if has priority according to the bankruptcy laws in Iceland.

This is one of the main sticking points many people, here in Iceland, have with the IceSave agreement The amendments to the earlier IceSave agreement were supposed to address this problem, but they were seriously watered down during the second phase negotiations with UK this fall.

The IceSave agreement would have a much better chance of being accepted here, if this issue would be resolved fully.

http://www.althingi.is/pdf/umsogn.php4?lthing=138&malnr=76&dbnr=835&nefnd=fl

Ignoring all the stupid disputes that resulted on what was kept secret by whom and why, there are still lot of interesting things brought up in this report.

For example here is there take on whether each deposit claim should be treated as as one or divided up (page 16):

“The treatment of each deposit as a single undivided claim is such principle in law that we can only assume it would also be applicable under Icelandic insolvency law, as the nature of the claim itself does not change towards Landsbanki, no matter what the contractual position between TIF and FSCS. Under English law, it would not be possible to create, out of one single claim against an insolvent estate, two claims (still less two claims with different levels of priority, although the two parties who thereafter “shared” the claim might agree between themselves to divide recoveries other than equally).”

Although he does seem more reasonable now+ you would just not believe some of the Looney Left stuff that people like Össur did used to write about and act.

There was a * reason * Icelanders did elect Davið government in 1991 and keep on electing them until last one this year.

+Frost over the World on Al Jazera – Ossur Skarphedinsson – 6 Feb 09 – Part 4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-vmHdqQJoQ

“It seems”… “certain information”….Bah…As I said,there is enough evidence for an impeachment.
Details,anyway,since after this “uproar” they promptly approved the bill.

Will Icelanders remain Independent People,
Or will you put them in a yoke?

We have a great Joke that is ready and waiting:
Q. What is the difference between the fishermen of the cod wars and the politicians of today?
A. Courage.

This joke will lose its witty sting if the question has to be, What the fishermen and the politicians have in common. So please, put your tails between your legs and vote for the yoke.

More accurate to say EU commission.

Svavar Gest as ex-Central Committee member of Icelandic Communist Party ( and part of old People Alliance — Alþýðubandalagið) despite his experience just does show that good old left wing attitude of information supression for ” the common goals “.

This is all about not such incompetence in general of the Social Democrat but about the EU at an cost idea they do have.

Still it amazes me that Steingrímur J. and certain Left-Green MP do go along with it !!

“There is enough evidence for an impeachment.
For whom are you working, Mr.Skarphedinsson?”

If you read the report

‘It has, however, been observed that certain information seems to have been removed from the presentation package by Svavar Gestsson, Chairman of the Icelandic negotiating committee, not wanting it to follow in the package to the foreign minister.’