Keydata investors face up to 14-year wait for refund

Would Dan and co. wait 14 years to get paid as administrators? I think not. As the company are now in default, surely a claim should be made via the FSCS and end the fiasco. The ongoing expense of this administration is sheer madness.

A lot of pensioners are invested in these so called Defined Income Plans and they were relying on the income payments to supplement their pension income. A lot will be dead and gone inside 14 years.

When is action / prosecution of the keydata Directors going to start?

They have a lot to answer for and should not get away with this

14 years of trail on £40 million as well as fees and expenses for setting it up well done Dan ever cloud hey?

Would it not be so much cheaper to pay out the keydata investors,rather than pay various accounting firms vast sums of money plus the costs which will be incurred by the SFO and the FSCS to just confirm fraud took place.?

Well done Dan, you keep lining your pockets at our expense!!!

This is a travesty, a farce and an insult I doubt if many, if any, would be in agreement with this proposal. As previously stated many investors are 60+ so what good would this be to us? Personally we just want our original investment back, interest would be a bonus but at this stage just the original capital would be acceptable to us.

Are we really supposed to swallow the "mortality" explanation trotted out by Mr. Collard? What about the considerable amount of our money which was sucked out from Lifemark by its owners and other leeches? (Lifemark was set up and owned by the principal director of Keydata) And how much exactly of our £350M was really spent on the famous "assets"? (They now seem to be worth zilch). 30% of our money was supposed to be held as cash. Where has the £100M+ gone, exactly?

We may never know the answers to these questions. What we do know is that the people we trusted with our savings are very rich men now, and we are very poor.

So I will draw my own conclusions.

I understand that the FSA received a complaint

from KPMG in 2006 because, in their sales brochure, Keydata had claimed that KPMG were an "involved party" and would be "monitoring the cash flow" of Keydata Bonds.

If so, did the FSA flag this to the financial industry? If not why not? My IFA was still assuring me that Keydata was a solid based company in December 2007. Was my IFA negligent if he had an inkling that Keydata was making false claims? Who is telling truth?

Roy Davidson

This was a fully back investment and how does everything go wrong. There is no safe investment.

Clients have entered into these agreements often to support retirement and care needs.

The documentation played down these risks and highlighted financial support of major institutions in the event of defaults the third parties appear to have evaporated, and the income payments and renewals have ceased this must be substancial.

The underlying assets ought to be priority and the investors protection first and foremost.

I recall the statement that the investments are safe as long as the policy premiums are paid? they will mature at some time in the future and therefore the risk is minimal outside of external interferance.

Return of capital as minimum.

As a £100,000 donator to this fiasco, there is as much danger in this story as in the banking situation. The government should be sorting this out to prevent the collapse of faith in the investment market generally. It would seem that anyone can defraud the general public with virtual immunity and become rich beyond their dreams while watchdogs who should have been practicing due diligence are totally negligent, without any comeback. Mistrust will cripple the industry if this situation is not addressed. All that is happening at the moment is the familiar sight of PWC etc getting rich whilst picking over the bones of the body before declaring the body dead after its paid itself all its fees.