Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q1656185> ?p ?o }
- Q1656185 subject Q22330612.
- Q1656185 subject Q7303939.
- Q1656185 subject Q8195138.
- Q1656185 subject Q8195699.
- Q1656185 subject Q8195717.
- Q1656185 subject Q8289074.
- Q1656185 subject Q8531673.
- Q1656185 abstract "The Icesave dispute was a diplomatic dispute that began after the privately owned Icelandic bank Landsbanki went into receivership (informally "bankrupt" used in the article) on 7 October 2008, with a subsequent dispute evolving between Iceland on one hand and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands on the other. As Landsbanki was one of three systemically important financial institutions in Iceland to go bankrupt within a few days, the Icelandic Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (Tryggingarsjóður) had already been drained of capital reserves. This resulted in no funds to repay the legally required deposit guarantees to the foreign Landsbanki customers, who had lost all their savings in the Icesave branch of the bank. The Icelandic state refused to underwrite this liability on behalf of the guarantee fund. Originally this was because the state had lost funding access at credit markets due to the Icelandic financial crisis, but later proposed bilateral loan guarantees for repayment were rejected by the Icelandic electorate.The dispute was centred on the demand by the British and Dutch states that the Icelandic state should guarantee at least the repayment of the Icelandic minimum deposit guarantees (up to €20,887 per account holder), which would be equal to £2.35bn (€2.7bn) repaid to the UK and €1.3bn repaid to the Netherlands, routed partly/entirely through the liquidation of remaining positive assets by the Landsbanki receivership. When Landsbanki went bankrupt and was placed into receivership by the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority (FME), 343,306 retail depositors in the UK and Netherlands that held accounts in the "Icesave" branch of Landsbanki lost a total of €6.7bn of savings. Because no immediate repayment was expected by any Icelandic institutions/authorities, the Dutch and British states covered these account losses in full. This meant that their national deposit guarantee schemes covered repayment up to the maximum limit for the national deposit guarantees – and the states covered the rest.The Icesave dispute was centred on the fact that Iceland had passed a law on 6 October 2008 – the day before the Landsbanki bankruptcy – that guaranteed full coverage of lost deposits for domestic Icelandic customers in the event of any Icelandic bank's bankruptcy. At the same time, there was no guarantee for foreign customers of the same bank. With this law in hand, the Landsbanki receivership was obliged to split up the old Landsbanki on 9 October 2008, so that all domestic assets and liabilities were transferred and to be continued by a newly founded domestic version of the bank named Nýi Landsbanki – entirely owned by the Icelandic state. While the new bank was fully solvent, the remaining foreign branch of the bankrupt Landsbanki was left with ISK 1743 billion (€12.1bn) in assets to face up its ISK 3197 billion of liabilities (€22.2bn). The public controversy got more heated when the UK parliament on 8 October used its anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland, in order to attempt freezing all Icelandic bank assets in the UK, until the time where a mutual repayment agreement for the Icelandic minimum deposit guarantees had been enacted.The UK and Netherlands only required for the Icelandic state to guarantee repayment of the Icelandic minimum deposit guarantees (€4.0bn) to retail depositors, and did not require any repayment guarantee for the other €18.2bn creditor claims in the bankrupt Landsbanki. The Icelandic state was offered a £2.35bn (€2.7bn) repayment loan by UK and a €1.3bn repayment loan by the Netherlands, where the Landsbanki receivership should repay with all the funds they could from the liquidation of assets in 2009–15, and where the Icelandic state starting from 2016, subsequently should overtake the liability for the remaining repayments (including accrued interests) to UK and Netherlands. The Icesave bill 1 was the first negotiated loan agreement, attempting to define the repayment terms for these two loans. It was passed by the Icelandic parliament and enacted by the president on 2 September 2009, but was not accepted by the governments of UK and Netherlands, due to a unilaterally attached term added by the Icelandic parliament which limited Iceland's repayment guarantee only to 2024, with automatic cancellation of any potential owing still existing beyond this year. Instead, UK and Netherlands then counter proposed a new version of the loan agreement, referred to as Icesave bill 2, where no time limit was included for the Icelandic state's repayment guarantee. This was at first accepted by the Icelandic parliament, but the Icelandic president refused to enact the law, and referred any approval decision to a referendum being held on 6 March 2010, where it was subsequently rejected.After the rejection of Icesave bill 2, some renewed negotiations immediately started about the adjustment of the terms for the repayment agreement, which was considered to be the root cause why the Icelandic people had rejected it in 2010. The negotiations resulted in December 2010, in an adjusted version of the repayment agreement named Icesave bill 3, with better terms for Iceland. The improved terms included the removal of a previous creditor priority issue, and the introduction of a lower 3% interest rate in combination with interest moratorium for the first year until 1 October 2009. If needed when the Icelandic state overtake repayment liabilities from the receivership in 2016 – then also a possible extension of the "repayment window" up to 30 years. When the Icesave bill 3 subsequently was put to a referendum in April 2011, it was again rejected by 59% of Icelandic voters. After analysing the election result, it was decided by all stakeholders not to attempt negotiation for a further improved Icesave bill 4, but instead to refer the case as a legal infringement dispute for the EFTA Court to judge.Following the final result of the 2011 Icelandic loan guarantee referendum, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (ESA) lodged a formal application with the EFTA Court. The case was opened on 15 December 2011, and received defence and written observations from the Governments of Iceland, UK, Netherlands, Norway and Liechtenstein as well as the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the European Commission.On 28 January 2013, the EFTA Court cleared Iceland of all charges, meaning that Iceland was freed from the disputed obligation to sign a loan guarantee agreement for repayment of Icelandic minimum deposit guarantees worth €4.0bn (ISK 674bn) plus accrued interest to UK and the Netherlands. This caused shock, as many legal experts analysis suggested the ESA would win due to the facts of the case. This repayment claim still exists towards the Landsbanki receivership, who one year earlier had been ordered by the Supreme Court of Iceland to repay the entire amount of confiscated deposit values (including minimum deposit guarantees) as priority claims, which totaled ISK 852bn (£4.46bn, €5.03bn) to the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme and ISK 282bn (€1.67bn) to De Nederlandsche Bank. As of 12 September 2013, the Landsbanki receivership had through liquidation of the first half of its assets, managed to repay the first 53.9% (ISK 715bn, €4.23bn) of all the priority claims, and expected the remaining part would be fully repaid by the end of 2017. The claims for accrued interests after 22 April 2009, related to the delayed repayment of priority claims, will however only be treated as secondary general claims; and the estimated value of the receivership's liquidated assets will not be sufficient to meet these additional claims in full.In 2016, the Icesave dept has been paid up independently of the Icelandic government (had either deal the UK (and Netherlands) imposed on the Icelandic government prevailed, Iceland would still have been paying, because of high interest, for that deal, which the InDefence group opposed, that also opposed the applying by the UK of the terrorist law on Iceland (that was also applied to Landsbanki) that preceded the dealmakings).".
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink icesave.co.uk.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink icesave.nl.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink icesave.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink landsbanki.com.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink info.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink icesace_fylgiskjol_I.pdf.
- Q1656185 wikiPageExternalLink icesave.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1037511.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1046777.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1050279.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1063464.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q10648.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1085130.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1114891.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q11149.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1137483.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1148384.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1151762.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1154893.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q11693.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1180205.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1195916.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1248258.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q12638.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q131279.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q131473.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q135356.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q138185.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1416205.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q142.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q14211.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q145.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1479329.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1508765.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1518827.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q152074.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q15566023.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q15849.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q159421.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q15983772.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q165862.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1666631.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q167457.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q170924.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1751574.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1753631.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1764.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1816353.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1817463.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q183.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q18747.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1889.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q189.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q19188924.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q19190022.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q1946428.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q20.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q202032.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q2029070.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q212900.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q217169.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q217659.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q218303.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q22330612.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q23666.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q240.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q2491421.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q25224.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q252264.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q25230.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q259082.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q2594302.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q262299.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q272281.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q2813845.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q291823.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q296639.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q298030.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q3045069.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q3077805.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q3245461.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q326124.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q33.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q3481730.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q376935.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q3775266.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q40.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q414.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q43109.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q458.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q459504.
- Q1656185 wikiPageWikiLink Q467509.