The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Will do Bubbles. I think the numbers on the RBoS website haven't been updated since the other groups dropped out ? Could be wrong but I am guessing the figures being reported are close to the actual ones. It isn't that difficult to keep i contact with thousands of claimants if you have the correct set up. I have been part of this type of claim before and have experience of it. In any event, if the solicitors and those heading the claim are recommending acceptance, it would seem unlikely that those same people would proceed with the claim. This would leave anyone who wanted to continue, having to pick up where others have left off. A difficult and costly task. If what is being reported is accurate, it would seem that a settlement should be achievable. It would be helpful if the RBos Action Group could provide claimants with information about the settlement (obviously not easy , as this could not become public knowledge) but I suspect that it will end up with an agreement in principle (if they agree) , which claimants will then have to individually sign off on. We wait to see and can only hope that those who are involved , negotiate the best offer possible, for all concerned.
The Rbos site has always had the numbers of member's at 27,000 .Add to that a possible 3000 latecomers . I have no idea where this 9000 figure comes from .The deadline is Monday . On Monday the judge has told both parties to inform him of their decision . If no settlement then the trail starts on the 7th Today is Thursday ....it is simply impossible to contact all 30,000 odd shareholders by Monday . Its just not going to happen . That is why i believe the RBOS directors will make a decision on our behalf . If they do contact you please let me know . Cheers
Hello MrBubbles just noticed I misread your post, apologies. I thought you worked in the group taking calls. Think I might need glasses ! Thank you anyway for your information.
You may notice this section "We are required by RBS to write to each of these ‘duplicate claimants’ asking them whether they wish to settle their claim on the terms we have agreed on behalf of claimants or whether they would like to continue their claim as part of the RBoS." Now, if you were a claimant with Leone Kaye and were also a duplicated claimant with RBoS Action Group, what would you do ?
They may also be referring to this information, which is on the website of another claimants group. http://www.leonkaye.co.uk/class-actions/royal-bank-of-scotland-rights-issue-action-group/new/ "The main purpose of the Validation Process now however is to satisfy RBS that there are no duplications between our action group and the separate action group known as RBoS Shareholders Action Group"
Hi MrBubbles Thank you for the information and for your help as part of the group. My understanding is that claimants have to agree to accept any settlement as individuals. The RBoS Action Group does not have authority to accept (or not) any settlement on behalf of claimants This would appear to be confirmed in the newspaper articles which quote "Asked by Hildyard what the impediments to a deal were, Jonathan Nash QC for the claimants said the shareholder group was not able to contact all its members. There were a “small number of shareholders whose current address does not appear to be correct” This demonstrates that the group appear to have been trying to contact claimants ? In addition, as far as I am aware, no contract has been signed that delegates complete authority to the group on behalf of individual claimants. I certainly didn't sign anything that does and it would of course be foolish, to let a small group of people , potentially have the authority to commit every claimant to an unknown level of financial loss, without first having to refer back to claimants for their confirmation. In my experience of settlements in multi claimant cases, people heading the legal case can recommend acceptance but ultimately, it will be up to individual claimants to sign individual agreements to say they have accepted the final settlement with RBS Solicitors. Should the case proceed, it seems there would be nothing to stop claimants from contacting the solicitors to say they would like to settle and the group would be unable to stop people from doing that . This would not be helpful but I have previous experience of this happening . It would of course weaken the prospects for anyone who chose to continue with the existing claim, which they may be entitled to do, with all of the attached risk. It would also make sense to be guided by Counsels opinion in this respect. No doubt, everyone wants the best outcome but sadly different claimants will always have their own goals and agendas. You will always find some who wish to continue a claim on principle, while others feel it more prudent to settle.
I have spoken to her. Always found her really helpful. But she works on her own I think. I would imagine she has been busy...
Hi best add when i say spoken to the action group ....it was a volunteer who works for the group taking calls etc
I have just spoken to the action group . I asked the question " will we be individually contacted and asked whether we want to settle or will the directors of the group make the decision on our behalf ? " The person said that somewhere on action group the site it says that the directors will act of behalf of its members . There have been hundreds of calls as you can imagine and nearly all of them asking whats happening ( they can read the FT or the BBC news website to find that out ) but the overwhelming consensus is that people want to settle . I joined as a latecomer so my position is slightly different as RBS were objecting under the himation act to stop us from joining the court register . We were allowed to join as a judge decided that Rbs concealed information from its shareholders and under these circumstance the limitation act was extended for a period to allow new members to join ( it is now closed ) As i say RBS were fighting this but under the circumstances of a looming settlement i would have thought it wouldn't present too much of a problem .or thats what i am hoping . Cheers
In addition to the post below and more as a guide to all who purchase shares in their employers business, you really shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket. I recall many years ago with the disaster that was the collapse of Railtrack, a lot of employees had their entire life savings in Railtrack stock because 'it felt like it was their company' but when things went wrong they lost their jobs and their savings. I appreciate that some employers offer very generous terms for employees to purchase stock in the company but I really wouldn't keep it tied to the firm that you work for, for longer than you have to. diversify, diversify, diversify
I wasn't being nasty about it (and my apologies if you felt that I was). You mailed it when you said that you hoped the money from the shares would provide a comfortable retirement. I am in the same position in that I would like the monies from a settlement to help fund my retirement, and I was pointing out that if the trial continues there is absolutely no guarantee of success or financial recompense or legal expenses cover which the shareholder group have benefited from to date. Someone will no doubt write a book about it in due course, may be even a film, but now is the (long overdue) time for financial recompense for their (IMO) fraud.
There is no need to be nasty about it Paul, there nothing Petty about wanting to know the truth. I worked for Nat West for 21 yrs and lost a lot of money ( as did a lot of other people) which I had hoped would give my husband and myself a comfortable retirement and I would like to know more about how this could happen. We are not petty shareholders.
****ey, I agree, it might be nice to know what actually went on, but like the vast majority of others, I don't want to pay for it, not be liable for £ 100 million legal bill if it fails. You sue Mr Goodwin if you like but if you and your ilk wish to burn through millions of £'s just for the sake of vanity, I would put you in the same camp as Mr Goodwin ! Will those petty shareholders who wish to continue provide an indemnity to the rest of us who wish to see a financial settlement, and have they got the assets or insurance to back it up ? otherwise i can see a new action group taking on the existing action group for mishandling their claim and so on and so on .... :-) The Government weren't interested in publicising what really went on, hence no parliamentary enquiry, the police weren't interested in publicising what really went on, hence no criminal charges, so what on earth makes you feel that this case going to court would make any difference? Take the money and move on.
I just think it should all be brought out into the open as to what happened , a lot of people lost a lot of money when the Banks collapsed and we deserve to know why and who was to blame.
Given the vast amount taxpayer cash injected and that if government had allowed RBS to collapse or been unable to save it the catastrophic results that would have followed - It is amazing that neither they Bank of England or FCA seem that worries about what actually happened . If nothing else might save a repeat . RBS should have clearly documented everything at time of rights and ought to be able to clearly prove that all procedures were honestly and correctly followed . AS such you would imagine they would welcome their day in court as quickly as possible to show their innocence
But would you like to pay for it ****ey and potentially have to pay the costs should they lose ?
I would like to see it go to Court and find out what really happened.
Have you tried contacting the RBS registrar Santa2 ?
I bought shares when RBS was trying to raise these funds, I did not register with any action groups - big mistake. This was some 10 years ago and I am unable to find any paperwork and NatWest says they can only get hold of statements going back 7 years. Any suggestions?
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/24/high-court-rbs-royal-bank-of-scotland-fred-goodwin "Asked by Hildyard what the impediments to a deal were, Nash said the shareholder group was not able to contact all its members. There were a “small number of shareholders whose current address does not appear to be correct”, he added". I find this very odd ?
Hi paul30661 I have sent several e-mails asking for information but received no replies. BBC is reporting ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40026054 "The majority of shareholders have agreed to accept the deal. However, groups representing some of the smaller claims are thought to be keen to fight the case, which would involve seeing disgraced former boss Fred Goodwin give evidence on his role in the bank's near-collapse." I have no idea how this is possible, when there are claimants that have not been contacted by the Action Group , or it's solicitors, to find out whether any offer would be acceptable ?
In my opinion going through with the court case is a waste of breath and a waste of money. As anyone with experience knows, justice is not always served correctly by the courts so there is a very real risk that shareholders who lost out first time around could lose out again. If individuals or groups of disgruntled shareholders wish to have a day in court with Mr Goodwin take him to court on your own, don't use my money or the money of the people who are underwriting the costs of the current case. If those backers back out it would be interesting to see how many shareholders are willing to pay more money themselves just to get their day in court and a couple of headlines. I suspect the vast, vast majority would not. For those members who wish to send communication to the shareholder group there is an email message service on the website. I sent one last week stating that I would much prefer a settlement rather than continue to court.
@ TN, Very true, I want justice at the end of the day. Ideally I would like to see it go to court and see what really went on behind the scenes un be known to shareholders. Was I it simply a gamble that failed or was it pure negligence, I think it was the latter.