Member Info for knot

Reading through the case fully, the award is not zero. It's already been paid. Not clear on how many other cases are liable.

"Anyone know here how much it could cost for Barclays ?"

Read the court ruling : https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/3237

Specifically the conclusion : "I allow Arnold Clark to assert its arguments in support of Clydesdale’s second ground: that the monetary award was unlawful."

i.e. the Ombudsman was right, but the award value was unlawful. This reduces the award to zero. The siding with the Ombudsmans "procedural fairness" also makes for a Court of Appeal case very, very difficult to justify.

Just realised a very important aspect to the ruling. The ruling sides with the Ombudsmands procedure but not the award, so makes for near zero rationale for the Ombudsman to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Very, very interesting.

The position on the nature of the award being unlawful when viewed that the ruling also sided with the OFT (2011) such that a fiduciary obligation did not exist, which goes against the CoA case in Hopcraft (2014). This is also very, very interesting. No wandering off in the long grass of Wood, et. al.

Relating back to the CoA ruling "In fact, Close paid a commission of £183.26" and the Barclays ruling today, regarding commercially viable business, the scale and implication for CBG could well be very, very bullish.

I eagerly await more destructive BS attempts from some posters that dont read the facts.

The brief push down appears to have been a headline driven attempt to flush some volume out, however the conclusion at the end of the ruling appeared to have taken about 14 minutes to sink in, hence the rapid bounce back up. I suppose that is what happens when people trade without actually knowing the facts surrounding the cases.... I remain quite bullish for CBG longer term.

"I allow Arnold Clark to assert its arguments in support of Clydesdale’s second ground: that the monetary award was unlawful." - i.e. the claim award value by the Ombudsman was unlawful.

I need to read through again, because effectively the ruling is that the Ombudsman followed the correct procedure, but the claim awarded was unlawful because it was based on a economically unviable business expectation.

This if anything is positive for lower claim awards.

"what makes you so sure the attempt to push the price down will end on December 23" - I don't. It will change as the current forced sellers that are being exited from indexed positions as part of FTSE250 trackers give a short position additional forced buyers to rely on. Think about it from the aspect of a short has to have a buyer who is flushed out at the lower price in order to make a gain. If you have a bias in buyers and sellers that is not open to judgement (tracker forced selling) that gives momentum with day traders being flushed at the same time.

After the 23rd it will become a far less biased market and I believe the price will move back towards a neutral buyer seller price, which is above where it is now.

"I just assume as every bit of bad news drops both companies" - just look at the relative share price movements surrounding the SC permission and explain away the complete decorrelation in movement after the announcement (5% persistence in Lloyds, complete reversal in CBG to below 0%). Again, not all contracts by all companies were the same. The impacts are different.

"then the share price will plummet" - Why are you supposedly holding Lloyds if that is your view ? Or are you just a repeatedly "hopeful" shorter ? I don't get your logic of posting in the way you are and sitting on a position if that is your view.

"In or 'out' the SC decision will imo drop this still further, but not as much as Lloyds will drop." I call complete BS.

Based on the case note facts it would appear that CBG is being hammered down due to risk averse bias and smaller market cap, but the real kicker is that CBG may well end up with smaller relative payouts than the majority of others. Opportunistic game.

I go back to my previous comment that contracts were different between companies. Read the full ruling :

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/3237

"Arnold Clark could set a flat interest rate payable by the customer to Clydesdale, from 2.68 per cent to 15.25 per cent. The amount by which that rate exceeded 2.68 per cent was payable as commission by Clydesdale to Arnold Clark." - CBG did not have commission payments like this.

I refer back to Plevin and the 50%, which in the case notes :

"commission payable by Clydesdale to Arnold Clark was subject to a cap: the lower of either £2,500 or 50

per cent of the total interest charges."

"Clydesdale also had to pay Arnold Clark’s head office 2 per cent of the amount borrowed; in this case, £13,333; 2 per cent of which is £266.66." - Compate this element to 3% as per quotes from CBG.

Still reading....

Very interesting £0.5m attempt to drop the price (or cash out a long in one trade £460k that ran through a shallow bid stack) that hit a brick wall... and very little volume to bounce back up to 230... I guess there may be more option volume around 230 on the other side now, so we may be range bound around 230-235 until after the 23rd or end of month option expiry ? Or a possible round 2 later this afternoon at a second attempt, which based on the last bounce if it does drop again later this afternoon it may be a prelude to another massive short squeeze later in the week. That's my guess....

"FCA / HMG will find some means" - you still may be missing some of the point of the court ruling and the role of the Supreme Court in this matter. The CoA ruling effectively threw the FCA under the bus. The government appear to be now looking to limit the FCA (even breaking it up) as a means to avoid direct intervention. The FCA may well go mild on their review as a result of the government "hints". Yes that may well be the "some means" route to limit payouts.

The Supreme Court may also throw the FCA under a bigger bus by completely overturning the Court of Appeal ruling, which may in turn effectively halt the redress option route, helping the government to cut the FCA down a bit.

Payout impact for CBG may well be still in the £40-200m ballpark, although the current price is factoring in closer to £500m, which I think poses a wider threat to the economy as a whole due to all the implications if that outcome were to happen (earlier posts). Payouts will still happen regardless, because for example the Johnson case (not CBG's case) proves that some were breaking the Plevin above 50% rule for PPI, which is stunning for a company to do. CBG was at 3% and this is quite significant to take note of.

Sure, given where CBG is at the moment some deep risk pockets could probably push the shares back down to sub 200, although they may be just as likely to also loose millions in another larger epic squeeze. Yes, the price is open to massive manipulation due to the distorted risk environment, but only in the short term while uncertainty is very high. Post 23rd implementation of the FTSE250 exit the risk environment changes in a different way.

I do believe your way over thinking the influence of "MP owned companies". It's more likely that MP's as a whole have lost far more money due to the damage to the share prices they hold via pensions, etc. Unfortunately they may not fully realise this, care or think they can do anything about it.

I hope I am more towards being correct because in this instance being wrong has bigger wider implications for the next election and it's not just about CBG. The path could turn very bumpy for all of us.

Chid, again you say a lot that proves you don't have a clue and less of an idea as to how things work. Why is the price where it is at the moment ? Very simple game of flushing CBG out of the FTSE250 index and a win for the shorts in that time frame, nothing more, nothing less, no conspiracy between Gov/FCA/etc. Where does it go from here ? It would have significant trouble pushing much lower unless you think the 3% commission rate for CBG is going to force CBG to be bankrupt, which would be curious maths more inventive than Reeves last budget. Payouts will be hugely different for different companies due to the 100+ different contract types that were used.

You have a huge negative bias mentality in your post that offers little sense of balance at all and think all companies are all the same. Read the CoA case ruling and see the written difference of the CBG value compared to Johnson, which is a very clear factual value several times different in scale.

"boosting the economy on shareholders capital" - You have zero clue as to what the ruling actually means and the implication it means over the governments remaining 3 years in office and it is those 3 years that really matter. If you actually fully understood the real full implications the current CoA position is very detrimental to the Gov, the FCA and the UK as a whole. That is what Reeves was pointing to quite clearly at the Mansion House speech and the Bank of England commentry of "negative drag". Please, please read up on the Q1 appeal to reopen the PPI claims. If you think the PPI handout was so good for the UK economy, why are banks still valued as a whole over £100bn below the US, which is a destruction in market cap several times the value of the handouts. Do you think capital constraints in the UK have not been impacted by the PPI handouts in opposition to what the Bank of England has quoted ? Do you think PPI has been positive to UK growth or as the Bank of England commented as a "negative" on the economy ?

"Lloyds is by far much deeper involved" - So why has CBG been the disproportionate football in the markets, other than the very simple fact it was a smaller market cap and took less volume to play a game of push and shove out the FTSE250. Don't over think what is actually going on.

We all are part of and impact the market, the key question is do you want to help flush the UK down the toilet and been king of the castle of a steamping pile of s...t or do you want to actually make a real positive difference ? I'd rather support the country I live in.

The FCA have announced a complete management review and changes, which will be implemented after a brief Government consultation. The new head of the FCA will be Mustafa Plot, who will have an associate director Donna Lott along with Nick N Steal as head of compliance. The head of HR will be Chuck Jobs who will be overlooking departmental reviews with a team headed up by Dusty Fields. Corporate treasurer Bill Clean will then have an associate fixer, Doug Pitt, for more difficult problems within the general reorganization. Head of the finance sector review team will be Robin Banks with an enforcement arm headed by Patty Down with Mr Chase dealing with legal.

Mr Hackett, of the FCA communications team, gave no comment.

For all those with a lack of a sense of humour, try google and look up commedy. For all those who want to register a non crime, no crime, not hate, not anything I know of incident, feel free to contact my lawyer, Isa Freeman.

So, just as an interesting asside, for all those thinking thier is some majical rational that dictates an appropriate price level. The weekly gain for CBG was roughly 5p (google chart last 5D open to close) or 1p per day as an average. This was against a backdrop of the Supreme Court allowing an appeal against a case that the lower Cout of Appeal proffered was "unarguable" to challenge. For those thinking the market is in any way rational, what you get for 5p is a likely dilution of the Court of Appeal which for CBG could be worth in the ballpark of £100m. Bear in mind 5p share price is a market cap equivalent of £7.5m, which is "the market" possibly saying the persepctive of the Supreme Court going in CBG favour is less than 10%. That is IF you discount the fact that the share price was actually higher than the Supreme Court panel approval was granted, so "Mr Expert Know All Market" in theory is saying that the Supreme Court case is only negative. Alternatively (and reality), the price is what it is and just being pushed around, nothing more, nothing less, just short term dislocated gaming. Don't try to read in to a price more than what it really is.

With the only increase in the shorts reported for the 12th being Caius and at 0.2% it would look like a possible continuation of a push down play from the initial spike after the Supreme Court panel ruling to allow the case to go ahead. Short term play and high risk on the Supreme Court also following through with the accelerated timing on a hearing. The other two appear (my guess) to be hedges for what may be exit volumes that kick in on the 23rd, so would not be surprised to see the short positions just dissapear one day (22nd or 23rd) without any apparent trades in the market. Caius could be exposed to a squeeze if they added again today (reported after Monday's close) as the other two shorts feel like they are option related around 230-240. The volume changes appear less consistent with options hedging. Caius may be shorting down from the 260 spike and so much higher risk return for volumes added more today. Thats's just my guess, finger in the air and no recommendation to do anything.

The drop starting around 1:25 may well be one of the shorts flushing day traders out ahead of the end of week expiry, hence the position after close on Monday should indicate. The reason why I think that may be the case is the levels appear to have been moved by market maker bid offer levels and not traded down and through the bid stack.

Summary guess - drift 230-250, unless the SC hearing is brougt forward in record time, starting 23rd could be a run up after the FTSE250 changed implemented. The balance of trades at this level, even with the risks, I would guess they are tilted towards longs, but smaller volumes, not many chunky buyers, so drift up and then stomp down like this afternoon (due to the lack of bigger buyers that would normally be sat on the sidelines waiting).

"explain to me why would hedge funds add to their short positions down here" - If you have a strategy that has a short time horizon and is tied to a fundamental mechanism of the market (index volume entry exit FTSE250) the absolute price level becomes dislocated from the strategy. It's only a consideration around the relative volumes that will be traded in the near term. Option hedging has trading volumes tied to the options and a function of the excise price and volatility - nothing to do with a fundamental fair value perspective. Not all trading is done with a view to a 3 year fair value and day trading is all done with a 24hr time horizon. What value point should the shares trade to for any rationale ?

My guess would be :

Marshall Wace reduced by 0.07% - Options / hedge - Pricing above sold puts

Qube increased by 0.13% - Options / hedge - steady delta hedging volume increments

Caius increased by a huge 0.45%. - Speculative on court case or sold short month calls around 240 back in the 200's

The positions have other market participants at the other side of them..... short is "borrowed" shares....

'better informed' shorters" - lol, you obviously have never worked in the city or any finance market.

People who ask basic questions are not going to be buying 1% of the shares, more like 0.000001%.

I refer back to my post on 13 Nov 2024 10:01. I was out by a few hours.

What everyone is missing is the flawed way in which the fiduciary role is deemed to exist when all the parties involved did not know, agree to or operate in a manner that the role existed (unknown fee that crosses role boundaries or fiduciary working for free). The "secret commission" headline grabbing aspect is secondary and a complete distraction, a very clever distraction... Still a distraction..... The Plevin 50% aspect is already law and why the Johnson case will fail because in that instance the commision breached 50%. No idea why they ignored Plevin when operating that way. CBG had the commission at 3% and with that in contrast to the ruling in Plevin and subsequent agreement on 50% the 3% appears to be a complete non issue. With the fiduciary aspect in the CoA ruling the 50% limit no longer applies in Plevin and what it means for PPI is that the remaining 50% would be a valid secondary claim, hence the group claim aiming to be heard in Q1 2025 off the back of the CoA ruling. The issue for the Government is the real potential total for the financial markets would be in excess of £100bn and break the Government financing/treasury due to the impact on interest rates and the dissapearance of capital in the UK market. UK inc would look like a complete joke and prove it is the last place on the planet to invest. That is the real issue that is not being reported properly. This is why I believe the Supreme Court will change the Court of Appeal ruling significantly.

In terms of the current price it's just an illiquid market with some large players pushing it around a bit for now and they may well get a very, very sharp squeeze by way of the court outcome.

The real worst case scenario is the Supreme Court effectively triggers a financial meltdown in the UK.

Chid, you have no clue at all. You have no idea how the courts work and zero concept as to what the role of the Supreme Court is.