Member Info for LIBERTY2

This will be where courts and / or FCA introduce a level they consider fair to commerce and consumer. PPI claim was any commission payment greater than 50% of the total product cost was considered excessive. £1,000 product cost, £550 commission = £50 + interest due back to consumer

Good morning,

Understanding the differences between what is being presented and ruled on in the cases, I would think that the Barclays case will be heard next week, a ruling will be deferred, the SC verdict will be delivered on Hopcraft, if this is conclusive in its ruling breadth it will be used for the verdict on the DCA element of Barclays, if not the CoA will provide their own ‘bespoke’ ruling and then possibly be open to appeal to SC.

I suspect that if there is any logic here that even if there is not a conclusive ruling by the SC on the DCA element, the CoA will use the ‘tone’ of the SC ruling to produce a verdict that is perhaps unlikely to require escalation to the SC.

Knot - regarding your comment on Barclays case / in relation to the Hopcraft ruling.

Are you suggesting in your view that there needs to be ‘collaboration’ of sorts between the Judges on two separate rulings?

- Future Judgements page has been updated - no ruling next week.

- Aberdeen RNS of an in-specie transfer - not a buy / sell, a transfer internally likely to a different fund without a change of owner.

Decent finish for the day.

Https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/close-brothers-motor-finance-finance-provider-prime-2025/316220

https://benews.co.uk/fernham-homes-secures-38m-rcf-from-close-brothers-property-finance/

Given how back to front the Walleye short position has been to this point ( adding heavily from 0.5% to 1.2% at a share price of £2.50 to £2.90 ), it looks more like a hedged position to me. If they were that inclined to naked short this stock they surely would have been adding heavy, not 0.1%, for the past several weeks at £3.70 / £3.80 - you would think…

Https://gowlingwlg.com/en-gb/insights-resources/articles/2025/motor-finance-face-off

The questions asked by the Supreme Court Justices may give a clue to their thinking, though some (Lords Briggs and Hodge) were much more vocal than others. Based on those interventions, Simon and Emily suspect that the Supreme Court is likely to largely overturn the Court of Appeal decision. In particular, the judges’ interventions seemed to suggest that:

Car dealers are unlikely to owe fiduciary duties when obtaining finance for their customers, absent an express/implied undertaking. And on the facts of these three cases at least, the dealers probably did not expressly or impliedly undertake fiduciaries duties. If that is right, then the claims based on dishonest assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty would fail – because there is no fiduciary duty in the first place. In any case, several judges seemed to doubt whether the lenders acted dishonestly.

The tort of bribery is likely to remain, including because it deters third parties from bribing trusted agents. It probably requires the agent (here, the car dealer) to owe some sort of a duty of conflict-free loyalty (perhaps the ‘common law equivalent’ of a fiduciary duty). The judges did not seem attracted by the idea that car dealers owed that kind of duty. If that is right, claims in bribery would also fail. The Supreme Court might also change the remedies available in the tort of bribery, and make the ‘presumption of loss’ rebuttable, so that a claimant would not automatically recover a bribe.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 might theoretically operate as a release valve in extreme cases: very large undisclosed commissions might make the credit relationship unfair, but there were very few questions from the judges on this topic.

Being objective about it, its just the sit and wait phase. I can't see substantial position additions at this price level until SC verdict, and those who are already holding are waiting in aprehension of what they believe will be a positive outcome.

Low volume days, minor position adjustments, flickering around a few %.

Relatively speaking, its higher than you would like. Situationally and in the short term context, it serves an important purpose for the bank / shareholders.

HXU - Interest is paid twice yearly.

various reasons for the higher headline rate;

- subordinate as opposed to senior (futher down the rankings when it comes to repayment in the case of a liquidation)

- perpetual, meaning it could in theory run indefinitely unless CBG decided to redeem

- the bond was issued in response to potential regulatory headwinds with the FCA showing an interest in the historial practices (increased risk)

- was also at a time when Credit Suisse had defaulted (less appetite for baking sector risk)

In short, the bonds serve their purpose for the protection of the Tier 1 capital for Close. They were brought in as a worst case scenario defence, they can be viewed as a short term cost for the business in my view.

Interesting to see a 50k+ uncrossing buy in the morning auction - don't recall seeing volume in the early day auction before.

Stockpick - To be objective about that, since your last visible visit to the CBG board, it has gained around 40%.

I'm sure for a laugh they wait for a PI on a forum to pipe up with something 'burning smell' related before selling 100k shares and pausing the party.

It's possible that we see a building share price towards Thursday of each week, as 11am Thursday is when the SC update the Future Judgements for the following week. Interesting to see if this plays out over the next few weeks, given that the verdict could now be delivered at any time.

Goes to show even the deepest of pockets don't have a crystal ball. They do still have their other 13,000,000 shares to be happy with.

Quote FCA:

It also suggested that some estimates of how much customers might be due have been too high.

"We've seen a range of redress rates suggested. This includes some highly speculative figures by some CMCs and law firms," the FCA said.

Currently the figures would have to be something like the below, if CBG was to exit the 250;

Market cap - £365m

Share price - £2.47

Set your own odds on this happening prior to Tuesday 4.35pm.

‘’ I don't know how good Close Brothers rates were, perhaps someone else does.’’

Close were / still are considered market leaders in their rates. One of the several reasons the automotive business I am a stakeholder in has used them as their primary lending partner for 15+ years.

If Mr Nunn’s logical argument translates to reality, Close will certainly benefit from this.

Interesting thought. I feel that the time-consuming fundamentals of the PPI consultation / implementation mechanics etc may serve as a ‘pre-fabricated’ model for any potential redress scheme, therefore cutting down the implementation time considerably.

Frankly as a shareholder, I would prefer that if the powers that be do decide it necessary to introduce a scheme that its done sooner than later, it removes the uncertainty element which is providing the heavy discount on CBG.

With a SC judgement mid 2025, a 6 week interval to an FCA decision on potential scheme, then a likely consultation period, I would expect implementation in 2026, but who knows. There could well be Government intervention and this runs into an elongated time-frame. If that did happen, it would be due to a heavy handed FCA / SC approach, at which point the delay would ultimately favour CBG as it would likely be to legislate the issue away.

Lets give it two months and see where we stand.

Fill your boots