Member Info for M1k3y

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.

sorry typo in below post ****ey

But would you like to pay for it ****ey and potentially have to pay the costs should they lose ?

Have you tried contacting the RBS registrar Santa2 ?

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 ?

BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40026054

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 ?

Of course, IF the case proceeds, It may be that new information could be brought to light, that might present other opportunities for claims ? Lots of if's and maybe's though.

Jiffy, I think MrBubbles post below explains it .

TrickyNic, I have no doubt You and many many others who may yet have their opportunity to divulge all in the courts. Unfortunately , it is all out of our hands and , as usual , it is the bigger players who will decide the future. Rightly or wrongly .

Unfortunately TrickyNic, unless there is a Court case and a subsequent ruling to prove they were in the wrong, no one will be compensated. Settlements are designed to prevent rulings being made in Court cases.

Thanks MrBubbles According to the papers there are now only 9000 claimants . Given that any decision to continue may involve further costs for us, should the case fail, I would have expected to be contacted. It really isn't difficult to contact the same people within a group, or even to conduct a private poll to find out if the majority of claimants agree to a settlement. It does seem to me, that it is just a few very large claimants who are controlling the direction of the claim and the rest of us 'poorer' claimants are just waiting to be told, by them, whether we will be expected to support continuance of the claim, or benefit from a settlement . I guess if the people providing the after the event insurance say to accept, there is little option. Personally I agree with others here, that a settlement at this level would be sensible, even if not what everyone would wish to see. Guess we will have to wait to hear from those who are making the decisions , regardless of our individual positions.

Mr Bubbles and others who are part of the action group. I am also a claimant and wonder if anyone has contacted you regarding a potential settlement ? I note in the papers, it says https://www.ft.com/content/8162ad26-3fa7-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58 " A high-profile trial involving Royal Bank of Scotland was adjourned for a further day on Tuesday as the High Court was told that the majority of investors had indicated they were “willing to accept the latest offer” from the bank to settle the case." Certainly , no one from the RboS action group has contacted me to ask about potentially accepting any offer so I wondered if anyone else had been contacted ?

well spotted Laughoutloud. The info can be found on this link, including the Judgement. http://www.abaponline.org/

Interesting post Wolfie. I agree a further RI would be unhelpful for the SP. At the moment, we have no idea of what any potential requirements might be , across the pond BUT I am confident, that time will be allowed (as it was in the UK) for banks to amass any provisions required. I am hopeful, that BARC will already be working on this (I repeat I am hopeful) . Meanwhile. I am watching the SP with interest, to see if there is any kind of support at this level. I think there might be but time will tell.

Thanks for the info Boonie, much appreciated.

The Telegraph Barclays chief falls victim to email prankster pretending to be bank chairman http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/11/barclays-chief-falls-victim-email-prankster-pretending-bank/

Reuters: Barclays shuffles leaders, will hire in investment bank https://seekingalpha.com/news/3266574-reuters-barclays-shuffles-leaders-will-hire-investment-bank?dr=1&uprof=45&utoken=111fa0d15b1ee6be3c1901a3be8c7533#email_link

Thanks Boonie. Not sure he sounds that convincing 6 - 18 months is a big range. I would have expected him to be able to identify a more restricted timeline than 6 - 18 months. As for the dividend..............geees , have to wonder when that will ever be restored. Goldmans prediction of circa 3 years may not be that far off, given that JS was not prepared to commit to a time frame . Disappointing to say the least.