Now "WE" own 58% of RBS "WE" should withdraw "OUR" high court bank charges case?

luvvabargin

WE, the great unwashed, now own 58% of RBS etc... so I hope that means that WE as majority shareholders are agreeing to withdraw from OUR high court bank charges case and allow all of OUR customers to reclaim in full?

In fact, WE as the new majority shareholder should should show how WE intend to run OUR bank by immeadiately refunding all of OUR customers for every single unlawful charge that has ever been applied to their accounts. This can be partly funded from money that will otherwise be paid out as bonuses to senior staff.

I hope WE all agree what WE are going to be doing with OUR bank?

And if the (unelected) chairman of OUR new company doesn't comply with the wishes of the majority of the shareholders, then he should be very swiftly removed from office.

scots1

here here says me....:):j

luvvabargin

you and I seem to be the only ones though! - oh well...

gillsmills

Just remember that the ordinary staff of the RBS did not do anything wrong so please treat us with respect and kindness thank you!

Breezy85

gillsmills wrote: »

Just remember that the ordinary staff of the RBS did not do anything wrong so please treat us with respect and kindness thank you!

Can you get Natwest to give me a Maestro card now lol


Breezy

natweststaffmember

luvvabargin wrote: »

WE, the great unwashed, now own 58% of RBS etc... so I hope that means that WE as majority shareholders are agreeing to withdraw from OUR high court bank charges case and allow all of OUR customers to reclaim in full? I, as a taxpayer, is also part of the WE and I don't agree with that opinion. I would like YOU to force the government for a vote at an EGM on that policy. Can YOU who would like to change policy ask for an opinion by HMT treasury for that?

In fact, WE as the new majority shareholder should should show how WE intend to run OUR bank by immeadiately refunding all of OUR customers for every single unlawful charge that has ever been applied to their accounts. This can be partly funded from money that will otherwise be paid out as bonuses to senior staff.
I do not agree with this and in fact I think that if you do not pay bonuses then the 2.7billion pound loss you have made so far on the Rights Issue will become worse as staff leave for other banks who offer incentive for good performance.
I hope WE all agree what WE are going to be doing with OUR bank?
You will have 3 directors on the board of RBS Group so I, as a taxpayer, as well as many of my colleagues will be doubly represented.
And if the (unelected) chairman of OUR new company doesn't comply with the wishes of the majority of the shareholders, then he should be very swiftly removed from office.

You are talking of Stephen Hester, CEO of RBS Group who was elected while the company was in private ownership was elected. HMT have every right to call for him to resign and will pay him accordingly severance pay.
I do not agree with you and as I and many of my colleagues are part of the collected "WE" then we have a problem that will a resolution by a meeting of shareholders. The legal case is ongoing and HMT will NOT pull RBS Group OUT of it.

dzug1

luvvabargin wrote: »

In fact, WE as the new majority shareholder should should show how WE intend to run OUR bank by immeadiately refunding all of OUR customers for every single unlawful charge that has ever been applied to their accounts. This can be partly funded from money that will otherwise be paid out as bonuses to senior staff.

But the charges have not yet been established to be unlawful, nor even unfair. All that's been established is that they are subject to fairness rules.

Dream on

Nathan_Spleen

luvvabargin wrote: »

WE, the great unwashed, now own 58% of RBS etc... so I hope that means that WE as majority shareholders are agreeing to withdraw from OUR high court bank charges case and allow all of OUR customers to reclaim in full?

In fact, WE as the new majority shareholder should should show how WE intend to run OUR bank by immeadiately refunding all of OUR customers for every single unlawful charge that has ever been applied to their accounts. This can be partly funded from money that will otherwise be paid out as bonuses to senior staff.

I hope WE all agree what WE are going to be doing with OUR bank?

And if the (unelected) chairman of OUR new company doesn't comply with the wishes of the majority of the shareholders, then he should be very swiftly removed from office.

No matter who owns RBS they will not have the choice of whether to 'withdraw' from legal proceedings to which they are legally obligated.

luvvabargin

So we (as RBS shareholders) are going to spend time and money going to court to defend a case brought against us by the public who are now the majority shareholders in RBS... we are defending a case of ourselves suing ourselves... what fantastic nonsense!

It should be at least investigated if it is going to be cheaper to settle out of court? - that is the responsible thing for directors of a company to do... to find the most cost efficient, and PR friendly, way out of litigation.

I would like to know what the total projected cost of defending the case is going to be, and what the total cost of refunding say 75% of all overdraft etc. charges would be. I am guessing (and it is only a guess obviously) that if 75% refund was offered for swift settlement, probably a good majority of RBS customers would accept it as an acceptable compromise.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee...

brightonman123

a double edged sword, methinks- i supose BoE can force banks to ante up the charges, but then this may take longer for the banks to repay their national loans..

borgbaiter

hi

litigation will take its slow time to conclude. to my mind its a win or loose not a compromise. its either fair and enfocable or unfair and unenforcable. no one can pull out as all parties agreed to take it to the bitter end.


Borgbaiter