Bradford and Bingley Shares Legal Action

Cannygirl_2

What do other former BB shareholders think of this? I've had two unsolicited letters on this. The first, a rather paranoid-termed letter from the "UK Shareholders Association" asking for money for a compensation campaign.. The other from Leon Kaye solicitors also touting for money for a prospective class action suit to try to get our money back. The law firm claim they've been successful in the past.
There's obviously some rivalry going on here with the letters arriving within days of each other this week. I feel pretty cynical about both but does anyone know any more about these groups?

opinions4u

If shareholders "win" any group case, all shareholders will benefit.

That said, the company had a particularly ropey mortgage book and owes the FSCS £14bn plus interest.

There is actually a reaosnable chance that the shares were worth nothing.

scott_lithgows

Cant see me sending cash for this as I got shares for free,however would like to know why B&B was made bankrupt just before the Government rescue plan kicked in and Abbey/Santander just happened to be available to buy the savings part!
I was with B&B for 40 years,shares seem to be lost,I just hope everyone else follows me in refusing Abbey accounts and closing them down.
It should never have demutualised,it was better than that.

opinions4u

however would like to know why B&B was made bankrupt just before the Government rescue plan kicked in

Because it was riddled with bad lending and wasn't "too big to fail".

Abbey/Santander just happened to be available to buy the savings part!

Well at least that reduced the bill to the taxpayer by a modest amount.

Do you not understand that without the taxpayer and FSCS you wouldn't be worrying about the brand on your passbook. You'd be dazed and wondering what percentage of your savings would be returned and when - how long it would take to unwind the affairs of Bradford & Bingley (some mortgages will take decades to repay) in order to repay savers?

It should never have demutualised,it was better than that.

There's a few more in that position

scott_lithgows

opinions4u wrote: »

Because it was riddled with bad lending and wasn't "too big to fail".

Well at least that reduced the bill to the taxpayer by a modest amount.

Do you not understand that without the taxpayer and FSCS you wouldn't be worrying about the brand on your passbook. You'd be dazed and wondering what percentage of your savings would be returned and when - how long it would take to unwind the affairs of Bradford & Bingley (some mortgages will take decades to repay) in order to repay savers?

There's a few more in that position

I did understand the FSCS and would have lifted every penny out if that had not existed however I just smell a rat re Abbey involvement.Time will tell on that one.
I,ve also heard rumours that things re the Dunfermline takeover will surface just before the next general election,perhaps to make life difficult for Gordon Brown in his backyard.(maybe all conspiracy theories though)

PS the passbook/cashcard now reads Yorkshire Building Society:D

Cannygirl_2

Thanks to opinions4u. I'm not too worried about the political row which is water under the bridge and as a shareholder I was well aware any investment could go down as well as up. I'm more interested in these unsolicited letters asking for money now. Do you remember the miners' compensation scheme scandal (lots on BBC Moneybox)? Can't help thinking of that when I get letters like this.

baby_boomer

Why should B&B shareholders get anything? They were bailed out by the UK taxpayer and could not have survived otherwise.

What other definition of "bust" does UKSA need? UKSA even had the temerity to suggest that the Northern Rock bailout was the government defrauding shareholders.

Unfortunately some of the UKSA top brass were stupidly buying bank shares as they fell, so obviously your support would be welcomed by them .

opinions4u

UKSA even had the temerity to suggest that the Northern Rock bailout was the government defrauding shareholders.

Northern Rock is not quite the bad lending nightmare that B&B became.

There is a case for suggesting that it could have been propped up in a similar way to LBG and RBS by infusion of taxpayer capital.

While this would have diluted the shareprice to a few pence, it does suggest that some value would have remained.

The numbers I've read for B&B tell me the business model was totally unsustainable even with government support.

bargains83

baby_boomer wrote: »

Why should B&B shareholders get anything? They were bailed out by the UK taxpayer and could not have survived otherwise.

What other definition of "bust" does UKSA need? UKSA even had the temerity to suggest that the Northern Rock bailout was the government defrauding shareholders.

Unfortunately some of the UKSA top brass were stupidly buying bank shares as they fell, so obviously your support would be welcomed by them .

A lot of what the UKSA are saying does make sense and is right regardless of the moral grounds on it. If you get a car loan or mortgage and stop paying for whatever reason confiscating it would always be the last resort. Northern Rock could have carried on with some internal restructuring, and it was paying its debts back. Even private sector solutions were on the table and were good deals for both taxpayer and shareholder but for whatever reason the government decided to take the bank into public ownership and stuck two fingers up to the shareholders. I bought shares myself as a punt and im not all that bothered either way if/what i get back.

However if there was a payout, it should AT LEAST be the 90p share value the bank had when it was de-listed. If the government want to argue the bank was 'worthless without the loans'. Then perhaps every bank in the world should do a valuation of all the businesses they are currently bankrolling without that funding in place and if the value is a negative figure then take ownership. :rolleyes: I wonder how many independent companies would be around then.

The government have a lot to answer for though, pretty much railroading the Lloyds take over of HBOS is one example. Lloyds was a good, sound bank and would still be up there with the likes of Barclays, HSBC and Santander who have relatively little exposure to toxic debt. But if it wasn't for the takeover then HBOS without doubt would be at best in the same position as Northern Rock or broken up like B&B.

sabretoothtigger

BB was 20p on delisting

http://www.shareprice.co.uk/BB./BRADF


Abbey got the savings and retail because they bid the highest I think. The liabilitys went to government because nobody would shoulder them with their own debts to take care of


Theres no chance of a reversal because it was classed as failed bank afaik. All uk depositor banks are covering its debts eventually

agsnu

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Abbey got the savings and retail because they bid the highest I think. The liabilitys went to government because nobody would shoulder them with their own debts to take care of

Wrong way round here, mate. Savings balances are liabilities, mortgages are assets.