Lloyds shareholders begin legal action

Thrugelmir

Interesting news. Did Lloyds shareholders pay the brunt of saving HBOS ?

Shareholders in Lloyds Banking Group have launched legal action to recover up to £14bn they claim to have lost as a result of Lloyds' takeover of HBOS.
The shareholders allege that former Chancellor Alistair Darling and Lloyds directors withheld vital information in the run-up to the takeover in 2008.
Over the weekend, they sent the Treasury and two directors demands for compensation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10254114.stm

Pet50

Yes, we've just received all the info on this too.

Presume it's all above board, but never too sure.

People asking for amounts of money with the 'possibility' of winning quite a bit from the bank. umm.....not too sure.

Thrugelmir

Pet50 wrote: »

Yes, we've just received all the info on this too.

Presume it's all above board, but never too sure.

People asking for amounts of money with the 'possibility' of winning quite a bit from the bank. umm.....not too sure.

Non disclosure of a £25 billion pound Government loan which was propping up HBOS from going under, is material from an investors point of view. Without Lloyds taking over HBOS, its a fair assumption that the bank would have gone under.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

They won't get a penny & are lucky to still have shares in something other than a bankrupt business.

Ungrateful F****************************ers

tomterm8

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

They won't get a penny & are lucky to still have shares in something other than a bankrupt business.

Ungrateful F****************************ers

LLoyds wasn't a bankrup business. It was actually quite a strong one. HBoS was, and everyone knew it, but the government lied about how bankrupt it was.

Wookster

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Yes, there was a material non disclosure but in the long run I think its arguable that Lloyds has a much stronger, more dominant & more profitable position in the UK market than it did prior to the acquisition.

Its the age old short term pain for long term benefit argument if you ask me.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

LLoyds wasn't a bankrup business. It was actually quite a strong one. HBoS was, and everyone knew it, but the government lied about how bankrupt it was.

If Lloyds buys a company & doesn't check it out its called stupidity.

Or are you saving the FD should be jailed?

Thrugelmir

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If Lloyds buys a company & doesn't check it out its called stupidity.

Or are you saving the FD should be jailed?

The Lloyds board saw an opportunity to grab market share and make the bank dominant in the UK.

The plan was always to downsize HBOS, cut costs and force away unprofitable business. Which they have quietly been doing.

Unfortunatelty the EU has intervened forcing Llloyds to cut both branch numbers and market share. So the return on the exercise may not now be so large.

sarkin1

Let me get this right they are now going to sue themselves as we as tax payers own the bank

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The Lloyds board saw an opportunity to grab market share and make the bank dominant in the UK.

The plan was always to downsize HBOS, cut costs and force away unprofitable business. Which they have quietly been doing.

Unfortunatelty the EU has intervened forcing Llloyds to cut both branch numbers and market share. So the return on the exercise may not now be so large.

Oh dear.


Anyone would of thought that buying shares in a large PLC was risk free.....

Obviously its not....


I hope they fail in their actions & it costs them all lots of money for being so pathetic..

If they bought a company with a big black hole in it it can only be the buyer at fault or false accounts supplied..

tomterm8

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If Lloyds buys a company & doesn't check it out its called stupidity.

Or are you saving the FD should be jailed?

I'm saying that the government deliberatly ordered HBoS to withold information from the merger pack, that is, the shareholders were asked to vote on the deal without being informed of known risks or the financial position of one of the companies.

I don't see how this is hard to understand... the final decision on a merger isn't the board, it is the shareholders... and the government withheld very pertinant facts prior to the vote on the deal.

If you buy a share with the opportunity to know all the facts, and lose money, it's your fault. If someone fradulently witholds information from you prior to purchasing it, then theres an action at law.