Lloyds Action Now - are they genuine?

Shelle

I also got this letter and was rather sceptical.

As far as I am concerned, if shareholders were to win compenstation then ALL shareholders prior to the merger should receive it. We all lost money.

Incidentally I was one of the few that voted AGAINST the merger as an ex LTSB employee that saw the chaos the Lloyds and TSB merger caused and thought they would never do that again!!

Had it not been for the hefty joining in fee (plus 3p a share on top of that) I might have considered it. But NO.

Ddayve

Yes, If they won, all share holders would be paid. If not; An avalache of cases would follow. They should be asking a token jesture from small shareholders ( like northern rock action group) the big investors paying the most.

Barrwhit

I received the letter yesterday (Oct 21), am highly sceptical regarding money up front, and the very precise sums they ask for. How did they arrive at these figures, who will be holding the money, are the accounts audited and available to view, will any surplus be returned, etc., etc. Looks very dodgy to me, I'd sooner wait and submit a claim later if it looks worth doing. Has Martin Lewis said anything about it?

Barry White

timmeroo

I think the point is that yes, shareholder voted for this, but the case being made now in the light of certain info earlier this year is that not ALL the info was put to the voters and therefore voters were hoodwinked into voting for a fait accomplis.

That aside, I don't care for action group chancers who want to fleece you further under the supposition of fighting your corner for you for some kind of recompense. Have we not after all been offered a tranch of shares (is it twice or three times??) since at a reduced price - again as a fait accomplis because you either took up the offer or if you didn't your existing stock would become devalued.

Sorry - a lot of bad English there.

I got caught out by the Brad & Bing Rights Issue too - and that was a blatant act of defrauding the shareholders when the Directors knew the chips were down - and now we've got some twit writing the whole lot off.
Hey ho!

knollcottage

There have been a number of comments on this subject which are understandable and not surprising given the number of scams around.

I write as a retired senior executive and MD of Lloyds who has been advising Lloyds Action Now on an unpaid basis. I have met all the lawyers and leading council involved and can assure all interested parties that I myself would not have paid the money until I had satisfied myself on the bona fide nature of all concerned. Some of the leading professionals involved in this case have funded much of this work so far themselves and given their time free to attend public meetings of which there are a number going on as we speak. Myself and other ex Lloyds managers have pressed the professionals to come up with a budget for what was needed to progress this claim, and the registration fee and 3p per share was the result. It was not considered a sensible strategy to ask for a registration fee and then some months later come back for more, if there is a surplus it will be returned, that is in the rules. People should realise that there are potentially 800,000 private shareholders to whom letters have to be addressed ( just do the maths for 2nd class postage!!).

If you cannot afford to pay 3p per share on your entire holding then only pay on the number of shares you can afford, however any compensation will of course only be paid on that figure not your total holding. ( And, sorry 'no' ,if you were a shareholder at the time of the HBOS acquistion, you will not automatically receive compensation because LAN members do, it is not like a Class Action in the USA, see comments below).

I cannot hope to deal with all the points, some of them quite valid, but there is a fairly comprehensive FAQ section on the LAN website including the issue of institutional shareholders.

Unlike the USA where you have to opt out of a Class Action in the UK you will have to opt in ( the last govt chopped similar legislation as in the US going through parliament as a final act of gratuitous cynicism).

Institutions holding HBOS were facing the loss of everything potentially for roughly two thirds of a Lloyds share in exchange for each HBOS share. ( Lloyds was at the time the only AAA rated bank in the UK) It was therefore a no brainer for institutions, and anyway if they got it wrong it is just an investment mistake not a loss of personal wealth!! However if they had know that HBOS was on life support with a £25.4 bn loan , and that Lloyds had given an unconditional indemnity to the Treasury, both of which facts Lloyds failed to disclose in the prospectus, the institutions might not have been so keen!!

It is most unlikely that this case will go to court, much more likely that it will be settled by mediation/negotiation with each party bearing its own costs. Their are a number of precedents for this. LAN also has access to parties who fund just this sort of action in return for a percentage of the compensation paid. People should also note that LAN is not pursuing Lloyds , rather the Treasury , Sir Victor Blank, and Eric Daniels!! The Treasury is already sitting on a profit of roughly 10p per share, so paying compensation will not be a burden on the public purse, moreover the lawyers and the bank have insurance against just this sort of risk to the tune of hundreds of millions.

To deal with one other throw away remark we are not "a bunch of etc etc members of LAN are now numbered in thousands and other action groups in particular UKSA ( UK Shareholders Association) have combined , so this is not a fragmented group, but a unified association with a clear strategy. I suggest that the doubters come along to one of the public meetings, which are free and listen to the the professionals involved, and ask questions from the floor , the dates are posted on the Lloyds Action Now website. There is one in London on 24th October.

Lastly , when in Opposition , the now Business Secretary, Vince Cable said that ' Lloyds Shareholders were sold a lemon...' he now has ample opportunity to put that right and rightly attribute the problem to the last government.

Paul K

knollcottage

Barrwhit wrote: »

I received the letter yesterday (Oct 21), am highly sceptical regarding money up front, and the very precise sums they ask for. How did they arrive at these figures, who will be holding the money, are the accounts audited and available to view, will any surplus be returned, etc., etc. Looks very dodgy to me, I'd sooner wait and submit a claim later if it looks worth doing. Has Martin Lewis said anything about it?

Barry White

Barrywhit

Can I suggest that you read posts, 16 and 17 on this subject. You would never be able to afford to sue Lloyds on your own but in any case LAN is not suing Lloyds it is suing the directors and the Treasury and Sir Victor Blank, the ex chairman.

knollcottage

crumpsall wrote: »

My wife & I both own Lloyds shares - only she has received the mailing so far. It seems to be similar in design to the one that has done the rounds about RBS.
Both are heavily caveated with the "IF we go to court". They are higly unlikley to be able to gather enough money to sustain any action in the light of procrastination by the banks, government and FSA's lawyers, all of whom will oppose a settlement.
On a personal note, I do not rate lawyers who don't proof-read their outgoing mail :-
pp4 'causes' instead of 'courses'
pp5(2) 'awarded' instead of 'award'
pp5 (2) 'could had' instead of 'could have had'
(nor do I like them ending that sentence with a preposition, but accept that this is now, regretfully, seen as a matter of style rather than good grammar!).
Has all the signs of being put together in a rush - the only ones guaranteed to make money out of it are the prime movers. At the end of the day, it is the big institutional investors (pension funds etc) who have the clout to take action were such a possibility to have a realistic chance of success.

Please read post No 16 and 17 , you will be better informed. Do you seriously expect several groups of professions, lawyers both in the UK and the USA for the class action, QCs, a PR Agent and accountant to fund all that is required without some pre-funding? If I may say so I think this is naive in the extreme.

Paul K.

knollcottage

Please read posts Nos: 16 and 17 this is not a scam, very far from it.

knollcottage

dealer_wins wrote: »

Of course its a total scam. Nearly EVERYTHING which requires an upfront payment for the promise of more back later is a scam.

And it was a decision made by the shareholders themselves, as Lloyds shareholders voted overwhelmingly to accept the merger, I think it was over 90% yes if I remember. As a Lloyds employee of 20 years with loads of shares I lost a fortune but c'est la vie, !!!!!! happens.

I suggest you read posts 16 and 17 which might explain why 90% voted for it i.e. Lloyds failed to disclose that there was a secret loan of £25.4bn from the Bank, and that they had given an unconditional indemnity to the Treasury!! These facts should have been in the prospectus , they were not!!

sabretoothtigger

It was no secret HBOS needed 260bn of loans for the year 2008 onwards. The renewal of these funds was severely lacking hence the boe loan was to be expected, lloyds were negligent if they did not realise it was a forced sale because everyone else did.

The price paid was renegotiated after agreement and it still was probably too much yet the majority of the value in hbos was their gigantic customer base and this has a intangible value.

Any court case is a joke in my opinion, the shares were greatly discounted and the value is still unknown now nevermind then

The group requesting hundreds of pounds in lawyers fees upfront is the punchline