Lloyds Action Now - are they genuine?

LSEdwards

Telometric wrote: »

Well, I'm sure it's not a complete "scam" in the usual meaning of the word, as in the organisers of LAG will be doing something with your money, and I'm sure they are hoping to get some money back.

However:

1. Their communications (website, letter to investors) are barely written in English, which does not inspire any level of confidence.

2. The poster at #16 is similarly illiterate, despite having apparently been an "MD" at Lloyds. (By "leading council" presumably he meant "leading counsel".)

3. The email exchange at #17 does not look very convincing. A friendly email giving a warning to a consultancy company that its name may be being taken in vain gives rise to a bullying, threatening response. I doubt it is authentic; and if it is, then what does that say about LAN - would you want to get involved with an organisation that sends communications of that type?

Given the above, I doubt they will achieve anything other than lining their own pockets and that of the lawyers involved.

A request to send a cheque; some weak excuse (see their website) as to why they cannot take credit cards; and no telephone number all suggest a method of relieving you of your own money without any hope of getting it back.

It is obvious that credit cards are not accepted as no credit card company would get involved - the requests for chargebacks after a year or so will be very high.

As I understand it, LAN did originally sign up with a credit card acquirer but it turned out that they were reliant on Bank of Scotland systems, who then refused to process transactions for LAN.

With regards to the poor English in some of the LAN communications, this is a pity but it doesn't affect the validity of the legal case. Your own email has at least one grammatical error.

What is wrong with the previous poster explaining that he was an MD at Lloyds that caused you to put it in quotes? Lots of financial services companies have lots of MDs in my experience, a bit like VPs in the US.

The reason for the lack of a telephone number for LAN is that they are trying their utmost to keep costs as low as possible. This is why they have developed the online case management system, which is being funded mainly by the company involved, eSystems.

It is certainly a gamble, but I applaud what they are trying to do and the way they have structured their campaign.

LSEdwards

fazer04 wrote: »

Just listened to LAN discussed on BBC Radio4 Moneybox today. I'm not convinced that the case is quite as set out. There are lots of very expensive people and companies involved with LAN so the up front £300-ish cost (and 3p per share) is potentially a massive fund to keep the 50% tax payers in the style to which they are very accustomed.

The interviews didn't convince me that it was necessary to join LAN to obtain compensation.

Pity BBC cuts this one off too soon for serious discussion.

Can you give me a scenario by which you might receive compensation without joining LAN?

LSEdwards

Lower_North wrote: »

What happens if they need more money to fight Lloyds? will they ask you for more money?

No absolutley not. The intention is to obtain ATE cover to fund any costs not covered by the membership fee. The lawyers that I have spoken to are confident that they will be successful in either arbitration or under law in one or more of England & Wales, Scotland, Europe or the US (all the jurisdictions involved). In all cases, if successful, any award of damages will include costs.

LSEdwards

opinions4u wrote: »

The major shareholders of LTSB were also the same major shareholders of HBOS.

Pension funds etc.

They knew HBOS was not just in trouble, but close to dropping off the cliff. So it was actually in their interests to agree to the deal.

Even with more information available, the deal would have gone through.

It may be the case that the deal would have gone through had the shareholders been told about the secret emergency lending and about the fact that HBOS was about to be closed to new business, although I doubt it.

This doesn't affect the fact that the directors are requried in law to disclose all material facts in the prospectus. It is then up to the shareholders to decide if they want the deal to go through, when they are in posession of the facts.

We shall never know because the shareholders were never told.

The fact that the law has subsequently been changed (not retrospectively) with regard to emergency BoE lending and also the fact that such unusual and extensive indemnities were provided by HMG to the directors, signifies to me that they knew what they were doing was illegal and would be subject to legal challenge.

Typical Gordon Brown to think he can get away with it. This fits his flawed personality IMO. Presumably he held a gun to the head of the Lloyds Board and effectively gave them no choice but to keep it all secret.

The shareholders certainly wouldn't have been happy to pay several billion pounds for an insolvent company, had they not had its true financial state withheld.

red

hi there,
my mother has received one of these letters and i have no idea what to advise her at this point. has anyone got any further views on this?

knollcottage

red my advice when asked this is to say it is like paying an insurance premium. If you need to make a claim and have not paid the premium you have had it!! There are some who believe that all they need to do is sit on their hands and if compensation is paid they too will benefit. If a settlement is achieved then it is highly likely that the non-participant will not benefit. It is difficult to imagine why the defendants would want to offer to pay a person who has not made a claim especially where they had the opportunity to join the association but declined to do so.

In the US they have a different system where you are in unless you opt out. Here you are only in if you opt in!!

red

hi knollcottage, thanks for this, but i do not think it is as simple as that...if one takes out insurance, it is with a reputable company who has a mass of regulation protecting the insured...this is an unregulated group with a tiny number of shareholders who have joined. at the end of the day, if one takes out insurance, one does so because of the protection this offers, not to line the pockets of someone else. the more i look into this group, the more i feel they are not entirely legitimate or have any real determination to facilitate a success for the shareholder of LTSB...

knollcottage

Red; I understand your scepticism but if you were to look at the LAN website and look at Professionals I would have thought that it is pretty unlikely that they are anything less than genuine. I agree the insurance analogy is not perfect but LAN does have to comply with all Trading Standards regulations and have been inspected in this regard. If you had attended one of the various public meetings, I have attended several, you would have had a chance to meet the professionals involved and satisfy yourself of the bona fide nature of the association. The premise for many people seems to be that there should be some free way of obtaining civil justice in a case like this. I agree, but there isn’t, despite LAN looking very hard to find one.

The model of conditional fee arrangements in such a large and complex case carries too much upfront cost for any law firm to carry. LAN I believe still hope to arrange some element of conditional fee but must be prepared to continue without it. The fact is that unless you are very rich or very many, access to civil justice remains out of reach for many hundreds of thousands of people since the end of civil legal aid.
Becoming “very many”, which LAN must because none of us is rich – indeed, since the merger we are collectively £2bn poorer – requires mail-outs, barristers’ opinions, solicitors, conference venues, newsletters, a website, PR and management of a case potentially involving thousands of claimants.

The fee is based on a reasonable expectation of the final membership of Lloyds Action Now so that they can get compensation for LAN members without a further call on them. It may raise more than than needed, in which case funds will be returned pro rata. It may raise too little, in which case they will continue with outside funding.

This is most definitely a very serious and professional organisation I have absolutely no doubt about it.

opinions4u

knollcottage wrote: »

The fee is based on a reasonable expectation of the final membership of Lloyds Action Now so that they can get compensation for LAN members without a further call on them. It may raise more than than needed, in which case funds will be returned pro rata.

We are talking £bns in compensation if succesful.

Where would that money come from if it's won?

Eric Daniels' pension ain't gonna cover it folks.

LSEdwards

red wrote: »

hi knollcottage, thanks for this, but i do not think it is as simple as that...if one takes out insurance, it is with a reputable company who has a mass of regulation protecting the insured...this is an unregulated group with a tiny number of shareholders who have joined. at the end of the day, if one takes out insurance, one does so because of the protection this offers, not to line the pockets of someone else. the more i look into this group, the more i feel they are not entirely legitimate or have any real determination to facilitate a success for the shareholder of LTSB...

Can I ask what has led you to the view that LAN is not entirely legitimate? The lead solicitors are one of the most reputable firms in the City, LAN have a number of very eminent barristers on retainer, LAN has a managing committee and is holding elections, people who have joined so far include a wide variety of shareholders both rich and poor. Would you be willing to share the results of your research into LAN which led you to the conclusion that they are either illegitimate or do not really want to win? Was it just down to the typos in their letter to shareholders?

Surely the only way the professionals who are involved will make any real money is if LAN is successful and win compensation (and hence costs) for their members. I think therefore that your last statement is patently untrue.

The only real argument against joining can be that it would be throwing good money after bad, because either LAN has no case in law, or insufficient people will join to allow for the case to be taken to court, should a negotiated settlement prove impossible.

On the first point, we can agree to differ if you know a lot about the law of tort and Company law, but I suspect you know less than the lawyers and barristers who have advised that there is a very strong case. Having worked on prospectuses in the past, I tend to agree with LAN's position.

On the second point, the only way this can be overcome is by joining so I would appeal for you to take a risk and hopefully you will see a very good return on your 'investment', something which the Directors' of Lloyds and HMG destroyed through their illegal action.