Lloyds Action Now - are they genuine?

LSEdwards

opinions4u wrote: »

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.

The directors were given very extensive indemnities by HMG before the deal was done, which IMO suggests that Gordon knew he was breaking the law when he forced through the merger. The payout to members of LAN will be relatively small compared to the many hundreds of millions of insurance cover and Government backed indemnities.

Note also that HMG is a defendant in the case; LAN are pursuing the Treasury as well as the directors. The Government is set to make a very large profit when it disposes of its shares in LBG, so they would only need to divert a small fraction of this to the members of LAN to put them back in the position they would have been should the merger not have happened. That is why I think they will settle before it gets to court.

In this regard it is actually an advantage that not all shareholders will join LAN, but you do need to be in it to win it under UK law.

Judesman

There was an interesting article in the Telegraph on 19th December titled "SCRUTINY FOR LLOYDS ACTION NOW'S £1m FUND" It is on the net and is worth a read.

Apparently there were 15,000 unanswered emails. Replies may now have been received but I suggest that these replies are nothing more than an automated response reffering the recipient to FAQs. At least that is my experience although FAQs did not answer my questions.

This is no way to run any organisation.

knollcottage

Judesman what question(s) do you want answered. It seems reasonable in the interests of costa to refer people to FAQ. The reason you did not get a response is because Lloyds dirty tricks department reported the site to Microsoft as a Scam and they took the site down.

The article in the Telegraph is a complete disgrace and focuses on one individual who is employed by the LAN's PR firm, and is neither a member of LAN nor a shareholder!. One would have hoped that in the business section of a supposedly quality newspaper they might have focused on the facts of the case rather than the estimated income of the PR firm. If you have a serious question relating to the case I will do my best to answer it based on what I have learnt attending various shareholders meetings with the lawyers and senior counsel present and having read the FAQ several times.

sabretoothtigger

Government is set to make a very large profit when it disposes of its shares in LBG, so they would only need to divert a small fraction of this to the members of LAN to put them back in the position they would have been should the merger not have happened. That is why I think they will settle before it gets to court.

wishful thinking. The government has a ton of debt from helping these banks and it costs them billions to finance that debt, uk is not cash rich. HMG has to borrow.
There is no massive amount of profit to give away because they feel pressured and it wouldnt be a small amount to compensate people, the shares are less then half their previous value

knollcottage

Re Sabretoothtigger's comment. Given that the Treasury was part and parcel of the real scam which was to fail to disclose the secret £25.4bn loan to HBOS, some of the profit on the LBG shares should certainly go to shareholders. It is not the job of shareholders to bail out a bank that was within a day of closing, as we now know, it was in a worse state than Northern Rock. If LBG shareholders had been given all the facts and still voted for the merger there would be no argument but they were not!!

It is to be hoped that the Vickers report will finally recognise this fact!!

A Class Action against the guilty parties starts in the US shortly that should make people sit up and take notice, and come to the table and negotiate. Unfortunately one of the last cynical acts of the Labour Govt was to remove the possibility of Class Actions in the UK, i.e. here you have to opt in any action against a company, in the US it is the reverse.

Judesman

knollcottage, you say that Microsoft has taken down the LAN site. Well I can still access it so I am not sure what you mean.

I sent an email on 1st November 2010 and received an automated acknowledgement telling me that I would receive a reply if my questions were not answered in FAQs. My questions were not answered in FAQs so in December I sent my email again-still no reply. It was then suggested that I should send my email again, this I did and received an automated reply telling me to send my email to a different address if FAQs didn't answer my questions. I sent my email again and received an automated reply again telling me that I would receive a reply if my questions are not answered in FAQs.

I want to know why, if a shareholder has sold shares, this would be taken into account at the compensation stage. Does this mean that a lesser amount would be received and why? I would like to have an answer from LAN on this one.

Incidentally the "Tell me your story" link does not work - there is no way of sending your story.

I don't think anyone should send money to an organisation that does not communicate with its subscribers.

LSEdwards

Any compensation will be based on the number of shares you held at 18th January 2009 plus shares purchased between then and 28th February 2009. When did you sell your shares?

I guess the reason you did not get a proper response to your email was that LAN received an overwhelming number of emails once the publicity campaign began (>15,000 in a month I think). The costs of answering individual emails would be prohibitive, and would massively increase the cost of the action (i.e. you would be paying if you joined!) That is why a number of roadshows are being held and as much information as possible is on the website.

The approach being taken is not for all, but it is the best way to keep costs down IMO.

Judesman

LSEdwards you said:

Any compensation will be based on the number of shares you held at 18th January 2009 plus shares purchased between then and 28th February 2009. When did you sell your shares?

Yes, I understand that and I have read the FAQs but my shares were sold after these dates. But FAQs states quite clearly that if you have sold your shares this will be taken into consideration at the compenstion stage. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If I am to receive a lesser amount I need to know and I want an answer fron LAN.

I am a retired and QUALIFIED banker and voted against the merger. If I had my way Blank Daniels and Brown would now be in prison but I do not like the way LAN is being run.

knollcottage

I have directed this post myself to LAN, and suggested they sign on to this site. I was an early joiner of LAN and have always found them most cooperative but they have had a massive number of emails and letters which eats into their fighting fund. At one stage they had to employ 12 staff just to deal with the quantity of mail let alone emails.

Judesman

knollcottage said:

"At one stage they had to employ 12 staff just to deal with the quantity of mail let alone emails."

My understanding is that LAN either contacts shareholders by post or shareholders download and complete the paperwork and return this by post together with a cheque which I believe is the only payment method. It therefore follows that LAN would need to employ staff to deal with the paperwork. It doesn't deal with itself.