Lloyds Action Now - are they genuine?

Legal_LAN_Assoc

Response by Lloyds Action Now.


We have been following the exchange of emails regarding our organisation and are grateful to those who responded in a serious vein.


To those who have made uninformed and disparaging remarks we advise you that Lloyds Action Now is a legitimate association set up by Lloyds TSB shareholders to get redress for the losses suffered as a result of the disastrous merger with HBOS. Some high profile professional persons are publicly associated with Lloyds Action Now and account should be taken of this.


We have a massive task on our hands to attempt to get compensation and we have until now ignored the ramblings of those who seem to have nothing better to do than write postings on the internet which are clearly defamatory. A Lloyds Bank employee saw fit to suggest that LAN is a scam and he was made to retract and apologise for this statement. Quite honestly these inaccurate and negative comments are becoming tiresome especially as they are invariably made by authors anonymously.

We would prefer to deal with genuine concerns of people who have a real interest in the outcome of our dispute with the defendants as opposed to offensive tactics which are being deployed for collateral purposes.

We deal with issues raised in two postings.

Why do we request an upfront payment? The Defendants are rich, influential and powerful. They will exploit any shortcomings in the formalities of our case. There are laws and formalities that have to be complied with. Documentation has to be produced in respect of members and case management has to be undertaken. There are public relations costs, administration costs and expenses. Our lawyers, experts and service providers have to be paid.

MORE IMPORTANTLY though, we have to provide for a Fighting Fund so that we have enough money, by way of contributions or funding, so that when we issue proceedings, members are not exposed to cost risks. It is naive in the extreme to believe that a complex and time consuming claim will be undertaken free of costs. The fee has been set at a realistic level and is fully accounted for. This is not a traffic accident injury that can be dealt with on a conditional fee arrangement on a tickbox basis. This case involves complicated aspects of securities legislation and commercial law.

A lot of thought has gone into the fee structure so that it can raise enough funds for legal and campaigning costs while also being fair to small shareholders and asking larger ones to pay more as they stand to benefit more in any settlement. Details of fees are on our website.

Why do you have to join LAN to make a claim? In the USA once a class action is certified all who qualify with the criteria for making a claim are IN unless they opt OUT. This is not the English system. Under this jurisdiction unless you make a claim you do not receive a payment. LAN CANNOT and will not represent anyone who has not authorised us to do so by joining LAN. If we are successful in court, it is true, individuals who have not joined LAN will be able to rely on the judgment; however not as a member of LAN. They will have to instruct their own lawyers and it will probably cost them more to litigate (even successfully) on their own than would be the case with thousands in the same position. Moreover the courts will probably not permit a multiplicity of actions and it is likely that the defendants may seek punitive costs orders against “tail-coaters”.

They may be deprived of their costs or even ordered to pay costs because they had the opportunity to participate in the case but chose rather to sit on the fence. In any event LAN is seeking a mediated resolution to the dispute and if we are successful we will and CAN ONLY represent LAN members at mediation. The terms of any settlement would be confidential and LAN would not assist those who had not joined LAN before the settlement. In fact even the fact of the settlement may be confidential. LAN does not say that every shareholder has to join LAN. Quite the opposite. It will be easier to settle for a significant but smaller number of claimants than would be the case with 800,000 claimants. LAN will have acquitted itself of its aim to offer you the opportunity to make a claim and it is up to you whether you do so or not.


From a moral point of view LTSB shareholders were “punished” for the banking crisis twice. First as tax payers and then as LTSB shareholders. Tax payers will probably eventually make a profit from the merger when the government’s 41% of the equity is sold but LTSB shareholders have lost dividends and investment value. We relied on our investment in the UK’s only AAA rated bank. By and large we were not “gamblers” who “played the stock market”. A lot of our number are elderly, were LTSB employees who invested in their employer for the retirement and relied on the dividend to live.


From a legal point of view we provide the following brief explanation. Apart from causes of action under the EU human rights law, the laws of the USA and under Scottish law we assert two main causes of action:-
a.First under the provisions of Section 90 FMSA for those persons who bought shares in reliance on the Prospectus;
b.Second on the basis of misrepresentation in the Prospectus, Circular, Press releases and statements and the media generally.

Lets us first look at the true position – which was not known to LTSB shareholders at the end of 2008 and early 2009.

IN FACT AND IN TRUTH HBOS was unable to continue with business: ‘As HBOS’ position weakened on 16 September [2008], the Treasury considered informing HBOS that it would be closed to new business unless a rescue could be arranged. (National Audit Office Report, 4 December 2009) Had the announcement of the merger of Lloyds TSB with HBOS not been made on 17 September, HBoS would have collapsed.

Since 1st October 2008 HBOS had been kept in business as a result of a “loan of last resort” by the Bank of England to the tune of £25.4 billion. Mr Daniels, CEO of Lloyds Banking Group at the time, testified before the Treasury Select Committee: ‘that HBOS would not be able to function without [the loan of last resort]’.

This loan was kept secret for almost a year.

HAD Lloyds TSB not merged with HBOS it would have collapsed.

What, we ask, would have transpired had it been made known publicly that HBOS was in such a parlous state that it could not have remained in business?
The answer is queues of depositors at the locked doors of the bank demanding to withdraw their money. HBOS money dispensing machines would not have been working!
HBS would have imploded.

The merger would never have taken place. LTSB would have continued as an AAA rated bank – the UK’s only! We would have been paid dividends, perhaps not as large as before, and we would have retained our investment value.

BUT this is what were we told.

On 17th September 2008 the proposed merger was proclaimed with much fanfare.
The FSA created the impression that HBOS was a secure and properly funded institution: The Financial Services Authority sought to calm the jangling nerves of investors, saying: ' We can confirm that HBOS has a strong capital base and is continuing to fund satisfactorily’ (Daily Mail, 17 September 2008 inter alia)].
Positive press releases and reports were made, the story of the big merger having been broken by Robert Peston on the BBC.

An upbeat announcement was published on 13th October 2008.

An upbeat Circular was published on 3rd November 2008.

An upbeat Prospectus was published on 18th November 2008.

Gordon Brown boasted about saving the World. Eric Daniels (saying that he is not given to using superlatives) said that “the acquisition of HBOS remains a fantastic opportunity – a ’wonderful” deal was being done (Evening Standard, (Edinburgh, 1 Oct 2008).

Instead we lost almost all the value of our shareholding.

Eventually a year later the truth was revealed. LTSB had merged with a bank that was bust, worthless.

It is telling that when LTSB made the initial offer on 17 September to take over HBOS at 232p per share, the market closed at 88p per share. In case this has escaped you – 3 times higher than they were being traded for – and that on false information. We should not have paid a Penny!
Well, we want compensation; morally, ethically and legally we are entitled to it.

Is taking out a policy of After The Event Litigation Expense Insurance (“ATE LEI”) not just “lining the pockets” of others? Rich, influential and powerful Defendants are supposed to “play on a level playing field” with those who sue them. The Civil Procedure Rules specifically state this as an OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE. These defendants though, understandably, prefer not to have to do this and a “cheque book Defence” is their preferred option. So in order to even begin to take proceedings the claimants have to know that if they lose the case they will not be exposed to costs risks beyond what they have paid. Defendants will threaten joint AND SEVERAL costs liability and thus this aspect is crucial.
There are various ways of ensuring that no one risks joint or several liability for costs. Usually money is collected to establish what has come to be known as a Fighting Fund. Apart from the expenses and costs that the campaign has to bear money has to be set aside to cater for this Fighting Fund.
Subject to the possibility of obtaining costs capping orders (where the Defendants are limited in relation to recoverable costs if they win) the claimants have to estimate what the total cost of the litigation is likely to be IF THE CASE IS LOST.
Obviously the amount to be paid by each participant depends on how many members are contributing to make up the amount estimated to be required. The number of potential participants may be known but it is not known how many will actually participate. The campaign has to attempt to gather support in order to bolster the numbers so that the estimated amount is achieved on an affordable yet realistic basis so that the case can be taken forward. It is a balancing act.
ATE LEI policies cover adverse costs risks and recoverable disbursements but usually not solicitor’s costs. The premium usually costs about 40% of the “risk on line” so, on condition that a watertight policy and a reputable insurer are contracted, a payment of say £40,000 secures £100,000 of cover. The premium is usually recoverable as costs in the event that the claim is successful. There may be ways of deferring and insuring the premium but it is safest to assume that the premium has to be paid upfront. We would not call this lining anyone’s pockets. The insurer takes a risk to pay an amount in return for a premium which is a percentage of the risk taken.
While ATE LEI offers this protection the Fighting Fund might be more than sufficient if there are a very large number of participants.
In this case, if say 500,000 shareholders participated (unlikely) and each – after paying the costs that have to be incurred –contributes say £100 to the Fighting Fund it would stand at £50,000,000 and ATE LEI would not be necessary. It might be decided though that it would be wise to pay a premium despite the fact that the Fighting Fund is sufficient.
If the take up for a case is small then it may be necessary to approach a “Funder” who will provide a payment to cover own costs and indemnification to the members in respect of adverse costs. This too has a cost. Usually a Funder will want between 30 to 40% of the damages awarded to those being funded.

LAN is alert to all of these issues and the possible solutions and has already taken steps to consider implementing funding and insurance options depending on how many participants there are.

The comment that “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” is, with respect, ill conceived, misguided and just plain wrong.

It is up to you to decide whether you join LAN or not but LAN is not about lining the pockets of insurers or anyone else. It was established and aims to get compensation for LTSN shareholders who have lost the value of their investments. We assure you – and the defendants - that we are very determined in this regard.

Spelling mistakes. While the few typographic mistakes are regretted we have a time-consuming and difficult task and are trying to keep costs down as much as possible. You are assured that the lawyers involved in the legal case are dealing with matters professionally and properly. If this is the strongest criticism that can be levelled at LAN – well - it may be their best point but is not a defence to what the defendants have done.

A new email/query module has been introduced to the LAN website under the Contact link and we hope that this will facilitate communications. The posting that suggests that to answer 15,000 emails would be cost prohibitive is correct. We have a comprehensive collection of Questions and Answers in the FAQ section of our website which has now been upgraded. We hope that this will answer most if not all queries. Those which are not dealt with we will answer by email.

Some problems though we cannot resolved by FAQs. We intend no disrespect but questions like “My printer has run out of ink what do I do” (a genuine email query and there are others like it) take more time to answer than they deserve; with respect.

We do not intend this as a criticism of those posting comments on the forum but the content of some postings, while criticising the language usage of LAN, are hardly exemplary.

Our campaign is to get compensation.

We ask those cynics to compare what they have done to get redress for their co-shareholders with what LAN has done in this regard and will continue to do; whether or not they join LAN.

It is, as we have said, entirely a matter of personal choice whether you join LAN or not. If you do not want to join LAN then no-one is going to force you.

There is extensive information about the organisation on our website. Here you can read the rules and our case methodology document that you must agree to before joining. A lot of thought has gone into this campaign and you will see it reflected in these detailed documents.

We hope that once you have given them due consideration you will see fit to join us – after all we all gain strength in numbers. But if you do not that is of course entirely a matter for you.

Finally - anyone considering the matter in a mature, measured and common sense way would realise this is a complex and time consuming claim and it is not credible to suggest that professionals would undertake this free of charge.

We challenge any person wanting to repeat defamatory comment to reveal his/her identity so that they can take the consequences of their actions! But before you do so you may wish to ask Lloyds investor relations department if LAN is a scam. They certainly told their employee it was not and to ask our forgiveness for suggesting otherwise. It is worth noting that we have reserved our rights against that Lloyds employee!

Legal_LAN_Assoc

Response by Lloyds Action Now.

We have been following the exchange of emails regarding our organisation and are grateful to those who responded in a serious vein.

To those who have made uninformed and disparaging remarks we advise you that Lloyds Action Now is a legitimate association set up by Lloyds TSB shareholders to get redress for the losses suffered as a result of the disastrous merger with HBOS. Some high profile professional persons are publicly associated with Lloyds Action Now and account should be taken of this.

A Lloyds Bank employee saw fit to suggest that LAN is a scam and he was made to retract and apologise for this statement.

Quite honestly these inaccurate and negative comments are becoming tiresome especially as they are invariably made by authors anonymously.

In relation to the quantum (amount) of claims and to answer Judesman No. 50: The quantification of the exact value of the claim per share is being finalised in consultation with experts. Quantification is not an exact science and in complicated cases such as this it is far from merely making a simple arithmetic calculation. It is made much more difficult because of the wide range of permutations covering so many shareholders’ individual circumstances, all of which can obviously not be dealt with herein.
In principle a shareholder who has purchased a share - the value of which is based on false information and facts - is entitled to the difference between the sum paid and the true value when it was purchased. It is the standard, but not invariable, approach. In Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254 (HL) the House of Lords applied the variation and found on the facts of that case that the loss amounted to the difference between the price paid by the purchaser and the actual selling price of the shares after the claimant became aware of the misrepresentation. This approach is but an application of the principle that a claimant should be put in the position he would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. That, at best, involves a good measure of theorising about the unknown.

In its simplest form, let us take as example the shareholder who acquired further shares as a result of the invitation extended in the Placing and Open Offer Prospectus. He would have paid 173pps for that privilege. Had the truth been revealed regarding the £25.4bn loan, it is likely that he would have decided that he would not take up the offer and would accordingly not have expended the purchase price. To put him back in the position he would have been had he not purchased the shares, firstly means that he should be repaid his 173pps. In reality he did purchase the shares and he is still in possession thereof. If the standard rule applies, it does not matter what the value of the shares currently is: the actual value at the time of purchase will be calculated (for illustrative purposes some 60pps according to our calculations, but subject to the pending report from the experts) and the claimant should be entitled to the difference.

What is the position if the shares have been sold in the meantime? Since we are unable to make absolute assertions regarding the calculation of loss, it is not impossible that a court may, depending on the date of the sale of the shares, apply the variation and use the actual selling price instead of the real value on date of the purchase, to arrive at a loss figure. Since we do not know the date of Judesman no 50’ sale, it will be speculative to venture a loss figure. It is one of the reasons why we draw attention to a subsequent sale of the shares. What we do know is that the shares traded far below 173pps at all times since 19 January 2009.

That, shortly, covers the position of a buyer of the shares who was influenced by the misrepresentation to purchase shares.

Now we turn to the position of a shareholder who owned his shares prior to merger.

One of the main causes of action we pursue pertains to shareholders who would have, had the truth been known, rather disposed of their shares shortly after the misrepresentation was made, i.e. 3 November 2008 (and thus before any vote on the acquisition would have taken place). How does one put them in the position they would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made? Again, many factual permutations are possible.

The second reason relevant to the influence on the sale of shares on compensation is this: one should keep in mind that a claimant should be put in the position he would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. It is difficult to predict how the share price would have been influenced if the markets knew about the £25.4bn loan. However, there is a parallel: when the bad news broke on 13 February 2009 announcing a much larger loss for HBoS than predicted, the share price dropped by about 38%. On 3 November 2009 the closing price was 197pps. It is reasonable to assume (pending experts’ opinion) that share prices would have dropped by the same margin and thus would have been sold for approximately 120pps. This represents loss. The proceeds of the assumed sale would have been cash in the hand of the seller. He does not have it now because of the misrepresentation. He either possesses heavily diluted shares or he has sold his shares after 19 January 2009. At no stage after 19 January 2009 did the share price came close to exceeding 120pps.

It follows that, if a sale of the shares took place by at 50pps, a claimant would benefit not only from the assumed 120pps loss, but also from the sale putting 50pps in his pocket. That, however, would put him in a better position than he would have been in. Fairness will require that the 50pps proceeds be deducted from the entitlement to damages of 120pps.

The calculation is further complicated by the question of the foreseeability of damages and whether further loss over and above the previous calculation will be claimable. Those who held onto their shares (oblivious of the truth), suffered a first dilution in value of their shares when the merger was complete. They suffered a second dilution and concomitant loss in value of their shares when the first rights issue took place in or about May 2009. A third and very substantial dilution took place in December 2009 when the second rights issue was undertaken. The permutations multiply depending on whether rights were taken up, sold or partially taken up.

Each of these events might postulate a further loss for shareholders. One will of course pursue the maximum loss, but much depends on where, on the basis of foreseeability, a court may draw the line. Accordingly, if a claimant has sold his shares between the first and the second dilution, he will not benefit from any loss recoverable in the event of a court taking into account the second and the third dilutions. That is the third reason for potentially taking into account the sale of shares into account during the compensation phase.

We need to determine a precise date and basis for assessing the loss at and are working with experts in this regard. Thus we would prefer to delay giving a precise formulation until we have finalised matters with our expert witnesses and advisors.

As events unfold the quantum calculations for these and other causes of action will be revised.

In essence we believe that we have suffered a loss and are entitled to compensation.

Where will the damages come from? The 15 directors of LTSB had extensive insurance cover as directors and officers and in relation to the merger. If the directors have to personally fund a portion of any compensation this would not seem to be inappropriate – we are not naive though, they are insured.

It is reported that the state stands to make billions out of the merger in due course. Given that LTSB shareholders funded this we expect HMT to compensate us from their profit.

UKSA and the number of shareholders. LAN has no relationship with UKSA. It is an independent organisation which, as we understand it, is trying to give private shareholders additional say in the way large companies are run. We are sure all LAN members support the sentiment- especially after how we have been treated in relation to HBOS. The campaign of UKSA to get compensation called Lloyds Private Shareholders Action group under the auspices of UKSA has joined forces with LAN.
UKSA appears to have stated that there were 3 million shareholders. We assume that the reference is to LBG because LTSB had about 800,000 private shareholders and HBOS had about 2.3 million shareholders (or thereabout).

We do not intend this as a criticism of those posting comments on the forum but the content of some postings, while criticising the language usage of LAN, is hardly exemplary.

Our campaign is to get compensation.

We ask those cynics to compare what they have done to get redress for their co-shareholders with what LAN has done in this regard and will continue to do; whether or not they join LAN.

It is, as we have said, entirely a matter of personal choice whether you join LAN or not. If you do not want to join LAN then no-one is going to force you.
There is extensive information about the organisation on our website. Here you can read the rules and our case methodology document that you must agree to before joining. A lot of thought has gone into this campaign and you will see it reflected in these detailed documents.

We hope that once you have given them due consideration you will see fit to join us – after all we all gain strength in numbers. But if you do not that is of course entirely a matter for you.

Finally - anyone considering the matter in a mature, measured and common sense way would realise this is a complex and time consuming claim and it is not credible to suggest that professionals would undertake this free of charge.

We challenge any person wanting to repeat defamatory comment to reveal his/her identity so that they can take the consequences of their actions! But before you do so you may wish to ask Lloyds investor relations department if LAN is a scam. They certainly told their employee it was not and to ask our forgiveness for suggesting otherwise. It is worth noting that we have reserved our rights against that Lloyds employee!

adrianlithgow

You may also like to read the letter the Sunday Telegraph published last weekend correcting the ludicrous smears in this article.

Judesman wrote: »

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.

PeoplesFrontofJudea

Sorry People

This is capitalism, all private shareholders, including me are subject to the Darwinist feeding frenzy of the free market and all that entails.


Be careful about donating even more cash to the suits, they need you! Its worth considering that Lloyds need a good run now with few disruptions, that is at least another route to share price recovery. If you are holding a small number of shares its surely worth calculating whether up front payments could give worthwhile returns, especially when you consider the timeframe of legal processes.

mystic_trev

adrianlithgow wrote: »

You may also like to read the letter the Sunday Telegraph published last weekend correcting the ludicrous smears in this article.

Is it the letter at the bottom of this article?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8212427/Scrutiny-for-Lloyds-Action-Nows-1m-fund.html

knollcottage

PeoplesFronttoJudea; you have totally missed the point. LAN is not prosecuting Lloyds but Daniels and Sir Victor Blank and the Treasury!! Recovery in the share price is NOT compensation for those who bought the shares or continued to hold them on false prospectus!! This is extensively covered in post No.53 by LAN. If this is capitalism then it is most definitely the unacceptable face of it!! A false prospectus is a false prospectus.

knollcottage

Mystic_trev . No the article he refers to I think is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8234151/Private-schools-are-badly-treated-by-the-charity-regulator.html

Legal_LAN_Assoc

This reporter called to get a copy of the reply of LAN to the Defendants' response.
Unfortunately that "exclusive" had been given to The Times.
The Telegraph published their article not dealing with the substance as Mr Quin must have wanted to but rather trying to discredit LAN without any mention of the case against Lloyds directors and HMT.
This is the full response of Adrian Lithgow, which the Telegraph edited:-

Dear Sir,

Your article “Scrutiny for Lloyd £1m Fund” (December 19) was clearly intended to cast doubt on the integrity of Lloyds Action Now, its management and fee structures. But the points you raised about transparency, committee membership and service provider fees are all addressed in LAN's rules which members must read and agree to before joining.

You did not report – although you were told – how the interim committee, which stood down before your article appeared in line with these rules, has been assisted by an independent advisory committee of shareholders who are also former senior bank executives at every step of the way. The reason for their anonymity was also explained.

Claims how much service providers may earn should be put in context. George Berkeley Public Relations Ltd. has invested around £240,000 over the past two years in terms of billable hours and money directly paid in order to publicise the LAN campaign. eSystems Case Management Ltd. has spent considerably more. To date George Berkeley has received about 25 per cent of the £140,000 it is due under its contract. eSystems has received no fees but has been paid some expenses on account.

The fee structure is based on the estimated costs of the case including legal fees, funding and ATE insurance, funding road shows and mail outs, the numbers likely to join and commercially competitive remuneration for service providers. It was calculated with our advisory panel. It makes special provision for small shareholders and has a graduated scale for larger ones. Your estimations of remuneration, moreover, confuse turnover with distributable dividends. After business expenses and corporation tax the amount of personal remuneration implied is a gross exaggeration, even given the unlikely membership figures your calculation was based on.

Importantly, the fee structure is designed a) so that no further calls need to be made on the membership - a problem that often dogs action groups and b) to protect against exposure to adverse costs by raising enough to provide insurance. Other organisations such as the one you quoted – whose original Lloyds action group has now joined Lloyds Action Now - need to be aware of the cost implications of Al Fayed v Hamilton and others in which many individuals were exposed to unlimited liability because they were not so covered.

It is noteworthy that the same section carried several stories about Lloyds effectively acknowledging it has made tens of millions of pounds profit from selling product to customers where the terms weren't 'transparent' and need to be improved. You had no criticism of Lloyds for this. Highlighting Mr Daniels' espousal of transparency will seem ironic to shareholders when he did not declare the £25.4 billion Emergency Liquidity Assistance HBOS received in merger documents.

Most importantly, nothing in the article addressed the legal merits of LAN's case. You can find full details on our website. It is extremely similar to the case of the Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch which BOA has settled for $150 million with the SEC.

The fact is that Lloyds shareholders lost up to £14 billion over the HBOS fiasco. Who are the real villains of the piece, those trying to win it back or those who lost it and are resigning on multi-million pound pensions? The fact I am bald and disgraced myself on Victoria Station four years ago – as reported at the time in newspapers and on television - has nothing to do with it.

Yours sincerely,

Adrian Lithgow BA LLB MCIPR
Managing Director
George Berkeley Public Relations Ltd.

mystic_trev

Legal_LAN_Assoc wrote: »

The fact I am bald and disgraced myself on Victoria Station four years ago – as reported at the time in newspapers and on television - has nothing to do with it.

Yours sincerely,

Adrian Lithgow BA LLB MCIPR
Managing Director
George Berkeley Public Relations Ltd.

Well for me it does,and there's the rub! As much as I dislike Lloyds I can't understand why LAN are using someone convicted for racially aggravated harassment as their PR man? Also I have to say I'm not a great fan of UKIP either!I also notice his mum (Jillian Timmis) is the Chairman of LAN, is this correct? Sorry, as they say on the Dragons Den - I'm out!

knollcottage

What possible difference does it make to the facts of the case?? As I understand it from Mrs Timmis herself, having attended their public meetings she suffered significant loss on her Lloyds holding and asked her son whether he would help with the PR aspect and make contact with the relevant parties to form an action group. Mrs Timmis was acting Chair pending election of a full Committee which could not be done until enough people had joined LAN to ensure that there was a wide spread of interest and ability. The new Committee has been formed and a new chair appointed. Judging by the number of posts you have made you are clearly a serial troll and cynical one at that!!