Lloyds Action Now - are they genuine?

mystic_trev

knollcottage wrote: »

Judging by the number of posts you have made you are clearly a serial troll and cynical one at that!!

Wayne

May a point out that I've been posting on these forums for nearly seven years without being called a 'troll' You (however) have been posting for only four months and are following your own agenda, and that of LAN. I would also like to point out the Forum rules - Posting is a privilege, not a right.You must be nice to all MoneySavers : There's no such thing as a stupid question and, even if you disagree, courtesy helps.

I trust you won't have to be reminded again.

knollcottage

Trevor it is not worth posting on this site if people do not read what is written.

Legal_LAN_Assoc

You might be interested to know that the new committee held its first meeting on Friday.

The Committee Members are:-

Mr Nick Shaw - entrepreneur and businessman
Sir Andrew Watson - barrister and recorder
Mr Tony Spencer - businessman
Mr Clive garland - retired policeman
Mrs Jillie Timmis - widow and founder of LAN
Mr Peter Jackson - businessman.

The advisory committee continues to support the Committee.

A concerted recruitment drive will be commenced soon.

Please take notice that we may decide that we shall no longer ignore defamatory postings.

Legal_LAN_Assoc

Lloyds Action Now

The new Committee named below held its first meeting on Friday last.

The Committee Members are:-

Mr Nick Shaw - entrepreneur and businessman
Sir Andrew Watson - barrister and recorder
Mr Tony Spencer - businessman
Mr Clive Garland - retired policeman
Mrs Jillie Timmis - widow and founder of LAN
Mr Peter Jackson - businessman.

The advisory committee continues to assist the Committee.

A concerted recruitment drive (possibly the last) will commence soon.

The proceedings in the case move forward.

Counsel have been instructed.

A newsletter will be published soon.

We respectfully advise strongly against remarks about LAN which are defamatory being made.

jh2009

A good question is why this groups legal team and management are continually posting on internet message boards saying everything is ok?

What are the views of the large pension funds, unit trust companies, etc who held substantial holdings in Lloyds, and whose day job it is to maximum their returns. Surely if it was such a solid case they would be funding this type of action. Seems easier to work with them and if successful then allow in the small shareholders, than to write to thousands of small shareholders (with the admin complexities involved).

It reminds me to much of an experience of a relative of mine. His house was to be compulsary purchased due to a motorway expansion, and in his area, an "action group" was set up. He didnt join it or pay the £50 joining fee to cover solicitors costs. Those who did pay the fee got the same info that my relative got for free when he wrote direct to the ministry. When it came to purchasing, all residents got the same deal regardless of whether they had joined the action group.

My own view remains that if any compensation was ever paid then everyone on the register at that date will benefit equally.

towniebear

I have read the postings to date and agree that some of the more heated comment is not constructive, and we need more information rather than barbed insults. As one who invested at the time of the takeover, I'm sure I lost a deal of money in that process.
I received today a communication from LAN who state that there are 800,000 LloydsTSB shareholders involved here, but only 4,000 have joined the LAN scheme since it was set up in May 2009, nearly 2 years ago.
The question I suppose I need to know the answer to, is what % of shareholders does LAN represent? Yes I can work out 4K and 800K, but what is the % of the gross LloydsTSB shareholding itself, i.e how many shares of the total?. That may give some indication of any of the "big boys" are in this to win it.
I woild hab#ve thought that a representation of lets say 25% of the shareholding in share terms is significant, not the 20 - 30K shareholders, who may only represent 1% of the shares.

jh2009

I'm amazed as many as 4000 people would join and waste good money on this group. I would be surprised if this group represented even 0.001% of shareholders, yet alone 1%!

The "big boys" (unit trusts, pension funds, other banks, etc) would certainly not join this group. If several of them owns say 2% each they would just contact lloyds direct, or work collectively with other "big boys" to seek concessions direct. The fact no such interest has been pursued suggests that theres no mileage in this for smaller private shareholders.

It sounds like another begging letter has gone out though, so sounds like my shredder will be getting fed in the next few days!

Judesman

I have not received any letters and do not know why as I was a shareholder at the time, however a colleague of mine has just received their second letter.

I read somewhere but I can not remember where that the institutions were not involved with LAN.

LSEdwards

I think there are a few of reasons why the institutions are not members of LAN:

1. LAN is an organistion primarily created for private shareholders to obtain redress.
2. The large institutions have not lost their own money so they don't care what happens.
3. The large institutions also held HBOS shares, so they were grateful that the Lloyds shareholders bailed out HBOS.
4. There is no mechanism by which institutions can join the action group, i.e. they don't have the right to invest in the membership fees without extremely complicated and expensive voting procedures. This would be far too much work for the lazy scoundrels.

The lack of insitutional members of LAN is not a reflection of the strength of the legal case, more a reflection of the way the City works. I actually see it as a benefit, because any settlement will be less costly for the insurers if there is no institutional aspect. It basically means that the private shareholders are more likely to get redress if you look at it that way.

Please note I am not speaking in any official capacity, I am just a member of LAN whose reason for joining LAN is not based on a probability based calculation of gaining financially, rather the desire to see justice done.

jh2009

LSEdwards wrote: »

I think there are a few of reasons why the institutions are not members of LAN:

1. LAN is an organistion primarily created for private shareholders to obtain redress.
2. The large institutions have not lost their own money so they don't care what happens.
3. The large institutions also held HBOS shares, so they were grateful that the Lloyds shareholders bailed out HBOS.
4. There is no mechanism by which institutions can join the action group, i.e. they don't have the right to invest in the membership fees without extremely complicated and expensive voting procedures. This would be far too much work for the lazy scoundrels.

The lack of insitutional members of LAN is not a reflection of the strength of the legal case, more a reflection of the way the City works. I actually see it as a benefit, because any settlement will be less costly for the insurers if there is no institutional aspect. It basically means that the private shareholders are more likely to get redress if you look at it that way.

Please note I am not speaking in any official capacity, I am just a member of LAN whose reason for joining LAN is not based on a probability based calculation of gaining financially, rather the desire to see justice done.

I've received my invitation to join LAN. It goes without saying that I will not be writing out a cheque for £300 + 3.6p a share, (or £270 if i join on line).

I disagree with the above points on institutional investors. I think that if there was a chance to recover funds in the way LAN propose then the instituational investors would have sussed this out long ago. I don't accept a small group of small shareholders paying several hundred pounds each are going to win some confidential out of court settlement that everyone else is going to miss out on. EVen if successful i would expect the judgement to apply to all shareholdersa at the date of merger, regardless of whether they have paid the LAN fees.

I would not say that this exercise is a scam, but i would say that the letter makes several references to "high costs by solicitors, experts, etc" with the caveat tucked away near the end that " we cannot guarantee that we will be successful."

I interpret this as pay LAN several hundred pounds, the lawyers will run up some bills at £10000 an hour, and nothing will happen. I see the letter as not a chance for more members to get on board but as meaning LAN are low on funds and are looking for some more money to keep this going a bit longer until the next letter (regardless of them saying they won't ask again - as i recall the last letter said we had a deadline of 31st march 2011 to get on board, yet we have this letter now!).