Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads

[daytraders] 28/7/2013 11:44

It helps him get that off his chest.

[pvb] 28/7/2013 11:43

OK. And that helps, how?

[2hoggy] 28/7/2013 11:35

Just to confirm I am another embittered share holder who lost their money to the brown scam.

[2hoggy] 27/7/2013 22:23

Brown sold this country down the plug hole and does not have the guts to come out of his bunker some where in scrotland.

Historically scots could not run their own countrys finances and had to form an alliance with england and lo and behold we had a scottish run government blair,brown,darling etc in charge of our finances and they left our country bankrupt.

So much for scottish government,all you have to do is look at the state of scotland since they have had their own parliment.

People die younger there than any where in the uk,lack of jobs and its all the fault of the english.

[birchin] 27/7/2013 20:33

hxxp://www.bbaction.com/BBAG_Press_Release_008.pdf

BBAG – Bradford & Bingley Action Group

PRESS RELEASE
20 July 2013
Kirktowers, Elmwood Lane
Barwick-in-Elmet
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS15 4JS
Phone: [phone]
Web: www.bbactiongroup.org
Email: [e-mail]

Treasury and FCA's Records Retention Makes 'Mockery' of FOI Act - BBAG

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party from 2007
until 2010, nationalised Bradford & Bingley ('B&B') in a transatlantic telephone conversation with Alistair
Darling on the 26 September 2008. Since then both B&B share and bondholders have sent thousands
of requests to various UK Government departments and MPs asking how and why their company was
destroyed as a continuing business.

The result has been that dispossessed shareholders have been confronted by a five-year period of
obfuscation and subterfuge. In the view of the Bradford & Bingley Shareholder Action Group ('BBAG') it
was a "flawed decision" to nationalise B&B, which was made in haste for political reasons. Neither was
it equitable nor consistent with the support given to other UK banks.

David Ward Blundell, BBAG Chairman, said: "BBAG believes the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been less than honest in this matter, have thwarted all B&B
share and bondholders' attempts to find out how and why their company was confiscated and made a
mockery of the Freedom of Information Act 2000."

A wall of silence has been exhibited by a number Government bodies when attempts are made by the
public to gain the truth, details of which are provided below.

In October 2008 the Cabinet Office ('CO') was asked for details of the nationalisation under the
Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'). Its reply was: "We have no records whatsoever". Subsequently,in 2011 the CO admitted this statement was "incorrect" and that it actually did have records. Despite this
the Information Rights Tribunal failed to uphold BBAG's recent appeal as it accepted the CO's refusal to
provide the information requested on the grounds of 'public interest'

The response of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) - the recently renamed UK financial regulator -
to an FOIA request stated that it has no records of reassurances it gave to the general public regarding
B&B's financial viability just six working days before the nationalisation decision. BBAG has asked the
FCA for an internal review as the action group has conclusive proof that it did have such information.
So, either the FCA (previously the Financial Services Authority) has resorted to subterfuge or the
records have been destroyed.

An FOIA request to the Treasury also asked for details of communications between Robert Peston, a
BBC business reporter, and his former colleague at the Financial Times John Kingman, who was
Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury at the time. The Treasury stated it had no such records
and when Mr Kingman left the organisation in December 2008 information on his laptop, smart phone
or other networked resources was cleared. It also stated there was no record of 'On the Record'
briefings by policy officials with journalists.

"This carefully worded statement raises further questions," noted Mr Blundell. There is substantial
evidence suggesting many 'Off the Record' briefings of which it would appear Mr Peston took full
advantage. Secondly, Mr Kingman's sudden departure so soon after B&B's nationalisation and the
immediate clearance of his records has proved to be fortuitous for the Treasury in enabling it to avoid
disclosing the truth."

CONTACT:
David Ward Blundell
BBAG Chairman
www.bbactiongroup.org
Tel: [phone]

NOTE TO EDITOR:
The Bradford & Bingley Shareholder Action Group was formed to promote the interests of the former
ordinary shareholders and the bondholders in Bradford and Bingley Plc, following the nationalisation of
the company. Many shareholders were particularly unhappy with the nationalisation as they had
subscribed only shortly before to a large rights issue, which was intended to put the company on a
sound footing for many months.

BBAG_Press_Release 008

[daytraders] 24/6/2013 10:04

yeh they jumped the gun by nationalizing BB, there was no need.

[loganair] 24/6/2013 09:57

What upsets me is B&B only made a loss in that one single year, before and every year since nationalization they have been very profitable.

How can a company that makes just a single loss in a single year not be a going concern, especially when since nationalization they've made nearly £1 billion in profits for the Government + the £610mln for selling the branch network and depositors to Santander.

If as share holders the Government treated us decently and gave compensation at the Rights issue price of 55p per share would cost the Government around only £600mln, so they the Government would overall still be in substantial profit (over £1 billion) from the nationalization of B&B and make 900,000 small share holders very happy and more likely to vote Conservative in the next General Election.

[pvb] 22/6/2013 19:45

wllmherk 19 Jun'13 - 22:47 - 18514 of 18515 0 0

you pays your money, you takes your chances. Move on lads, if you can't take losing then don't play the stockmarket.

Agreed.

Daytraders 19 Jun'13 - 23:14 - 18515 of 18515 0 0

but they bailed out lloyds and rbs, and they were in alot worse position than BB

Or, to paraphrase:

1. "It's snot fair!"
2. You want all the benefit of the upside privatised, but you want the downside socialised. No?

If you want 'the government' to regulate and run everything, then vote for the nationalisation of all private companies. If you don't, then live with the consequences.

[daytraders] 19/6/2013 23:14

but they bailed out lloyds and rbs, and they were in alot worse position than BB

[wllmherk] 19/6/2013 22:47

you pays your money, you takes your chances. Move on lads, if you can't take losing then don't play the stockmarket.

wllm

[daytraders] 19/6/2013 22:42

So what you saying, we may still get money back someday ?

[matters] 19/6/2013 22:34

BBAG Update 18
The appeal hearing before the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
Before Judge Robin Callender Smith and Richard Fox and David Wilkinson.
Appellant Bradford & Bingley Action Group (BBAG)
Respondents. The Information Commissioner (IC) and the Cabinet Office (CO)
BBAG's appeal contended that the IC's decision to uphold the CO's refusal to provide the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as exempt, on the grounds of public interest, was misconceived. David Blundell, the chairman of BBAG, and Roger Lawson, the chairman of the UK Shareholder's Society (SHARESOC), attended the Information Rights Tribunal at Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London on the 16th April, a B&B shareholder His Honour Anthony Thompson QC also attended as an observer and provided sound advice to BBAG during the intermission. There were eight members of the CO and IC's legal teams.
There were no opening statements but the Tribunal accepted that Messrs Bloch and Mackinlay's witness statements on behalf of BBAG were a matter of record as no other party wished to cross question them. The first witness Mr S Muers, deputy director of the CO, confirmed that he had served in his current position since October 2011, his twelve page statement concentrated on his current responsibilities and experience and the adverse effect disclosure would have on government policy and ministerial communications. He admitted to having no knowledge of events during the nationalisation of B&B in 2008, was relying on general principles and admitted that he did not know the name of his predecessor at that time. BBAG considers that Mr Muers' statement, apart from the parts redacted of which BBAG has no knowledge, was not relevant to the appeal except in offering another example of the delaying tactics that the CO have indulged in for over fifty four months.
After a closed session lasting 45 minutes, during which the Tribunal decided that some information should be disclosed, the IC made its closing submission. Mr Oliver Gilman argued that the decision in favour of the CO was finely balanced but nevertheless it was rigorous, he went on to discuss past Tribunal decisions which in his view favoured the IC's position. The closing statement by Ms Christina Michalos counsel for the CO emphasised that disclosure would prejudice the economic interests of the UK, formulation and development of government policy and ministerial communications, quoting at least twelve paragraphs of Mr Muer's statement and past Tribunal decisions in support of that position. She went on to emphasise the importance of robust and good decision making in the future which would be adversely affected by disclosure, that the information requested is recent and remains live and that BBAG's "contention that disclosure would enable the improvement of standards of corporate governance is not a factor to take into account as it is not directed to objective facts but rather the nebulous, speculative and future use of the information based on the appellant's opinion."
Prior to BBAG's closing statement and despite disagreeing with their decisions it wished to place on record its thanks to the IC and the Independent Valuer Peter Clokey for the excellent level of service both provided which was in stark contrast with other government departments particularly the CO. However it believes the valuer's decision was flawed due to the terms of reference specified by the Government, paragraph (b) of the skeleton argument, and its failure to advise that the Bank of England had provided funding to B&B. BBAG also asked the Tribunal whether past decisions were binding on it or that the facts relating to this issue were paramount. It assured BBAG that the facts in this appeal were paramount, consequently the latter confirmed that it saw no point in exchanging views with the respondents on past decisions and was content to rely on the impartiality of the Tribunal.
The main points of BBAG's closing statement are summarised below:-
1. BBAG considered that Mr Muers' statement and the CO's skeleton argument were both repetitive and largely irrelevant, the former's lack of knowledge of events in respect of the B&B nationalisation whilst relying on "policy and principles," provides an excellent example of the obfuscation and delaying tactics to which BBAG has been subjected which are a matter of record. When he was asked why the CO issued a reply to Mr J Bloch's FOIA request which was untrue his reply was "I do not know". BBAG takes issue with the CO's argument that disclosure should not be taken into account in respect of improvements in corporate governance as it is not directed to objective facts! It drew the Tribunal's attention to paragraphs (a) and (c) of its skeleton argument regarding the IFRS accounting standards together with Sir Mervyn King'statement and the Special Liquidity Scheme, these are matters of fact not opinion. It also quoted figures from the UK and Irish Bank crisis published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum which made clear that B&B had a significantly stronger balance sheet than Northern Rock, RBS and HBOS.
2. BBAG stated that the 930,000 shareholders were the owners of B&B who had their property expropriated by the Government and despite numerous requests under the FOIA still did not know why and how this had happened. Furthermore, the sale of the savings book had destroyed it as a viable business and it was being run down, the trend in its accounts suggested a considerable surplus in the future which would pass to HMT not the shareholders who were the former legal owners.
3. BBAG rejected the CO's submission that the matter is current and still live, forty months have passed between the nationalisation and the completion of the CO's internal review. Furthermore, government policy on the banks had been formed at the time of the Northern Rock crisis and the legislation passed then was used to nationalise B&B. This was a self contained decision with a clear end point in September 2008, it was done and dusted and a line drawn under it.
4. BBAG stressed the failure of the CO, HMT and the FSA to provide the information requested and the conflict between the comments of the B&B board and the FSA confirmed in a series of events that reinforced this. The rights issue completed in early August 2008 less than eight weeks before nationalisation, the
interim results published in August confirming the company was a going concern, assurances to the public from the FSA telephone helpline regarding the viability of B&B on the 18/09/2008 just six working days before Gordon Brown's decision to nationalise, the positive statement issued to the public by B&B on the 25/09/2008 the day before the decision to nationalise on the 26/09/2008 followed by FSA statements post nationalisation which conflicted with its own helpline and Messrs Kent and Pym, chairman and chief executive of B&B.
Finally, BBAG repeated the last paragraph of its skeleton argument:-
"If a government confiscates the property of its citizens without reason, explanation or fair compensation particularly when it may be seen at fault in its duty of care to investors and savers by not adequately regulating the companies involved in the banking crisis, then all concepts of democracy and equity are laid aside and, we submit, the role of fair and honest government is devalued."
The Judge Robin Callender Smith then closed the hearing and advised the parties that the Tribunal's decision would probably be published in the week commencing the sixth of May.

hxxp://www.bbaction.com/BBAG_Update_018.pdf

[matters] 19/6/2013 22:17

Gordon Brown stole our money. He should being going to gaol. Justice for B&B share holders.

[stulock] 14/5/2013 18:50

interesting for holders...looks like we are still being stitched up

[zastas] 07/4/2013 17:24

Thank you for posting.

Good to see that BBAG has not given up; at least one day we may know the truth. Even if it is going to be 30-4 years, I could just still be alive and in possession of most of my marbles by then. I will know then what role the despicable moron Brown played it this saga; perhaps we can then sue his estate.

[briangeeee] 07/4/2013 01:25

Although it relates to subsequent actions, some interesting points made on this thread:

[pwhite73] 07/4/2013 01:08

Bradford & Bingley's public sell-off 'flawed'
Shareholders claim 2008 privatisation was contrary to democracy

The nationalisation of Bradford and Bingley in 2008 was a "flawed decision" that not only destroyed shareholder interests but also a "viable business", it has been claimed.

Investors hit by the company's collapse have expressed their dismay in submissions to the Information Commissioner's Office, which has so far prevented them from accessing any of the official documents.

The Bradford & Bingley Shareholder Action Group, which represents almost a million former shareholders, will appear before a tribunal later this month in their quest for compensation.

In documents seen by The Independent on Sunday, the BBAG said: "It is four years, six months since the nationalisation and despite thousands of requests from B&B share and bond holders, they still do not know why the Government and tripartite regulatory authorities acted as they did.

"B&B had a far stronger balance sheet than Royal Bank of Scotland (RBOS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), despite this, its savings book and branch network were sold thus destroying it as a viable business and with the Government having control of the winding down process, a matter of continuing and considerable concern to the former shareholders and remaining bond holders.

"Why was B&B treated differently to these other banks?"

Bradford & Bingley, which sponsored many high profile cricket and rugby league teams, was highly exposed to the troubled buy-to-let mortgage market, ran into difficulties when funding from the wholesale money markets dried up at the start of the crisis.

The Government merged Bradford & Bingley's toxic mortgage debt with the so-called "bad bank" of Northern Rock, which was nationalised in 2007. Other parts were sold to Santander for £612m.

The news comes just days after two separate lawsuits were lodged by campaigners seeking redress for losses suffered during Royal Bank of Scotland's rights issue in 2008, which failed to prevent its falling into state ownership several months later.

"In BBAG's view the decision to nationalise B&B was neither proportionate nor equitable and not consistent with the support given to other banks at the time," the group added.

"If a government confiscates the property of its citizens without reason, explanation or fair compensation, particularly when it may be seen as at fault in its duty of care to savers and investors by not adequately regulating the companies involved in the banking crisis, then all concepts of democracy and equity are laid aside.

"We submit, the role of fair and honest government is devalued."

[loganair] 21/1/2013 09:31

Posted from the HMV thread. I think we should do the same as the CEO of B&B sold its Rights Issue on the information that company had sufficent funds for at least the next year and the health of B&B.

Reports out that the odious individual that is Fred Goodwin is to be hauled through the courts by the RBS Shareholders Action Group for allegedly lying about the health of the bank at the time of the Rights issue in 2007 are welcome by SBM. As editor, I was integrally involved in the Bradford & Bingley Shareholders Action and saw intimately what damage the then manglement of these banks did to many shareholders. A number of elderly and relatively poor individuals had their small savings effectively wiped out.

IF Goodwin and his sidekicks - Tom McKillop (note no Sir in our reference) and Jonny Cameron knew about the true state of the bank ad concealed this to save their own skin when it launched the £12bn rights issue then, in my book, they are as guilty as the common fraudster. A convicted fraudster gets sent to jail so why not these three?

To even contemplate paying their legal fees is yet another finger in the eye to British taxpayers. Goodwin has earnt handsomely out of the carnage he created. Stripping him of his knighthood is merely symbolic. He should be made (and Killip and Cameron) to pay for his own defence and if he loses then be utterly stripped of his assets. I am not alone in these thoughts too with even Labour MP John Mann, who sits on the Commons Treasury Committee, describing the situation as 'extraordinary', saying: 'It shows that the banks really don't get it.'

If it was up to me, the HMV shareholders should also be mounting a legal action against Simon Fox for his complete and utter mismanagement of the now collapsed retailers affairs during his tenure and be asking for his gross remuneration during his time there back. Stories this weekend that he is sitting on £2m of gains on his stock at Trinity Mirror had me spitting blood over my cornflakes. The Non exec's who appointed him should hang there heads in utter, utter shame.

[neddo] 27/7/2012 10:44

they are criminals

[optomistic] 27/7/2012 08:46

BRADFORD & Bingley repaid £700m of Government loans in the first half of the year, new figures show.

The number of B&B mortgage accounts three or more months in arrears also fell 19% to 7,064.

Pre-tax profits at the nationalised bank fell from £202.5m in the first half of 2011 to £45.7m in the six months to the end of June, largely as a result of increased interest on its Government loan.

Bradford & Bingley was nationalised in 2008 with the branches sold on but the mortgage book retained and managed by the state-owned UK Asset Resolution which also operates part of the old Northern Rock business.

Richard Banks, UKAR chief executive, said: "We have made strong progress in the first half with further repayments to the Government.

"Much of our focus is on helping those of our customers who are in financial difficulty and it is pleasing to see a further significant reduction in arrears levels despite the continued economic uncertainty and pressure on consumers' finances."

As a whole, UKAR repaid £788m in Government loans taking the total owed down to £45.8bn in the first half of the year.

Earlier this week Virgin Money agreed to buy mortgages worth £465m from UK Asset Resolution

[birchin] 05/7/2012 17:47

New call for inquiry over Bradford & Bingley break-up

[daytraders] 05/7/2012 00:40

yeh agree, wonder if that will help our case.

[pwhite73] 04/7/2012 22:44

The rate fixing scandal between Barclays, the Bank of England, HM Treasury and the FSA has only served to reveal the criminal alliance in operation at the time of the stealing of Bradford and Bingley.