Royal Bank Of Scotland Share Discussion Threads

[leedskier] 23/10/2017 08:24

No need to worry about a loss of exports to the EU, with headlines like this ...


Haggis to be shipped to Canada for the first time in 46 years
Macsween of Edinburgh breaks back into the market after developing a new recipe that meets with Canadian regulations

[leedskier] 23/10/2017 08:03

7,524.81 +1.58 (0.02%)

280.80 -1.50 (-0.53%)

Financials 0.66%

[leedskier] 23/10/2017 07:45

Monday 23 October 2017 12:01am


UK dividend payouts soar to a third quarter record of £28.5bn

More than two-thirds of the £3.6bn year-on-year increase came from the mining sector, which has made a resurgence since commodity prices started to rebound a year ago.

[leedskier] 23/10/2017 07:29

Austerity bites:




The number of patients leaving Britain and flying overseas for medical treatment has trebled as NHS waiting times reach a record high, a Telegraph investigation has revealed.

Government data shows the number of people going abroad for healthcare has increased from 48,000 in 2014 to almost 144,000 last year as the health service struggles to cope with demand.

NHS waiting times are now the longest they have been for almost a decade, with more than 409,000 people waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment - a rise from 34,000 in 2014.

[leedskier] 23/10/2017 06:54

David Buik‏
@truemagic68

European opening calls update courtesy of CMC MARKETS - FTSE100 -3 at 7,520, DAX unchanged at 12,991, CAC40 -10 at 5,362, IBEX -70 at 10,152

[leedskier] 22/10/2017 19:36

I thought we all knew that RBS was bankrupting its clients to save itself from the same fate.

[prophet_alexandre] 22/10/2017 14:05

Agreed Chinese, quite strange to be honest, considering the number of claimants involved AND the large sums.

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 13:48

It appears the "Action Group" didn't work with solicitors Bird & Bird or Signature or the Corporate Claimants - they seem to have been over protective !

It's not surprising they couldn't get London funding and had to go to the British Virgin Islands.


And they didn't organise one face to face meeting with the Claimants !

[prophet_alexandre] 22/10/2017 13:16

With all of the revelations now coming to light, it makes you wonder why the previous law firms didn't notice them !

[barmiddleton] 22/10/2017 12:49

I like your maths CI and your thinking but I won't be getting excited anytime soon. There are far too many twists and turns yet to come in this saga, especially from the AG camp imho. They are not going to go quietly, I can only hope that Sig Lit keep on the ball and represent our(claimants) interests diligently as they seem to have been doing up to now.

[prophet_alexandre] 22/10/2017 12:48

If it is the case that claimants will still receive the 200m settlement figure , even if the number of claims that have been verified, is lower than the number originally claimed for.
Of course, in this instance, the last man standing wins !

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 12:24

The Settlement Pot was £200 million.
We got 82p per share before costs.
i.e. we were expected to own 244,000,000 shares.

Now we are told there could be 73,000,000 shares less.
i.e. 171,000,000 genuine shares.

So if the £200 million remains on the table then that is a settlement of 117p per share (43% more)...

...before costs !

[prophet_alexandre] 22/10/2017 10:52

Chinese
If there is no contract they will find it difficult to make a charge x
My understanding was that the AG were claimants themselves , which has only recently been proven not to be the case.

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 10:34

prophet,
The "Action Group" haven't done all this for nothing - they'll be wanting money from us for their time, travel and use of office equipment.

And there really was no need for them to talk to the experts - that was job for the solicitors.

[prophet_alexandre] 22/10/2017 10:20

Yes, agree with what you say Chinese.
The only point I would mention though, is where you say we "We have yet to see how much our "Action Group" is going to charge us".

I would point out, that there is no fee agreement, or terms of engagement , or indeed a contract between claimants and the RBoS AG Ltd, certainly not one I have signed and so, the AG should not be able to charge claimants anything.
They weren't operating on a 'no win no fee' or similar and so cannot charge for their services.
I can't find any reference anywhere from the AG that they are going to charge claimants ?

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 10:06

I have paid £1,500 to the "Action Group" and I know others have paid much more.

I was lead to believe there were 27,000 of us (the "Action Group" in 2014 was talking about "our 30,000 plus claims") and so I assumed the "Action Group" had collected well over £42 million from members.

About £6 million of this went to our initial solicitors, Bird & Bird, and not a penny has gone to Signature.

So there was no need for our "Action Group" to seek funding from third parties for day to day expenses - only for "After The Event" insurance purposes !

The only other thing I have been told is the judge demanded our initial Funder Hunnewell BVI had to stump up £7.5 million and Manx didn't have to show a penny.

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 09:16

Quantum !

The judge said the adverse costs were £42 million.
This is what us Claimants would have been liable for if RBS had won.
As it turned we didn't have to pay a penny.


In a letter dated 27 January 2014 the "Action Group" said our insurance had increased to £23.5 million (£13.5 million in protection and £10 million on stand by).

In a letter dated 31 July 2015 the "Action Group" talks of concluding negotiations with a Funder (£15.5 million).
Is this another Funder (Signature alludes to this) ?

Anyway the letter continues "This finder does not seek payment of a percentage of any recovery from RBS; the return is based on multiples of the funds actually drawn down by this Group...".
I have been told the multiple would be four or five.

In a letter dated 15 May 2017 (so this is at a time when we are the remaining Claimants) the "Action Group" says that if RBS was successful at court the potential liability (i.e. the bit that was not covered by our insurance) would be around 6p per share for each Claimant.

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 08:54

We have yet to see how much our "Action Group" is going to charge us so it would be unfair and unwise to talk about it.

But something we do know about is their handling of the "After The Event" Funders !

The judge condemned the whole issue !

We will never know the financial arrangement our "Action Group" made with one of our Funders, Hunnewell BVI (British Virgin Islands), because of commercial confidentially - in fact the judge wasn't even told.

Several large corporate Claimants were willing to become Funders but they lost confidence in our "Action Group" and left us without paying their costs.

And Retail Claimants were never approached to become Funders - I, for one, would have been willing to become a Funder.

[chinese investor] 22/10/2017 08:34

"Class Actions" are fairly new to the UK and the rules have yet to be drawn up.

Any group of people can call themselves "An Action Group" and they don't have to be Claimants or indeed they don't have to have any expertise at all.

And, on the face of it, it could be a great money earner.

After this Pantomime I hope the authorities have a close look at how "Class Actions" in the UK should be conducted !

[maxk] 21/10/2017 20:43

If this story has any legs, the old bill will have to look into all the banks..cos they are all vampires when it comes to small biz.

[prophet_alexandre] 21/10/2017 17:04

I agree , the funders fees and returns are unbelievable. If claimants had been told that they might only achieve 50% , or less of their rights issue loss, you have to wonder how many people would have claimed in the first place.
The majority of the costs now appear to be going to funders, to say nothing of the disputed 20m to the AG !

[chinese investor] 21/10/2017 16:53

It's the cost for the "After The Event" funders that worries me - people are talking of around £60 million.

The total adverse costs (i.e. how much the claimants would have had to fork out if they had lost) according to the judge were £42 million.

The fees for the "After The Event" funders should then be significantly less than £42 million !

Hopefully Signature's costs will be reassessed by the legal authorities !

[prophet_alexandre] 21/10/2017 16:39

barmiddleton
The RBoS Sreholders AG is a Limited company and as such is required to publish their accounts,'Sadly , if you look for them they provide limited information .


Certainly, claimants have not been provided with details of who has been paid what, as far as I am aware ?

It is quite amazing to hear that Signature has been operating all this time with no payment, in effect, being 'at risk' for their not insubstantial fees during this whole process. Then again, claimants have not been told by the AG what any of the fee agreements have been with any of the professionals that the AG have engaged !