Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
laurejon

Cherie Blair To Sue Royal Bank Of Scotland (the Taxpayer)

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...ed-Goodwin.html

Cherie Blair is to sue the Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of US investors in a class action case that could cost the UK taxpayer over $50bn US if as is expected she wins the case.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Blairs have emigrated to the US, as they appear to be doing a roaring trade over there. As if selling out the British Public to the US on Iraq wasnt enough, they now persue the Royal Bank of Scotland knowing it is Hard Working British Families that will have to foot the bill.

Cherie Blair hired to sue RBS and Sir Fred Goodwin

Cherie Blair is to act on behalf of British pension funds in a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation from Sir Fred Goodwin and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Two local authority funds are to sue the bank and its former chief executive through the American courts over "massive losses" incurred when it was bailed out and the share price collapsed.

North Yorkshire and Merseyside council pension funds claim that Sir Fred and RBS "falsely reassured" investors on numerous occasions that the bank was in good health when it was "effectively insolvent" due to bad loans.

The class action lawsuit names RBS and its entire board of directors, including the former chairman Sir Tom McKillop, as defendants, and accuses Sir Fred of "hubris" for insisting on a disastrous lending and acquisition strategy.

Such lawsuits are common in the US, where the courts are more flexible and less expensive.

Mrs Blair said she agreed to take on the case because of the "massive losses inflicted on local authority pension schemes and other UK institutions who were the largest investors in RBS".

She said: "It's also about the potential to protect investors in the future by significantly raising the standards for good governance in major UK companies."

The class action lawsuit is open to all European and US investors in RBS to join.

Mrs Blair, who is better known for her work as a human rights and employment lawyer, added that she would coordinate with other RBS shareholders "with the aim of securing justice for as wide a pool of affected investors as possible".

The two councils' pension funds have a combined value of about £4 billion.

Mrs Blair is working alongside Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, the Californian law firm, which secured $7 billion in compensation for Enron investors.

Although RBS and the funds are British, they can bring the lawsuit in the US because RBS conducted a significant amount of business there.

Mrs Blair told The Times: "Most of the problems that have brought the bank to its knees have originated and have been concealed in its US operations."

bushblair_wideweb__470x339,0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip

Mrs Blair told The Times: "Most of the problems that have brought the bank to its knees have originated and have been concealed in its US operations."

bushblair_wideweb__470x339,0.jpg

It started in America. They still insist they are right. The Labour Party I mean.

And theres me thinking the banking "industry" was global. silly me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are given a baseball bat and told Cherie Blair is locked in one room and Fred Goodwin is locked in tho other. You can only enter one room and wreak havoc on the coward locked behind the door. Which door would you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are given a baseball bat and told Cherie Blair is locked in one room and Fred Goodwin is locked in tho other. You can only enter one room and wreak havoc on the coward locked behind the door. Which door would you choose?

I would make love to Fred Goodwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-48...igh-ideals.html

Cherie Blair has been given a medal for her "high ideals and courageous actions".

The wife of former prime minister Tony Blair received the 2007 Eleanor Roosevelt Val-Kill medal during a ceremony in Hyde Park, New York.

The medal is given to those who "embody Mrs Roosevelt's spirit and legacy".

A spokeswoman for the awards said the medal symbolised Mrs Roosevelt's humanitarian concerns and celebrated "individuals and organisations of high ideals and courageous actions in their field".

She said Mrs Blair was "a noted human rights attorney, worldwide campaigner for women's rights and like Eleanor Roosevelt, a wife of a world leader".

She went on: "Cherie Blair is a leading human rights lawyer and a passionate campaigner for women's equality across the world.

"Her determination to help women overcome prejudice has seen her visit and speak in many countries.

"She also actively promotes work-life balance policies, having herself experienced the pressures of combining a demanding career with being the wife of Tony Blair and a mother of four."

The ceremony was held at Val-Kill, on the grounds of the Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site In Hyde Park, New York.

Previous winners have included Christopher Reeves, Richard Gere, Queen Noor of Jordan, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would make love to Fred Goodwin.

so would I in preference, but as usual, Id open the wrong door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are given a baseball bat and told Cherie Blair is locked in one room and Fred Goodwin is locked in tho other. You can only enter one room and wreak havoc on the coward locked behind the door. Which door would you choose?

Leave both doors locked and stand outside using the baseball bat on anyone who tries to let either out till the fu**ers starve to death! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cherie Blair is to sue the Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of US investors in a class action case that could cost the UK taxpayer over $50bn US if as is expected she wins the case.

This is fascinating... because $50bn is such a large debt, I suspect that RBS (and/or the British Government) would be forced to default.

I wonder if this is the intention?

I wonder how long this has been planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr so I'm a bit thick so what does this mean?

The government has bailed out RBS, keeping them afloat with taxpayers cash. If they hadn't done that, Sir Fred wouldn't have got his pension, and RBS shareholders would have absolutely no one to sue. As the government did prop them up, they can effectively sue and get a hold of the money that was used to prop it up?!

I thought buying shares was supposed to be a risk? If Sir Fred F*ckNuckle made out they were more solvent than they were, then technically their shares were worth jack for an even longer time period.

Is she really expected to win this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice of her to sue a corrupt institution, but why now? Why, when it's the taxpayer that will get bilked.

Why doesn't Kunty Blair, a human rights lawyer, go after that criminal husband and his 'dodgy dossier' for taking us into a completely unnecessary war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash

Cherie said 'this is a very important issue and that's why I felt I had to get involved and also why I've reduced my fee to $49 billion.'

Edited by BoomBoomCrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errr so I'm a bit thick so what does this mean?

The government has bailed out RBS, keeping them afloat with taxpayers cash. If they hadn't done that, Sir Fred wouldn't have got his pension, and RBS shareholders would have absolutely no one to sue. As the government did prop them up, they can effectively sue and get a hold of the money that was used to prop it up?!

I thought buying shares was supposed to be a risk? If Sir Fred F*ckNuckle made out they were more solvent than they were, then technically their shares were worth jack for an even longer time period.

Is she really expected to win this case?

Is this liabilty for being sued a reason for not bailing anyone else out ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is fascinating... because $50bn is such a large debt, I suspect that RBS (and/or the British Government) would be forced to default.

Not sure that it would amount to a Government default -- surely they're just shareholders in a limited company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought buying shares was supposed to be a risk? If Sir Fred F*ckNuckle made out they were more solvent than they were, then technically their shares were worth jack for an even longer time period.

Is she really expected to win this case?

Buying shares is a risk - you buy shares after having done appropriate research, and analysed the business of the company.

However, you are only permitted to use information that is publically available (or found through your own legal research), and not confidential internal information. The use of inside information ("Insider trading") is illegal. As a result, news updates and statements from a company and its directors, form a key part of any investor's research programme.

Just as the law protectes investors from unscrupulous insiders, it also protects investors against being deceived by the company or director. If a company or director makes a statement about its business, it must have good reason to believe that what it says is correct.

The problem here was that Fred the Shred is on record as saying that bank was financially sound and no bailouts were needed - Such a strong soothing statement could very reasonably encourage long-term investors not to dump their shares at a "bad time". The problem was that this statement was nonsense as the bank was forced to accept a massive bailout causing a catastrophic fall in the share price.

If your pension was invested in RBS shares, and you were thinking of bailing - but heard a formal statement that the bank was sound, blah, blah - then changed your mind. You'd be pissed if you found out later that was a lie. This is the argument of these institutional investors. Alternatively, you were maybe thinking of picking up a bargain on the stock exchange - and these reassuring words were all you needed to take the risk.

This risk is not quite the same as the converse. Let's say that instead of saying the bank was fine, fred had said it was done. The share price would crash immediately. However, there would be no case against the bank or fred - that is the risk that shareholders are prepared to take; the risk of new information coming to light. This is not the risk of being lied to.

If the investors can show that the RBS accounts showed that they were done, before fred made his reassuring statements, then they've pretty much got a cut-and-dry case. Quite where the money to pay any compensation would come from is anyone's guess. One would hope that it doesn't come from the tax-payer, though I don't see where else it would come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LongBlackKilt
You are given a baseball bat and told Cherie Blair is locked in one room and Fred Goodwin is locked in tho other. You can only enter one room and wreak havoc on the coward locked behind the door. Which door would you choose?

I'd choose the Cherie door. Not because of any hatred for her but because there's a chance that Tone, Mandy, "Lord" Gould and too many t@ssers to mention might be in her company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the investors can show that the RBS accounts showed that they were done, before fred made his reassuring statements, then they've pretty much got a cut-and-dry case. Quite where the money to pay any compensation would come from is anyone's guess. One would hope that it doesn't come from the tax-payer, though I don't see where else it would come from.

If they could demonstrate that the regulators were at fault then they'd have a case to go after the taxpayer ... and Cherie Blair would be suing for events presided over by her own husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant wait for the full inquiry to the Iraq war to be held. I fully expect some honest lawyers to instigate war crimes or engaging in an unlawful war against Mr T Blair.

The whole reason that he now lives in America is that they do not sign up to these international treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are given a baseball bat and told Cherie Blair is locked in one room and Fred Goodwin is locked in tho other. You can only enter one room and wreak havoc on the coward locked behind the door. Which door would you choose?

Too easy! :lol:

Though i would prefer if Cherie was replaced by Tony! ;)

Edited by clubberdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. For the slower ones amongst you, Cherie Blair is a BARRISTER. Someone in the US is suing RBS and has HIRED HER. She is doing her job. So some of the inane speculation as to why she as chosen to act now is a retarded really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cant wait for the full inquiry to the Iraq war to be held.

Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It started in America. They still insist they are right. The Labour Party I mean.

And theres me thinking the banking "industry" was global. silly me.

Yes, New Labou DID very much start in America.

Read Robin Ramsey's Prawn Cocktail Party, which was published before Blair came to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LongBlackKilt
Yes, New Labou DID very much start in America.

Read Robin Ramsey's Prawn Cocktail Party, which was published before Blair came to power.

Always knew it was [Cape] Cod Socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.