Tweet
Between 2006 and 2011 you might have signed a director's personal guarantee to cover the overdraft of a company that you were associated with.
Were you aware at the time that a number of banks including RBS, Nat West, HBOS might have been criminally complicit in the activity of fixing the Libor rates? If you had known that this sort of thing was going on, is it likely that have this would have caused you not to be a party to the guarantee, or maybe not have had anything to do with the banks involved in the first place?
This raises very interesting questions, for example is the bank that is holding your guarantee now foreclosing on it and taking you to court, and also are those guarantees taken during that timescale but not being foreclosed upon still valid in view of the criminal activities of the banks involved. And does this mean that all existing personal guarantees taken between 2006 and 2011 have to rewritten?
It is a fact that in thousands of cases largely due to the financial crisis that they have created, the banks have cancelled the overdrafts of hundreds of companies, and then gone on to pursue the personal guarantors. In other cases companies have folded without the help of the banks due to adverse trading conditions, but the end product is the same - the banks want their money back by hook or by crook.
This all seems to be very one-sided and unfair. Fairness is a principle of English Law, and when the boot is on the other foot it is only too common for institutional organisations to invalidate agreements and contacts because of none-disclosure.
To site a few common examples, would you expect to be able to be able make a successful claim on an Insurance company where you had given false or misleading infomation, or in another case is it likely that a bank would freeze a bank account, where it was discovered that the holder of that account had been involved for example in criminal activities such as money laundering?
I suspect that the whole thing revolves around the question of the non-disclosure of what are considered to be important facts that would materially alter the position of those who are involved in the transactions, had they known about them.
I suspect that the Court of Human Rights would rule in favour of the victims of the banks, but in reality this needs thoroughly testing through the UK courts.
If you were to try and pursue this through the courts at your own expense I suspect that the lack of knowledge and the cost would be immediate hurdles, so what is needed is a competent firm of lawyers who would take it on themselves to push this right the way through the UK courts, and then if necessary to the European Court of Justice and maybe to Strasbourg.
Does such a firm or lawyers exist, or are they all so interested in their own affairs to bother?
Well that is the question - but it does need testing.
Were you aware at the time that a number of banks including RBS, Nat West, HBOS might have been criminally complicit in the activity of fixing the Libor rates? If you had known that this sort of thing was going on, is it likely that have this would have caused you not to be a party to the guarantee, or maybe not have had anything to do with the banks involved in the first place?
This raises very interesting questions, for example is the bank that is holding your guarantee now foreclosing on it and taking you to court, and also are those guarantees taken during that timescale but not being foreclosed upon still valid in view of the criminal activities of the banks involved. And does this mean that all existing personal guarantees taken between 2006 and 2011 have to rewritten?
It is a fact that in thousands of cases largely due to the financial crisis that they have created, the banks have cancelled the overdrafts of hundreds of companies, and then gone on to pursue the personal guarantors. In other cases companies have folded without the help of the banks due to adverse trading conditions, but the end product is the same - the banks want their money back by hook or by crook.
This all seems to be very one-sided and unfair. Fairness is a principle of English Law, and when the boot is on the other foot it is only too common for institutional organisations to invalidate agreements and contacts because of none-disclosure.
To site a few common examples, would you expect to be able to be able make a successful claim on an Insurance company where you had given false or misleading infomation, or in another case is it likely that a bank would freeze a bank account, where it was discovered that the holder of that account had been involved for example in criminal activities such as money laundering?
I suspect that the whole thing revolves around the question of the non-disclosure of what are considered to be important facts that would materially alter the position of those who are involved in the transactions, had they known about them.
I suspect that the Court of Human Rights would rule in favour of the victims of the banks, but in reality this needs thoroughly testing through the UK courts.
If you were to try and pursue this through the courts at your own expense I suspect that the lack of knowledge and the cost would be immediate hurdles, so what is needed is a competent firm of lawyers who would take it on themselves to push this right the way through the UK courts, and then if necessary to the European Court of Justice and maybe to Strasbourg.
Does such a firm or lawyers exist, or are they all so interested in their own affairs to bother?
Well that is the question - but it does need testing.
