This is, in my opinion, a potentially fraud case involving two foreign banks and the shareholders of one of those banks. I hope you can appreciate the fact that for the obvious reasons I can not name the banks involved or the countries. All I can say for now and publicly is that both countries are now part of the EU.
In brief, one bank bought the other, they merged and became a big bank. The third bank was the guarantor. Two of the three banks in question still exists today. I will try in brief to describe what happen but as I mentioned above I cant name the banks so I will be referring to each bank as bank A bank E and bank F (the initials of each bank). Because I can name the bank it might sounds a complicated issue but in reality is not.
The story unfolds like this: Back in 1904 bank E created a smaller bank, the bank A. In 1930’s, bank E bought bank A and consequently they merged and that means that all the money and shares went under the control of bank E.
I am not lawyer but I know that the shareholders have to be paid the current value of their shares they own or at least the money they invested. Its important to mention here that bank A was a very healthy bank with reserves in foreign currency, gold coins, bars of gold, and shares.
Now, bank F was the guarantor of the shares of the bank A and each share had an equal value of an X amount… in gold! Since then, 1930’s, the shareholders families and their descendants trying to find out what happened to their share and money. Although bank E suggests that the merge of the two banks A and E went through and completed successfully, according to the resent evidence in 2013 that never happened because the merge was never done, never completed and therefore the shareholders never got paid. One of the evidence it’s a stamp on same of the shares dated in some cases 20 years after the suggested merge!
I am not sure what is the value of each share now but I assume that after 80something years there must be “a bit” of money for each share especially when their guaranteed value was in gold! I could write a lot more but because of the nature of the case and because of an ongoing court case in the country of origin of the bank, I cant.
So, why am I bothered? Because I am a shareholder and I was wondering if there is somebody out there that can help me out on that?
yes i can wait a bit longer.
I can wait a bit longer. If however, you cant find a professional will i get a full refund?
Thanks for your interest.
1. Yes bank A was acquired by bank E and the "strange" thing here is that bank E was much smaller than bank A, which means the smaller bank acquired the bigger bank (the "smaller" and "bigger" comparison between the banks is made based on their assets at the time).
Regarding banks A shares, yes, I own some of the shares and yes it is clearly stated on them their value it is in gold.
2. So far, bank E suggests that there was only one very small amount was paid as deposit to the shareholders but there are not evidence that bank E paid for the shares in full; in fact, there are recent evidence which suggest the opposite, which mean that the bank never paid the shares in full and regarding the deposit, I am almost certain that the shareholders didnt even get the the deposit money either.
3. Although bank E suggests that the shares have been paid in full it can not provide any evidence e.g. forms or any other document to suggest a transfer. From what we know so far, the shareholders were told that after bank E acquired bank A, the shares were neutralised so they were worthless, which of course thats not the case.
I hope that helps.
Please feel free to ask any questions.
its a bit more complicated than that. Just to remind you that the banks are not UK based but foreign so the 6 years law is not applicable, but even if it is applicable I doubt that this law existed 70-80 years ago.
There was not any dispute either between the banks, because the purchase went through and according to bank E it was finalised but I can prove that it wasnt and not even today, or either between banks and the shareholders because the bank E never actually paid the shareholders which, in my opinion, leaves us only with the option of fraud because bank E "acquired" all the assets of the bank A including the shares without paying out the rightful owners, so based on that I think its a fraud, but thats my opinion which is the reason I am asking for help.
Yes, as a rightful owner I am seeking to be paid.
yes I will wait.
Its ok i can wait for a bit more. I hope you ll find someone.
I understand the complexity of my question and therefore it may not be for everyone.
As we cant find someone I would like to close the question and get a full refund if its possible?