posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:50 AM
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
Surely this turns the depositors
So all depositors of all banks that can do this should also be earning dividends - if you're liable for costs of a business, then you should be liable
for profits too.
The dividends should be back paid from the date these rules came into effect.
So, play them at their own game - use the system they've put in place to legally demand dividends from all banks of a percentage equal to that
threatened by the 'haircut' and proportional to your savings. Sure those banks in dire straights won't pay out just yet, but they will have to once
they're established shareholders are in the black.
In a court of law it will be hard to deny some investors (the depositor) dividends if other investors (the established shareholders) are receiving
them. This is the clincher.... It means that any banks that could potentially be effected by the haircuts, but are currently paying shareholders
dividends must start paying depositors dividends (back dated)
Of course this won't happen, intead we'll see the rules change yet again, but it will get the depositors off the hook.
I'm not a laywer and my argument is based purely on ethics, but if the law doesn't recognise this then the next step is to call the 'Law' out as
Of course this needs a figurehead to rally all depositors globally into a Class Action (is that the correct term?). Julian Assange seems well placed
to do this.
This needs to be taken seriously, since the combination of this thread and another recent thread by bigyin
suggests a plot may be afoot:
UK Banks need to raise £60 billion…wonder how they will do that ?
edit on 29-3-2013 by McGinty because: (no reason given)