header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Court action unlikely over Northern Rock

Banking

Any action brought against the government by shareholders over the nationalisation of Northern Rock is unlikely to succeed, lawyers say.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, announced this week that the government was to take ownership of the bank after two bids were deemed too risky to consider. Darling said that the nationalisation was a temporary measure until a viable buyer could be found. Independent arbitrators will be appointed to assess the value of shares in the company and how much compensation, if any, investors are likely to receive. Andrew Head, partner at Forsters LLP, says the shareholders most likely to sue the government are the two largest hedge funds SRM Global and RAB Capital, although possible action could also come from smaller shareholders who may form an action group to pursue their claim. Head suggests, however, that any threat of litigation could “simply be a negotiating position…to extract a better deal for shareholder”. Head says that there could be a possible challenge to the award eventually made by the arbitrator but that as the government is likely to choose “very eminent arbitrators”, any challenge is unlikely to succeed. He also thought the chances of any action brought against the chancellor personally over misfeasance in public office would be unlikely to succeed.

“To succeed, the shareholders would have to show that Mr Darling acted maliciously with the intent of harming shareholder’s interests and that, as a result, the value of their shares had gone down. In practice this will be very difficult to prove, a similar action brought by Railtrack shareholders failed against Stephen Byers even though the judge accepted he had told an ‘untruth’ to Parliament,” he says.

Any case brought in the European Court of Human Rights was also likely to fail as it would be brought on the basis that nationalisation is a form of expropriation of property.

“Given that the shares are likely to have been worthless if the government hadn’t stepped in the chances of success would seem close to zero,” Head adds.

Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll