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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll