header-logo header-logo

Court action unlikely over Northern Rock

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll