header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2007 / Toby Starr
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

MAD for it?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Are lawyers to blame for the Northern Rock fiasco?
Toby Starr reports

The Market Abuse Directive 2003/6/EC, shortened to MAD by those who dislike legislation against insider trading, was intended to ensure that quoted firms were transparent with their investors and the market.
As was widely reported, on 20 September 2007 the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, blamed MAD for preventing the bank from stepping in to help Northern Rock when he told the House of Commons Treasury Committee that “we were unable to carry out a lender-of-last-resort operation in the way we would have done in the 1990s, as a result of the Market Abuse Directive”. This was, said King, a major reason why the bank was unable to avert “the run on the Rock”.

During September, alongside the pictures of queuing savers, a public wrangle developed over the legal advice King had taken. The European Commission said that King’s advice was wrong and that there was sufficient “flexibility” in MAD for Northern Rock to keep information out of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll