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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll