Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Shareholders still waiting for £200m RBS compensation

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 348
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Despite the settlement of a claim a year ago, shareholders are still waiting to receive compensation from Royal Bank of Scotland RBS.


The group action claim was bought by thousands of RBS shareholders against RBS and four of its former directors, including Fred Goodwin. The legal action, the early settlement of which meant that the disgraced Goodwin would not have to give evidence in Court, alleged that the shareholders had been misled over the banks financial position when it launched a rights issued worth £12bn in 2008. The claim was settled prior to the trial commencing in May 2017, with the shareholders being awarded 82 pence per share, payable by RBS.

Delays in the shareholder verification process has resulted in some investors not yet receiving compensation, although some institutional investors have received the agreed payments. One of the main claimants listed in the action, Manx Capital Partners, was acting as the delegated manager of the claim against RBS. However, Manx Capital has become bogged down in legal disagreement with RBS Shareholder Action Group, who were the previous agent for the claimants, with Manx Capital alleging that they had not received key documents from the Group that provide vital details of expenditure and shares to enable the verification process to be completed. RBS Shareholder Action Group deny withholding such documents, saying that Manx Group’s legal team has the required information.

The delays in verification could become problematic legally, with a six year time limit for such claims being in place. During a hearing earlier this year, High Court Judge Mr Justice Hildyard was critical of the delays, describing it as “an appalling situation (that) very many months after the settlement of a very considerable action” the investors had not received payment because of legal “shenanigans” between the parties.

Manx Group has requested that the court to order RBS Action Group to hand over all of its documents and records to their legal team to speed up the share verification process. One of Manx Group’s legal advisors, barrister Ben Valentin, told the High Court that the RBS Action Group had failed “to provide the reliable information that’s needed to enable Signature on behalf of the claimants to complete the settlement process”.

RBS and the RBS Shareholder Action Group declined to comment, the case continues.

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More

  • A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More

  • London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More