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: 44
  • 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

  • Danish professional football – and the sports betting that is such a part of the modern game now – was thrown into disarray recently when many Danish players, including many who had performed so well at this year’s World Cup in Russia such as Christian Eriksen and Kasper Schmeichel, refused to sign a new contract governing image and commercial rights with the Danish Football Association (DBU). As well as resulting in the DBU taking extraordinary steps in calling up lower league and ‘futsal’ players to bolster the national squad ahead of their game against Slovakia, bookmakers providing odds for the game had to drastically re-think their pricing. For the game against Slovakia, a friendly, Denmark had originally been favourites at 6/4; however, once news of the contract dispute became known and the impact this would have on the team to play... Read More

  • 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... Read More

  • A recent judgment in a claim for solicitor’s professional negligence has highlighted the importance of appropriate expert evidence to establish whether and how any such negligence can be attributed. The claim in question alleged negligence by well-respected law firm Leigh Day in how it represented its client (a family) at an inquest. The claim was dismissed by Mrs Justice Andrews, the salient points in the judgement appearing in paragraphs 8 & 9, where the judge says: It is not enough to show that a different solicitor may have taken a different view or a different course, let alone that the client felt that the solicitor could have done more. That is why the court will rarely hold a professional to be in breach of duty in the absence of assistance from a suitably qualified expert who can explain why in his or... Read More