ROYAL Bank of Scotland is facing a new legal challenge led by pensions and investment giant Legal & General that could cost the part-nationalised institution hundreds of millions of pounds.
L&G is understood to be a key mover behind a case being prepared by American litigator Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan over a £12 billion fundraising by RBS in April 2008, months before the bank was rescued with a £45bn taxpayer bail-out. At least one other major UK investor is understood to be backing the Quinn Emanuel case.
Two other claims for compensation have already been submitted to the High Court in London.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Shareholder Action Group, which represents around 12,000 small investors, has hired London law firm Bird & Bird to seek up to £4bn in compensation. Another 21 UK and foreign institutions, including Strathclyde Pension Fund, are backing another claim led by Stewarts Law for hundreds of millions of pounds.
Both cases are understood to focus on alleged failings in RBS's disclosures to shareholders, which the claimants said failed to meet the requirements of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
A spokesman for L&G declined to comment on its involvement in the latest case. Quinn Emanuel partner Martin Davies, an expert in shareholder disputes who is understood to be playing a leading role in the case, also declined to comment.
It is understood that Quinn Emanuel lawyers participated in a case management conference in London with counterparts from Bird & Bird and Stewarts Law in July. A second meeting due next week will determine whether, and to what extent, the claimants will have to combine their cases.
A spokesman for RBoS Shareholder Action Group declined to comment, however a source close to the organisation said L&G's involvement "adds credibility" to the legal claims.
The size of L&G's potential claim is not known. However, it remains the third largest shareholder in RBS.
Royal Bank of Scotland declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article