Northern Rock Shareholders Await Review

by Peter Wakeford
Posted by Hannah on 6 January 2009
Rock Shareholders Await Review

The group wants more compensation for their holdings in the nationalised financial firm, which collapsed in 2007 due to the credit crunch.

Northern Rock shareholders who lost money when the bank was nationalised are to take their case to Judicial Review next Tuesday.

The UK Shareholders Association (UKSA) is seeking a legal annulment of the government's previous compensation deal to the small investors through the review, FT Adviser reports.

Figures from the group suggest that the investors would get as little as 5p per share from the deal. However, the UKSA wants to see them receive £5 per share.

This shift could be achieved by a revaluation of Northern Rock's assets by an independent expert.

Northern Rock was taken over by the government last February, having nearly collapsed the previous summer due to the credit crunch. The bank had relied heavily on wholesale funding from the credit markets in order to meet its costs - and found itself exposed when these markets froze in the crisis.

Since the nationalisation, the government has also taken over Bradford & Bingley - and has rolled out a £37 billion recapitalisation programme to buy shares in three other at-risk banks.

The UKSA is representing 150,000 shareholders, collectively holding around 25 percent of Northern Rock stock, at the review. The case is scheduled to wind up on January 16th.

Get our free money saving newsletter
Join over 480,000 other subscribers who grab our expert money tips, unmissable money guides & hottest bargains each week in our special email...
 
1

Your Comments

FORENSIC DEBATE
on 15 Feb 2009 00:02
Gordon Brown may be the Prime Minister and Darling the Chancellor. But no matter how desirable their legislation to nationalize Northern Rock may be, they have set a dangerous precedent, which is in fact, unlawful. There is no authority by which Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling or any Government, can initiate such legislation - the effect of which, transfers the risk-liability from the private investor unto the taxpayer and homeowner-mortgagor that ultimately ousts the authority of the Court in the UK, and the same checks and balances apply in the USA. Any attempt to oust the authority of the Court, and in such a manner, is contempt and a criminal offence. One would think that Darling being a lawyer would know that to initiate such legislation is not only unlawful, but is an abuse of the law and process, inter alia. But regardless of long established fundamental principles of Law, they pushed their legislation through parliament.