Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
A boutique law firm in London
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • Xavier Prida
    • Martina Raciti
    • Ewelina James
    • Rachael Machado
    • Maria Constantin
    • Peter Dally
    • Richard Stewart
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Paul Stelges
    • Hannah Leader
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Sue Warwick
    • D A T Green
    • Antony Corel
    • Stewart White
    • Mor Swiel
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Robert Harvey
    • Shardi Shameli
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

First Ever Shareholder Class Action in England & Wales Dismissed

November 21, 2019By Preiskel & Co

The first shareholder class action claim to be brought before the English courts, Sharp v Blank [2019] EWHC 3078 (Ch) has been dismissed from the High Court of Justice Chancery Division. The claim, which is on behalf of over 5,000 Lloyds shareholders, is against Lloyds and five former directors. It relates to Lloyds’ 2008 acquisition of HBOS.

Essentially, the claim was brought on two alternative grounds:

  1. that the directors were negligent to recommend that shareholders approve the acquisition in a circular prior to an Extraordinary General meeting; and
  2. that the circular itself with made negligent misstatements or failed to disclose material information.

It was alleged that, the shareholders would not have approved the acquisition of HBOS, but for the directors’ recommendation and/or that had they had disclosure of the relevant material facts they would not have allowed the acquisition to go ahead.

The High Court ruled against the shareholders on both grounds. In respect of the first ground, it was found that the directors had acted in a manner in which a reasonably competent director of such a bank could act. A notable element of the court findings emphasized that in the circumstance when a director honestly holds the belief that a proposal is in the best interests of the company then the claimant has the burden of showing that no reasonably competent director could have reached that view. Directors are also to be comforted by the obiter that they are entitled to rely on the advice of professional advisers unless there is obvious error in that advice. Interestingly, in respect of the second ground, the Court found that shareholders should have been informed of HBOS’ use of emergency funding from the Bank of England, and of a £1 billion loan facility from Lloyds, but the Court was not satisfied that the shareholders would not have prevented the transaction even if such disclosure had taken place. Therefore,

There have been calls for the increased use of class action claims, a type of claim more commonly seen in the US, than in the English courts. The High Court’s decision in this case highlights that such claims are subject to particular hurdles, and may serve to dampen that enthusiasm, at least in relation to class action claims on behalf of shareholders.

Please contact Ronnie Preiskel should you have any questions regarding the above.

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response
    September 21, 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers
    September 21, 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK
    September 15, 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
    September 14, 2023
  • Virgin succeeded in defending a claim by EE for loss of EE’s profits caused by Virgin’s breach of the MVNO Exclusivity Clause
    September 12, 2023
  • Getting out of a (data) scrape: global statement published for the protection of publicly accessible personal data online
    September 8, 2023
  • The dark side of design: the ICO and CMA call for businesses to rethink their website layouts
    August 18, 2023
  • Could the Supreme Court’s ruling on litigation funding agreements cause havoc for litigation funders?
    August 17, 2023
  • US Threats of a ‘Te(ch)xodus’ from the UK?
    August 17, 2023
  • Smoother Sailing for EU-US Data Transfers after GDPR Adequacy Decision
    August 4, 2023
  • Unlocking Data Flows: EU-US Data Privacy Framework Receives Adequacy Decision
    July 13, 2023
  • UK’s World Leading Approach on Artificial Intelligence – White Paper outlines 5 guideline principles for responsible use of AI
    July 5, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response 21 Sep 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers 21 Sep 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK 15 Sep 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK 14 Sep 2023

Preiskel news

  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
  • Danny Preiskel featured in GCCM Magazine (June/July 2023 issue 55)  
  • Danny Preiskel moderating a panel at the MEF Connects – The Future of Fraud Prevention event (5th September 2023, hybrid)
  • Preiskel & Co advised TMT Analysis on the acquisition of Phronesis Technologies
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy