Five questions answered on the RBS investor compensation claim

There is a £3.5bn compensation claim against the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Thousands of investors have launched a £3.5bn compensation claim against the 82 per cent state owned Royal Bank of Scotland. We answer five questions on the claims.

What are this group of investors seeking compensation for?

The group are raising the claim against the bank as they believe the bank deliberately misled them into believing it was in good financial shape just before it collapsed in 2008.

After collapsing the bank was then bailed out by the government.

How many investors are involved in the suit against the bank?

12,000 private shareholders and 100 institutional investors.

These include 20 charities, churches, pension funds, hedge funds, fund managers and private client brokers, who collectively manage £200bn.

Are any individual bank members also being sued?

Yes, former chairman Sir Tom McKillop is also being sued, as well as Johnny Cameron and Guy Whittaker, who were also senior members of the bank at the time.

Former Chief Executive Fred Goodwin is also being sued by the group.

What have the investors said?

In a statement the group said:

"The action group maintains that the bank's directors sought to mislead shareholders by misrepresenting the underlying strength of the bank and omitting critical information from the 2008 rights issue prospectus.

"This means that RBS will be liable for the losses incurred on shares..."

A spokesman for the investors told the BBC: "Today represents a giant step forward for the many thousands of ordinary people who lost money as the result of inexcusable actions taken by banks and their directors in the financial crisis.

"Now, for the first time, some of these directors will have to answer for their actions in a British court."

What happens next?

The Royal Bank of Scotland has 30 days to respond to the class action which has been raised with the High Court of Justice's Chancery Division in London.

The group have estimated they could receive as much as £4bn from the claim.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.