ARTICLE
12 February 2020

Decision On Fiduciary Duties

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
The High Court of England and Wales has issued an important judgment concerning the fiduciary duties of directors.
United Kingdom Corporate/Commercial Law

The High Court of England and Wales has issued an important judgment concerning the fiduciary duties of directors.  Sharp v Blank concerned a claim by 5800 claimants against the chairman and four out of the 13 directors of Lloyds Bank at the time for damages of £385 million arising out of decisions they made in relation to the takeover by Lloyds of HBOS.  The acquisition had been approved at an EGM with 96% in favour of the unanimous board recommendation to proceed with the acquisition.  The claimants' case was that the board should not have recommended the acquisition because it implemented a dangerous and value destroying strategy which involved unacceptably risky decisions.

They also argued that the board should have provided better quality information to shareholders in relation to the transaction. The court was not persuaded that the failures identified to provide sufficient information to shareholders caused any loss. If the shareholders had been presented with the relevant information, they would not have reached a conclusion other than that which they did in fact reach. The court did not accept that in relation to the stock market announcement relating to the takeover, the defendant directors personally owed a common law duty of care to each Lloyds shareholder.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More