From MAG NEWS

The Merger Action Group tonight [Wed] said it was disappointed to lose its legal challenge against the Government’s decision to ignore competition law to push through the Lloyds TSB’s proposed takeover of HBOS.

But the group was heartened that the Competition Appeal Tribunal [CAT] found they were right and proper people to bring the action which had been raised under public interest concerns.

Immediately after the tribunal ruling, MAG said it was considering its position over whether it would appeal the tribunal’s decision to the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

MAG spokesman Malcolm Fraser, an Edinburgh architect, said: ‘We are pleased that Sir Gerald Barling QC, the tribunal chairman, acknowledged in his findings that we were absolutely right to bring this case forward in the public interest, despite the best efforts of Lord Mandelson's legal team to have our case rejected.

"We will now be having intensive meetings with our legal team regarding a possible appeal to the findings of the tribunal.

'This whole process has been run on a truncated timetable and we have complied with that.

'However, we owe it to all those who have offered their support to ensure that we explore every available avenue in making sure the merits of our case are fully explored.  We will advise the court of a decision in due course.

'We have said from the start that, on behalf of many ordinary and concerned shareholders, account holders and employees, we felt we had to contest the decision to “rip up” competition rules in order to facilitate a takeover over which growing numbers of people – ordinary members of the public, bank customers, shareholders, businesses and politicians from across the divide – have serious concerns and doubts. We are all glad to have made the stand we did, and will continue to stand up for what we believe in.

'It remains our belief, shared by many, that allowing this proposed merger to go forward without due and proper consideration by the Competition Commission,  sets a dangerous precedent.

'We did not embark lightly on this task. It has been onerous and at times highly-charged, ranged as we were against the combined might of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), HBOS and Lloyds TSB.

'We pay tribute to the strength, determination and skill of all those who have taken part so far, who have made representations on our behalf and to the many shareholders, customers and business who have offered their support.'

During the two-day hearing, the tribunal heard that MAG had won the backing of some 630 members of the public, while First Minister Alex Salmond and Mr Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of Which? – Europe’s largest independent consumer body with more than 700,000 members - were among others who had written to the tribunal in support of the appeal.

Although the hearing was held in London, it was conducted under Scots Law because the applicants were mainly Scotland-based and the impact of the merger if it goes ahead will be felt more keenly north of the Border than elsewhere.

Mr Ian Forrester QC, for MAG, told the tribunal that the association was ‘a group of responsible individuals pursuing a real and legitimate interest.'

He said they shared the concerns of the Office of Fair Trading [OFT] which, in a report before Lord Mandelson’s made his decision, warned that the merger could lead to a significant lessening of competition. The OFT said the takeover should be referred to the Competition Commission for further investigation.

However, Lord Mandelson disregarded this advice after both Mr Brown and Mr Darling had earlier spoken publicly in favour of the merger.

Mr Forrester said the proposed merger should have been open to public scrutiny, but that ‘the Government had a clear policy’ that the deal should go ahead.


For further information contact:

Gordon Hay on 07784 772905 or
Ian McKerron on 07740 510411