RBS action still on

Quite rightly, Gordon Deane (Law and Legal Affairs 3 July) advocates mediation as a costeffective alternative to RBS’S £100m-£200m legal dispute with some of its shareholders.

Noticeably, however, he refers to the “recently settled action” as if the dispute with all of RBS’S shareholders is over. Isn’t it the case it will only be over when “all” shareholders receive compensation with regard to the rights issue of 2008? If only some shareholders are compensated then the Royal Bank is creating what is called a “paradigm of injustice.” This is because there is no moral justification for treating persons unequally in the matter of compensation and in spite of the claim there is no admission of liability.

Isn’t it the case that RBS is a state agency with taxpayers owning 72 per cent of the bank and as such it’s “as if ” it were a public authority?

Arguably, if all shareholders who bought into the rights issue are not compensated then it could be alleged RBS are discriminating against persons in a similar situation as those being compensated.

Of course, just to rub salt into thewoundrbsdecidedin2012 to consolidate its shares, or what some call “Reverse Stock Split”, which means a drastic reduction in the number of shares that are owned.

Surely now a persuasive case can be made for RBS to be fully nationalised. Then, as a public authority, its actions would have to be compatible with human rights legislation?

ELLIS THORPE Old Chapel Walk, Inverurie