Hotels boss was called ‘the enemy’, trial told

The boss of a luxury hotel chain that was a client of Bank of Scotland was referred to as the “enemy” by a director appointed to the business by the lender’s subsidiary, it has been claimed in a High Court trial over allegations the bank forced a sale of the company’s assets.
Macdonald Hotels Limited is suing the lender, which was previously part of HBOS but since 2009 has been owned by Lloyds Banking Group, for multimillion-pound damages over claims that it was pressured by the bank to cut its debts by selling off properties, including the famous Randolph Hotel in Oxford.
Bank of Scotland denies the allegations, which it has called “serious but baseless”.
Part of the dispute centres on Bank of Scotland’s position as both a lender to Macdonald and its subsidiary Uberior’s position as a shareholder in the leisure group, which was founded by the Scottish entrepreneur Donald Macdonald.
Macdonald has claimed that the internal “Chinese walls” that should have separated the debt and equity sides of the bank’s business were breached and that from 2009 the lender embarked on a campaign to pressure the hotels group to deleverage.
HBOS was rescued by Lloyds during the financial crisis and Bank of Scotland subsequently shed billions of pounds’ worth of loans. Macdonald claims it was caught up in this debt reduction push.
In closing written submissions last week, Macdonald argued “this came to colour” Bank of Scotland’s view of the leisure company. It highlighted evidence that came to light during the trial in which it emerged that Peter Opperman, who had been nominated by Uberior to act as a Macdonald non-executive, had referred to the Scottish tycoon as the “enemy”.
It also highlighted comments made by Alasdair Gardner, a bank employee who was alleged to have noted in 2015 “we need to have [Mr Macdonald] absolutely corralled” and “not take any shit from him”.
Bank of Scotland argued in its written closing statement that Opperman was independent and that there is “no evidential basis whatsoever” that he was an agent of the bank. It said the claim “should never have been brought” and argued that “the case was never properly pleaded or evidenced”.
“These proceedings are not an opportunity for MHL to ventilate every unfounded gripe and grievance raised with the Bank over more than a decade.”
The case continues.