The claimants in the case, represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP, intend to seek permission to appeal the decision.
Although disappointed, they were encouraged by the judge’s acknowledgment of elements of their argument.
A joint statement from bondholders Emmet Donegan, Joanne Ellis-Clarke, Alan Considine and Nathan Brown, read: “Whilst we are pleased with the court's conclusions on unfairness and unenforceability, we respectfully disagree with the judge’s further conclusion - that even if the non-transfer clauses were invalid and unenforceable, the LCF bonds are not also ‘transferable securities’ for regulatory purposes.
“We therefore intend to apply for permission to appeal the decision (provided we have adequate arrangements in place to ensure we would not have to pay the FSCS’s costs)."
The FSCS had agreed to cover its own cost of the initial trial even if successful.
The statement continued: "This decision to seek permission to appeal the judgment is made with mixed feelings – LCF investors have suffered for too long in their quest for redress – and we and our pro bono legal team have had to expend more effort and cost than we might have wished or expected on this case.
"However, whilst an appeal (if permission to appeal is granted) may prolong uncertainties, we believe that it is necessary and would have good prospects of success.”
Jon Yarker is a freelance reporter for FTAdviser
