When newly formed independents started taking on former Somerfield supermarket stores back in the autumn of 2009, I described the decision as “brave”.

For The Co-operative Group, although the timing was unfortunate (if it had waited a little longer, following the summer deal, it might have got a knockdown price on the £1.5bn paid, as valuations plummeted), Somerfield was probably the right deal to do to give it greater scale and buying power, even if the assimilation process is proving more tricky than The Co-op appeared to anticipate at the time.

However, for independents such as Haldanes, Mills Group and the surprising number of independents who took on former Somerfield (or Co-op) sites as a result of the OFT’s disposal requests, the arguments in favour of a deal were not nearly so compelling.

Or to put it another way, if you enter the gladiatorial pit without either big, heavy implements, or a very cute turn of pace, the chances are you will be eaten alive.

Now one of these independents, Haldanes, has “issued proceedings in the High Court against The Co-op”, chairman Arthur Harris claimed in a press release, alleging that he’s “been sold down the river” and made “a whipping boy”.

What are his chances? As Guy Hands learned when he sued Citigroup following his disastrous acquisition of EMI, judges are rarely sympathetic to “buyer’s remorse”. And it seems a bit rich that Harris, who describes himself as “a creative dealmaker”, should complain.

As well as preferential lease agreements from The Co-op, he can’t say he wasn’t warned about the competitiveness of the sector, the state of the economy, the depth of the recession.

As retailers, suppliers, bankers and the OFT can attest, Harris is not only “creative”, he’s persuasive. Can he really complain if, after due diligence, he is persuaded to do a deal?

Topics