Barclays Business Model Of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Serious Deceit Legal Under British Law
Barclays has suffered more than its fair share of legal, regulatory and judicial tongue lashings over the years and lived to tell the tale. Still, Jes Staley co. couldn’t have felt particularly encouraged by this bit of banter from the bench.
Judge David Waksman ruled on Friday that “Barclays was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation…. I have found Barclays to be guilty of serious deceit.”
And also maybe a little light perjury vis-à-vis the dolly bird who claims the bank screwed her over on a deal that helped save it?
He dismissed Barclays claims that she was “guilty of ‘obvious embellishment and invention’….”
“I do not accept that as a general characterisation… she was essentially an untruthful or unreliable witness,” Waksman said. “I thought that, for the most part, her evidence was reliable….” He said Roger Jenkins, who was head of Barclays’ Middle East operations and led the discussions with PCP, was “prepared to be dishonest” and said parts of his evidence to the court were “clearly unsatisfactory and implausible”…. The judge also said John Varley, Barclays former chief executive, was “evasive” in his evidence.
Which all sounds bad. Really, really bad. But, happily for Barclays, actually isn’t!
Waksman ruled… that Staveley’s PCP group was not entitled to damages. This was because even if Barclays had been honest, PCP would not have been able to raise enough money to finance the deal, he said…. “In my judgment, Mr Jenkins knew perfectly well that PCP was not getting the same deal in the required sense,” Waksman said.
It just… doesn’t matter! Another happy if somewhat embarrassing day for Barclays (and Jenkins and Varley) in court. Carry on, boys.
Amanda Staveley loses high court action against Barclays [Guardian]