header-logo header-logo

High stakes deceit as markets floundered

02 March 2021
Issue: 7923 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Banking
printer mail-detail
No damages awarded despite fraudulent misrepresentations

A Barclays Bank senior executive made fraudulent misrepresentations amounting to ‘serious deceit’ in its dealings with an investor during the 2008 global financial crash, the High Court has held.

However, claimant PCP Capital Partners was awarded no damages. The case, PCP v Barclays Bank [2021] EWHC 307 (Comm), concerned Barclays’ desire to avoid a state bailout as financial markets faltered. Instead, Barclays scrambled to raise the required capital privately from PCP, which invested £3.25bn, and the Qatari State.

Amanda Staveley, PCP CEO, contended that on three separate occasions senior Barclays executive Roger Jenkins told her PCP would get ‘the same deal’ as Qatar. She claimed that, on the contrary, Barclays paid additional ‘disguised fees’ of £280m and £60m to Qatar.

Delivering judgment in the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Waksman found Barclays, acting through Jenkins, made fraudulent misrepresentations to Staveley. He found that Barclays offered additional benefits to the Qatari investors. He criticised evidence given by Jenkins and John Varley (another Barclays executive) while accepting the ‘essential truth’ of what Staveley said.

However, he did not award PCP damages because he thought it impossible that PCP would have been able to raise enough debt funding during the financial crisis to complete the deal. Hence, no loss was incurred.  

Quinn Emanuel partner Richard East, acting for PCP, said: ‘Despite Barclays’ attempts to besmirch Ms Staveley’s character during six days of no holds barred cross examination, this judgment makes clear that Ms Staveley was a reliable and honest witness and that by contrast, Barclays was dishonest in its dealings with PCP and misled Ms Staveley as to the true nature of its deal with Qatar.

‘It is disappointing that, despite the judge finding that Ms Staveley was a tough, persistent, clever and able negotiator, that he found ultimately that she could not have completed the deal which she had put in place and hence no loss was suffered. This is a surprising outcome. 

‘We hope that the regulators will have a close look at this judgment and the conclusions the judge reaches on the behaviour of senior personnel within Barclays.’

Issue: 7923 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Banking
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll