Barclays 2014 Annual Report Download - page 312

310 I Barclays PLC Annual Report 2014 barclays.com/annualreport
Notes to the financial statements
Accruals, provisions, contingent liabilities and legal proceedings
29 Legal, competition and regulatory matters continued
Complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California
In July 2012, a purported class action complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California was amended to include allegations
related to USD LIBOR and name BBPLC as a defendant. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class that includes holders of
adjustable rate mortgages linked to USD LIBOR. In January 2015, the court granted BBPLC’s motion for summary judgement and dismissed all of
the remaining claims against BBPLC. The plaintiff has appealed the court’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the
appeal is expected to be fully briefed by the end of summer 2015.
Japanese Yen LIBOR Case in SDNY
An additional class action was commenced in April 2012 in the SDNY against BBPLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff
involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association’s Euroyen Tokyo Interbank
Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which BBPLC is not a member. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the Euroyen
TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and US Sherman Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss and, in March 2014, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part that motion. Specifically, the court dismissed the
plaintiff ’s antitrust claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff’s CEA claims. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the decision concerning
the CEA claims was denied by the Court in October 2014. The plaintiff has moved for leave to file a third amended complaint adding additional
claims, including a RICO claim. All discovery has been stayed through at least May 2015.
EURIBOR Cases
In February 2013, a Euribor-related class action was filed against BPLC, BBPLC, BCI and other Euribor panel banks. The plaintiffs assert antitrust,
CEA, RICO, and unjust enrichment claims. In particular, BBPLC is alleged to have conspired with other Euribor panel banks to manipulate EURIBOR.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers and sellers of NYSE LIFFE EURIBOR futures contracts, purchasers of Euro currency-related futures
contracts and purchasers of other derivative contracts (such as interest rate swaps and forward rate agreements that are linked to EURIBOR)
during the period 1 June 2005 through 31 March 2011. All proceedings have been stayed through at least May 2015.
In addition, BBPLC has been granted conditional leniency from the DOJ-AD in connection with potential US antitrust law violations with respect to
financial instruments that reference EURIBOR. As a result of that grant of conditional leniency, BBPLC is eligible for (i) a limit on liability to actual
rather than treble damages if damages were to be awarded in any civil antitrust action under US antitrust law based on conduct covered by the
conditional leniency, and (ii) relief from potential joint-and-several liability in connection with such civil antitrust action, subject to BBPLC
satisfying the DOJ-AD and the court presiding over the civil litigation of fulfilment of its cooperation obligations.
Non-US Benchmarks Cases
In addition to US actions, legal proceedings have been brought or threatened against the Group in connection with alleged manipulation of LIBOR
and EURIBOR in a number of jurisdictions. The number of such proceedings in non-US jurisdictions, the benchmarks to which they relate, and the
jurisdictions in which they may be brought have increased over time.
Claimed Amounts/Financial Impact
It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what effect, if any, that they
might have upon the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position in any particular period.
Civil Actions in respect of ISDAfix
Since September 2014, a number of ISDAfix related civil actions have been filed in the SDNY on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, alleging that
BBPLC, a number of other banks and one broker, violated the US Sherman Antitrust Act and several state laws by engaging in a conspiracy to
manipulate the USD ISDAfix. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in mid-February 2015. Pursuant to a schedule issued by the court, the
defendants, including BBPLC, will move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
Claimed Amounts/Financial Impact
It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what effect, if any, that they
might have upon the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position in any particular period.
Civil Actions in respect of Foreign Exchange Trading
Since November 2013, a number of civil actions have been filed in the SDNY on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of
Foreign Exchange markets under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and New York state law and naming several international banks as defendants,
including BBPLC. The SDNY before whom all the cases are pending, has combined all actions alleging a class of US persons in a single
consolidated action. The two actions alleging classes of non-US persons were dismissed on 28 January 2015.
Recent Developments
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated action was denied on 28 January 2015. The next step in the proceeding is discovery, which is
presently stayed.
Claimed Amounts/Financial Impact
The financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what effect, if any, that they might have upon the Group’s operating results, cash
flows or financial position in any particular period is currently uncertain.
Civil Actions in respect of the Gold Fix
Since March 2014, a number of civil complaints have been filed in US federal courts, each on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, alleging that
Barclays entities and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold and gold derivative contracts in
violation of the CEA, the US Sherman Antitrust Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. All of the complaints have been transferred
to the SDNY and consolidated for pretrial purposes.