Barclays 2015 Annual Report Download - page 309

home.barclays/annualreport Barclays PLC Annual Report 2015 I 307
29 Legal, competition and regulatory matters continued
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. In October 2015, the class action was settled for $94m subject to court approval. The settlement has
been preliminarily approved by the court but remains subject to final approval.
Securities Fraud Case in the SDNY
BPLC, BBPLC and BCI were also named as defendants along with four former officers and directors of BBPLC in a securities class action in the SDNY
in connection with BBPLC’s role as a contributor panel bank to LIBOR. The complaint principally alleged that BBPLC’s Annual Reports for the years
2006 to 2011 contained misstatements and omissions and that BBPLC’s daily USD LIBOR submissions constituted false statements in violation of US
securities law. In November 2015, the class action was settled for $14m. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court but remains
subject to final approval.
Additional USD LIBOR Case in the SDNY
An additional individual action was commenced in February 2013 in the SDNY against BBPLC and other panel bank defendants. The plaintiff alleged
that the panel bank defendants conspired to increase USD LIBOR, which caused the value of bonds pledged as collateral for a loan to decrease,
ultimately resulting in the sale of the bonds at a low point in the market. The panel bank defendants moved to dismiss the action, and the motion
was granted in April 2015. In June 2015, the plaintiff sought leave to file a further amended complaint; that motion is pending.
Sterling LIBOR Cases in SDNY
In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the SDNY against BBPLC and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in
exchange-traded and over-the-counter derivatives that were linked to Sterling LIBOR. The complaint alleges, among other things, that BBPLC and
other panel banks manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate between 2005 and 2010 and, in so doing, committed CEA, antitrust, and RICO violations.
Proceedings are ongoing.
In January 2016, an additional putative class action concerning Sterling LIBOR was commenced in the SDNY against BBPLC and BCI, as well as other
Sterling LIBOR panel banks. This additional class action similarly alleges manipulation of the Sterling LIBOR rate between 2005 and 2010, and asserts
claims for violations of the CEA, antitrust, and RICO statutes, as well as common law violations. Proceedings are ongoing.
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 names 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 judgment 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.
Japanese Yen LIBOR Case in SDNY
A 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. In March 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s
antitrust claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff’s CEA claims. The plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended complaint adding additional
claims, including a RICO claim, which was denied in March 2015. The Plaintiff has sought an immediate appeal of that decision, and that request is
pending. Discovery is continuing.
In July 2015, a second class action concerning Yen LIBOR was filed in the SDNY against BPLC, BBPLC and BCI. The complaint names members of the
Yen LIBOR panel, the Euroyen TIBOR panel, and certain of their affiliates and brokers. The complaint alleges breaches of the US Sherman Antitrust
Act and RICO between 2006 and 2010 based on factual allegations that are substantially similar to those in the April 2012 class action.
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
Aside from the settlements discussed above, it is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on
the Group or what effect they might have on the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position in any particular period.
The Strategic Report Governance Risk review Financial review Financial statements Shareholder information