Amanda Staveley loses High Court fight with Barclays over damages




  • In Business
  • 2021-02-26 12:57:28Z
  • By BBC
Amanda Staveley
Amanda Staveley  

A businesswoman who sued Barclays for hundreds of millions of pounds has lost her High Court battle.

Amanda Staveley, 47, said her private equity firm, PCP Capital, was owed money for work during the financial crisis.

Barclays raised billions of pounds during the crisis from Middle East backers, helping it avoid a UK government bailout.

The court also heard about complaints about the behaviour of bank bosses.

Barclays welcomed the decision, but Ms Staveley said immediately after the ruling that she was considering an appeal.

She said: "In spite of Barclays' efforts to question my character and credentials, the court has recognised my abilities as a businesswoman and the truth of my account of events.

"The judgment confirms what I have said from the outset and repeated in my evidence; a senior executive at Barclays repeatedly lied to me when seeking private investment in the bank during the 2008 financial crisis.

"The evidence at trial was clear and unequivocal; PCP was an investor in the transaction and played an integral role in the capital raising, which ultimately prevented the bank from being nationalised."

  • Ex-Barclays banker's sexist remarks disclosed

  • Ex-Barclays bankers call female boss a 'dolly bird'

She added that she would be "taking advice on appealing the judge's decision not to award damages."

The financier had claimed Barclays concealed the terms of its complex fundraising, rather than disclose them to the financial markets as was required.

'Reliable evidence'

However, Mr Justice Waksman, who heard evidence at a trial in London during the summer of 2020, said her claim "as a whole must fail".

He did, though, praise Ms Staveley's character, describing her as "the driving force of PCP" and as a "tough, clever and creative entrepreneur".

The judge said: "Barclays contends that, in general, Ms Staveley was thoroughly unreliable, her evidence was inconsistent with documents, she had a flawed recollection and she was guilty of 'obvious embellishment and invention'.

"I do not accept that as a general characterisation so that she was essentially an untruthful or unreliable witness."

He added: "I thought that, for the most part, her evidence was reliable."

PCP's lawyers had told the judge that an initial damages claim was for a sum between £1.6bn and £400m. But that was scaled back over the course of the trial to amounts between around £830m and around £600m.

COMMENTS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Business