This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+241014
Categories:Investments

Barclays workers denied anonymity in Libor lawsuit

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Royal Court of Justice High Court 480

The High Court has dismissed a bid by 106 current and former Barclays staff to remain anonymous in a lawsuit over Libor manipulation.

According to the Financial Times, the request was made in the trial brought by Guardian Care Homes against Barclays, which was fined £290m in June for rigging the financial benchmark.

Guardian Care Homes is suing the bank for £38m for misselling complex interest rate derivatives.

In November, reports revealed Mr Justice Julian Flaux forced Barclays to hand over the names of 208 staff linked to attempts to manipulate Libor to Guardian’s legal team.

The FT says lawyers representing the Barclays workers yesterday asked the judge to prevent their names form being published, claiming it would be unfair for the media to name them after the FSA and US regulators chose not to identify them.

The lawyers also argued there could be potential prejudice to individuals over potential future criminal or regulatory proceedings.

Four media outlets, including the FT, opposed the application and Mr Justice Julian Flaux ruled the individuals involved should be named in open court.

The case is expected to come to trial in October.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (11)

  • Why did the the FSA not name them? and if some of them are still current employees, then Why?

    Why are Bank Employees allowed to commit fraud and not even be named never mind prosecuted and sacked?

    Is there are any connection with the former Chief of the FSA joining Barclays on a huge salary? I think we should be told.

    It does smell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Are you ready for this? " Barclays, after a thorough review of it`s operations regarding the LIBOR incident have put in place an eminently well qualified senior compliance Director to make sure this kind of thing does not happen again.".......................... we hope.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps by naming these people it will prevent them moving to other well paid jobs throughout the industry.

    Maybe they are members of the exclusive club we are told will leave the country if we do not pay them massive salaries and bonuses. Maybe they will not be able to leave the country when the trial finishes!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the reported 106 have been implicated why has the FSA not taken action to remove them pending investigation. They should have their permissions removed until the outcome of the trial. Those found guilty should feel the full ofrce of the law and take whatever is due. Those found not guilty should never be allowed to work in this industry again unless there is clear evidence they were totally innocent of any acts(s) to do with it or can prove they had no knowledge of (and due to their position would be deemed not to have ben in a position where they "should have been aaware of it"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes, they should be named and shamed. But only if the guilty from UBS, HSBC, RBS and all the rest are named as well.
    Therefore, when applying for other positions, having been 'let go' by their employers, the information is in the public domain for future employers, so they can get a handle on the honesty and ethics of a candadate.
    I am sure a number will claim 'everyone was at it, so I just followed the crowd' but that's like claiming you should not be penalised for doing 90mph on a motorway when you got caught speeding, just because others got away with similar speeds.
    The guilty are those who manipulated the rate, their line and department managers. All should be named and shamed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is clear about LIBOR and also PPI is that the regulator needs to change its attitude entirely with regards to how it regulates banks and building societies. For too long banks have felt themselves to be above the law and this is only reinforced by the failure of the regulator to prosecute individuals for clear financial fraud.

    The whole culture within banks and building societies needs to change and personal responsibility needs to be fundamental to the organisation. Whether you work as a cashier or investment banker you should have the right to blow the whistle on anything you feel is wrong without the fear of losing your job. Those individuals who are found to be doing things wrong should be disciplined not only under company and regulator rules but if necessary in the criminal courts.

    This is the only way of ensuring that the dreadful mistakes of the past are not repeated. Banks should be the servant of the general public and the public should never again have to suffer from the reckless behaviour of what is meant to be great organisations. I’m always reminded of a comment from US President Kennedy “once said those tyrants who ride on the backs of the Tiger should be wary not to end up inside that same Tiger”.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • leaves a bad taste in the mouth that we the IFA community are involved in the FS industry. The regulators will never prosecute. The City of London is the worlds centre now for financial corruption.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Marty

    Why not just set aside the rule of law completely and then arrest and imprison whoever didn't look right, that would be fun.

    I suspect if the FSA turned up and said you were out of business until you could prove you weren't a danger to the public there would be a hint of complaint about unaccountable and uncontrolled authority and that you have rights...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To Grey Area

    Isn’t that exactly the treatment that is metered out to many IFA’s and brokers! I am not for one iota defending those who have done things wrong but it would be nice to have a level playing field in financial services as many IFA’s and brokers have been disqualified, fined and indeed prosecuted for doing things wrong. The level of wrongdoing within banks should have almost seen some of them lose their banking license.

    Until regulators and indeed the criminal courts take stronger action against organisations and individuals caught doing things that are fraudulent then nothing will change.

    Are you really defending PPI and LIBOR Mr Gray Area as I would say this is a simple case of black-and-white with no grey areas

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Peter Herd on this. As far as I can see there are measures already in place to deal with this issues there just seems to be a reluctance to apply them to the Banks and their staff but a readiness to apply them to IFAs.

    Of course PPI was appropriate to some people but there was undoubtedly a large number of people to whom it was sold for whom it was inappropriate hence the fines and the compensation when the FSA finally got round to dealing with this issue. However. no individual accountability. Libor was just outright fraud, but again no individual accountability. FSA reluctance to apply the rules to the people who would be offering them jobs!

    Yes something does smell, in fact it stinks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Should Sesame unwind the 'pay to play' deals it set up as part of its restricted advice panel?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments