Legal, competition and regulatory matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
26. Legal, competition and regulatory matters
Legal, competition and regulatory matters	26 Legal, competition and regulatory matters Members of the Group face legal, competition and regulatory challenges, many of which are beyond our control. The extent of the impact of these matters cannot always be predicted but may materially impact our operations, financial results, condition and prospects. Matters arising from a set of similar circumstances can give rise to either a contingent liability or a provision, or both, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. The recognition of provisions in relation to such matters involves critical accounting estimates and judgments in accordance with the relevant accounting policies as described in Note 24, Provisions. We have not disclosed an estimate of the potential financial impact or effect on the Group of contingent liabilities where it is not currently practicable to do so. Various matters detailed in this note seek damages of an unspecified amount. While certain matters specify the damages claimed, such claimed amounts do not necessarily reflect the Group’s potential financial exposure in respect of those matters. Matters are ordered under headings corresponding to the financial statements in which they are disclosed. 1.Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC Investigations into certain advisory services agreements and other matters and civil action FCA proceedings In 2008, Barclays Bank PLC and Qatar Holdings LLC entered into two advisory service agreements (the Agreements). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is conducting an investigation into whether the Agreements may have related to Barclays PLC’s capital raisings in June and November 2008 (the Capital Raisings) and therefore should have been disclosed in the announcements or public documents relating to the Capital Raisings. In 2013, the FCA issued warning notices (the Notices) finding that Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC acted recklessly and in breach of certain disclosure-related listing rules, and that Barclays PLC was also in breach of Listing Principle 3. The financial penalty provided in the Notices is £50m. Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC continue to contest the findings. The FCA action has been stayed due to the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) proceedings pending against certain former Barclays executives. All charges brought by the SFO against Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC in relation to the Agreements were dismissed in 2018. Civil action PCP Capital Partners LLP and PCP International Finance Limited (PCP) are seeking damages of approximately £1.6bn from Barclays Bank PLC for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, arising from alleged statements made by Barclays Bank PLC to PCP in relation to the terms on which securities were to be issued to potential investors, allegedly including PCP, in the November 2008 capital raising. Barclays Bank PLC is defending the claim and trial is scheduled to commence in June 2020. Investigation into historic hiring practices In 2019, Barclays PLC reached a settlement of $6.4m with the US Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) in relation to certain of its hiring practices in Asia, resolving this matter. Investigations into LIBOR and other benchmarks and related civil actions Regulators and law enforcement agencies, including certain competition authorities, from a number of governments have been conducting investigations relating to Barclays Bank PLC’s involvement in allegedly manipulating certain financial benchmarks, such as LIBOR. The SFO has closed its investigation with no action to be taken against the Group. Various individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and other banks in relation to the alleged manipulation of LIBOR and/or other benchmarks. Certain actions remain pending. USD LIBOR civil actions The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other things, that Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other financial institutions individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates. Putative class actions and individual actions seek unspecified damages with the exception of five lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in excess of $1.25bn in actual damages and additional punitive damages against all defendants, including Barclays Bank PLC. Some of the lawsuits also seek trebling of damages under the Antitrust Act and RICO. Barclays has previously settled certain claims. Two of the class action settlements where Barclays has paid $20m and $7.1m, respectively, remain subject to final court approval and/or the right of class members to opt out of the settlement to file their own claims. Sterling LIBOR civil actions In 2016, two putative class actions filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate in violation of the Antitrust Act, CEA and RICO, were consolidated. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims was granted in December 2018. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Japanese Yen LIBOR civil actions In 2012, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a lead plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives and members of the Japanese Bankers Association’s Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel. The complaint alleges, among other things, manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and the Antitrust Act. In 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s antitrust claims in full, but the plaintiff’s CEA claims remain pending. In 2015, a second putative class action, making similar allegations to the above class action, was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI. In 2017, this action was dismissed in full and the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. SIBOR/SOR civil action In 2016, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants, alleging manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR). In October 2018, the court dismissed all claims against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. ICE LIBOR civil actions In 2019, several putative class actions have been filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, other financial institution defendants and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and certain of its affiliates (ICE), asserting antitrust claims that defendants manipulated USD LIBOR through defendants’ submissions to ICE. These actions have been consolidated. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Non-US benchmarks civil actions Legal proceedings (which include the claims referred to below in ‘Local authority civil actions concerning LIBOR’) have been brought or threatened against Barclays Bank PLC (and, in certain cases, Barclays Bank UK PLC) in the UK in connection with alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other benchmarks. Proceedings have also been brought in a number of other jurisdictions in Europe and Israel. Additional proceedings in other jurisdictions may be brought in the future. Foreign Exchange investigations and related civil actions In 2015, the Group reached settlements totalling approximately $2.38bn with various US federal and state authorities and the FCA in relation to investigations into certain sales and trading practices in the Foreign Exchange market. Under the related plea agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ), which received final court approval in January 2017, the Group agreed to a term of probation of three years. The Group also continues to provide relevant information to certain authorities. The European Commission is one of a number of authorities still conducting an investigation into certain trading practices in Foreign Exchange markets. The European Commission announced two settlements in May 2019 and the Group paid penalties totalling approximately €210m. In June 2019, the Swiss Competition Commission announced two settlements and the Group paid penalties totalling approximately CHF 27m. The financial impact of the ongoing matters is not expected to be material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions have also threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and other banks in relation to alleged manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets, and may do so in the future. Certain actions remain pending. FX opt out civil action In 2018, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI settled a consolidated action filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets (Consolidated FX Action), for a total amount of $384m. Also in 2018, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the Consolidated FX Action filed a complaint in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants. Retail basis civil action In 2015, a putative class action was filed against several international banks, including Barclays PLC and BCI, on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who exchanged currencies on a retail basis at bank branches (Retail Basis Claims). The SDNY has ruled that the Retail Basis Claims are not covered by the settlement agreement in the Consolidated FX Action. The Court subsequently dismissed all Retail Basis Claims against the Group and all other defendants. The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. State law FX civil action In 2017, the SDNY dismissed consolidated putative class actions brought under federal and various state laws on behalf of proposed classes of (i) stockholders of Exchange Traded Funds and others who purportedly were indirect investors in FX instruments, and (ii) investors who traded FX instruments through FX dealers or brokers not alleged to have manipulated Foreign Exchange Rates. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint as to their state law claims is pending. Non-US FX civil actions In addition to the actions described above, legal proceedings have been brought or are threatened against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and Barclays Execution Services Limited (BX) in connection with alleged manipulation of Foreign Exchange in the UK, a number of other jurisdictions in Europe, Israel and Australia and additional proceedings may be brought in the future. Metals investigations and related civil actions Barclays Bank PLC previously provided information to the DoJ, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other authorities in connection with investigations into metals and metals-based financial instruments. A number of US civil complaints, each on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, have been consolidated and transferred to the SDNY. The complaints allege that Barclays Bank PLC and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold and gold derivative contracts in violation of US antitrust and other federal laws. This consolidated putative class action remains pending. A separate US civil complaint by a proposed class of plaintiffs against a number of banks, including Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and BX (formerly, Barclays Capital Services Limited), alleging manipulation of the price of silver in violation of the CEA, the Antitrust Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, has been dismissed as against the Barclays entities. The plaintiffs have the option to seek the court’s permission to appeal. Civil actions have also been filed in Canadian courts against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Canada Inc. and BCI on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of gold and silver prices. US residential mortgage related civil actions There are various pending civil actions relating to US Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS), including four actions arising from unresolved repurchase requests submitted by Trustees for certain RMBS, alleging breaches of various loan-level representations and warranties (R&Ws) made by Barclays Bank PLC and/or a subsidiary acquired in 2007 (the Acquired Subsidiary). The unresolved repurchase requests received as at 31 December 2019 had an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $2.1bn. The Trustees have also alleged that the relevant R&Ws may have been breached with respect to a greater (but unspecified) amount of loans than previously stated in the unresolved repurchase requests. These repurchase actions are ongoing. In one repurchase action, the New York Court of Appeals held that claims related to certain R&Ws are time-barred. Barclays Bank PLC has reached a settlement to resolve two of the repurchase actions, which is subject to final court approval. The financial impact of the settlement is not expected to be material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. The remaining two repurchase actions are pending. Government and agency securities civil actions and related matters Certain governmental authorities are conducting investigations into activities relating to the trading of certain government and agency securities in various markets. The Group provided information in cooperation with such investigations. Civil actions have also been filed on the basis of similar allegations, as described below. Treasury auction securities civil actions Consolidated putative class action complaints filed in US federal court against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions under the Antitrust Act and state common law allege that the defendants (i) conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities market and/or (ii) conspired to prevent the creation of certain platforms by boycotting or threatening to boycott such trading platforms. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In addition, certain plaintiffs have filed a related, direct action against BCI and certain other financial institutions, alleging that defendants conspired to fix and manipulate the US Treasury securities market in violation of the Antitrust Act, the CEA and state common law. Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds civil actions Civil antitrust actions have been filed in the SDNY and Federal Court of Canada in Toronto against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, BX (formerly, Barclays Services Limited), Barclays Capital Securities Limited and, with respect to the civil action filed in Canada only, Barclays Capital Canada, Inc. and other financial institutions alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for US dollar-denominated Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds. In one of the actions filed in the SDNY, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with respect to Barclays Bank PLC and certain Group entities. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss those plaintiffs’ remaining claims against BCI. The remaining action filed in the SDNY is stayed. Variable Rate Demand Obligations civil actions Civil actions have been filed against Barclays Bank PLC and BCI and other financial institutions alleging the defendants conspired or colluded to artificially inflate interest rates set for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs). VRDOs are municipal bonds with interest rates that reset on a periodic basis, most commonly weekly. Two actions in state court have been filed by private plaintiffs on behalf of the states of Illinois and California. Two putative class action complaints, which have been consolidated, have been filed in the SDNY. Government bond civil actions In a putative class action filed in the SDNY in 2019, plaintiffs alleged that BCI and certain other bond dealers conspired to fix the prices of US government sponsored entity bonds in violation of US antitrust law. BCI has agreed a settlement of $87m, subject to court approval. In 2019, the Louisiana Attorney General and the City of Baton Rouge each filed a complaint against Barclays Bank PLC and other financial institutions making similar allegations as the class action plaintiffs. In 2018, a separate putative class action against various financial institutions including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, Barclays Bank Mexico, S.A., and certain other subsidiaries of the Group was consolidated in the SDNY. The plaintiffs asserted antitrust and state law claims arising out of an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of Mexican Government bonds. Barclays PLC has settled the claim, subject to court approval. The financial impact of the settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. BDC Finance L.L.C. In 2008, BDC Finance L.L.C. (BDC) filed a complaint in the NY Supreme Court, demanding damages of $298m, alleging that Barclays Bank PLC had breached a contract in connection with a portfolio of total return swaps governed by an ISDA Master Agreement (collectively, the Agreement). Following a trial on certain liability issues, the court ruled in December 2018 that Barclays Bank PLC was not a defaulting party, which was affirmed on appeal. In 2011, BDC’s investment advisor, BDCM Fund Adviser, L.L.C. and its parent company, Black Diamond Capital Holdings, L.L.C. also sued Barclays Bank PLC and BCI in Connecticut State Court for unspecified damages allegedly resulting from Barclays Bank PLC’s conduct relating to the Agreement, asserting claims for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and tortious interference with business and prospective business relations. This case is currently stayed. Civil actions in respect of the US Anti-Terrorism Act There are a number of civil actions, on behalf of more than 4,000 plaintiffs, filed in US federal courts in the US District Court in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) and SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and a number of other banks. The complaints generally allege that Barclays Bank PLC and those banks engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate US dollar-denominated transactions for the Government of Iran and various Iranian banks, which in turn funded acts of terrorism that injured or killed plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ family members. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for pain, suffering and mental anguish under the provisions of the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which allow for the trebling of any proven damages. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss one action in the EDNY, and plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The defendants have moved to dismiss two other EDNY actions. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss another action in the SDNY, but the plaintiffs have moved to file an amended complaint. The remaining actions are stayed pending decisions in these cases. Interest rate swap and credit default swap US civil actions Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, together with other financial institutions that act as market makers for interest rate swaps (IRS) are named as defendants in several antitrust class actions which were consolidated in the SDNY in 2016. The complaints allege the defendants conspired to prevent the development of exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages. In 2018, trueEX LLC filed an antitrust class action in the SDNY against a number of financial institutions including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI based on similar allegations with respect to trueEX LLC’s development of an IRS platform. In 2017, Tera Group Inc. filed a separate civil antitrust action in the SDNY claiming that certain conduct alleged in the IRS cases also caused the plaintiff to suffer harm with respect to the Credit Default Swaps market. In November 2018 and July 2019, respectively, the court dismissed certain claims in both cases for unjust enrichment and tortious interference but denied motions to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, which remain pending. Portuguese Competition Authority investigation The Portuguese Competition Authority found that a subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC and other banks violated competition law by exchanging information about retail credit products relating to mortgages, consumer lending and lending to small and medium enterprises. The Group applied for immunity and received no fine. 2.Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Bank UK PLC Investigation into collections and recoveries relating to unsecured lending Since February 2018, the FCA has been investigating whether the Group implemented effective systems and controls with respect to collections and recoveries and whether it paid due consideration to the interests of customers in default and arrears. The FCA investigation is at an advanced stage. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) assessments concerning UK Value Added Tax In 2018, HMRC issued notices that have the effect of removing certain overseas subsidiaries that have operations in the UK from Barclays’ UK VAT group, in which group supplies between members are generally free from VAT. The notices have retrospective effect and correspond to assessments of £181m (inclusive of interest), of which Barclays would expect to attribute an amount of approximately £128m to Barclays Bank UK PLC and £53m to Barclays Bank PLC. HMRC’s decision has been appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber). Local authority civil actions concerning LIBOR Following settlement by Barclays Bank PLC of various governmental investigations concerning certain benchmark interest rate submissions referred to above in ‘Investigations into LIBOR and other benchmarks and related civil actions’, in the UK, certain local authorities have brought claims against Barclays Bank PLC (and, in certain cases, Barclays Bank UK PLC) asserting that they entered into loans in reliance on misrepresentations made by Barclays Bank PLC in respect of its conduct in relation to LIBOR. Barclays has applied to strike out the claims. General The Group is engaged in various other legal, competition and regulatory matters in the UK, the US and a number of other overseas jurisdictions. It is subject to legal proceedings brought by and against the Group which arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time, including (but not limited to) disputes in relation to contracts, securities, debt collection, consumer credit, fraud, trusts, client assets, competition, data management and protection, money laundering, financial crime, employment, environmental and other statutory and common law issues. The Group is also subject to enquiries and examinations, requests for information, audits, investigations and legal and other proceedings by regulators, governmental and other public bodies in connection with (but not limited to) consumer protection measures, compliance with legislation and regulation, wholesale trading activity and other areas of banking and business activities in which the Group is or has been engaged. The Group is cooperating with the relevant authorities and keeping all relevant agencies briefed as appropriate in relation to these matters and others described in this note on an ongoing basis. At the present time, Barclays PLC does not expect the ultimate resolution of any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial position. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters and the matters specifically described in this note, there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter or matters (including formerly active matters or those matters arising after the date of this note) will not be material to Barclays PLC’s results, operations or cash flow for a particular period, depending on, among other things, the amount of the loss resulting from the matter(s) and the amount of profit otherwise reported for the reporting period.

26 Legal, competition and regulatory matters

Members of the Group face legal, competition and regulatory challenges, many of which are beyond our control. The extent of the impact of these matters cannot always be predicted but may materially impact our operations, financial results, condition and prospects. Matters arising from a set of similar circumstances can give rise to either a contingent liability or a provision, or both, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances.

The recognition of provisions in relation to such matters involves critical accounting estimates and judgments in accordance with the relevant accounting policies as described in Note 24, Provisions. We have not disclosed an estimate of the potential financial impact or effect on the Group of contingent liabilities where it is not currently practicable to do so. Various matters detailed in this note seek damages of an unspecified amount. While certain matters specify the damages claimed, such claimed amounts do not necessarily reflect the Group’s potential financial exposure in respect of those matters.

Matters are ordered under headings corresponding to the financial statements in which they are disclosed.

1.Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC

Investigations into certain advisory services agreements and other matters and civil action

FCA proceedings

In 2008, Barclays Bank PLC and Qatar Holdings LLC entered into two advisory service agreements (the Agreements). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is conducting an investigation into whether the Agreements may have related to Barclays PLC’s capital raisings in June and November 2008 (the Capital Raisings) and therefore should have been disclosed in the announcements or public documents relating to the Capital Raisings. In 2013, the FCA issued warning notices (the Notices) finding that Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC acted recklessly and in breach of certain disclosure-related listing rules, and that Barclays PLC was also in breach of Listing Principle 3. The financial penalty provided in the Notices is £50m. Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC continue to contest the findings. The FCA action has been stayed due to the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) proceedings pending against certain former Barclays executives. All charges brought by the SFO against Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC in relation to the Agreements were dismissed in 2018.

Civil action

PCP Capital Partners LLP and PCP International Finance Limited (PCP) are seeking damages of approximately £1.6bn from Barclays Bank PLC for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, arising from alleged statements made by Barclays Bank PLC to PCP in relation to the terms on which securities were to be issued to potential investors, allegedly including PCP, in the November 2008 capital raising. Barclays Bank PLC is defending the claim and trial is scheduled to commence in June 2020.

Investigation into historic hiring practices

In 2019, Barclays PLC reached a settlement of $6.4m with the US Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) in relation to certain of its hiring practices in Asia, resolving this matter.

Investigations into LIBOR and other benchmarks and related civil actions

Regulators and law enforcement agencies, including certain competition authorities, from a number of governments have been conducting investigations relating to Barclays Bank PLC’s involvement in allegedly manipulating certain financial benchmarks, such as LIBOR. The SFO has closed its investigation with no action to be taken against the Group. Various individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and other banks in relation to the alleged manipulation of LIBOR and/or other benchmarks. Certain actions remain pending.

USD LIBOR civil actions

The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other things, that Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other financial institutions individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates.

Putative class actions and individual actions seek unspecified damages with the exception of five lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in excess of $1.25bn in actual damages and additional punitive damages against all defendants, including Barclays Bank PLC. Some of the lawsuits also seek trebling of damages under the Antitrust Act and RICO. Barclays has previously settled certain claims. Two of the class action settlements where Barclays has paid $20m and $7.1m, respectively, remain subject to final court approval and/or the right of class members to opt out of the settlement to file their own claims.

Sterling LIBOR civil actions

In 2016, two putative class actions filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate in violation of the Antitrust Act, CEA and RICO, were consolidated. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims was granted in December 2018. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Japanese Yen LIBOR civil actions

In 2012, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a lead plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives and members of the Japanese Bankers Association’s Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel. The complaint alleges, among other things, manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and the Antitrust Act. In 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s antitrust claims in full, but the plaintiff’s CEA claims remain pending.

In 2015, a second putative class action, making similar allegations to the above class action, was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI. In 2017, this action was dismissed in full and the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

SIBOR/SOR civil action

In 2016, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants, alleging manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR). In October 2018, the court dismissed all claims against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

ICE LIBOR civil actions

In 2019, several putative class actions have been filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, other financial institution defendants and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and certain of its affiliates (ICE), asserting antitrust claims that defendants manipulated USD LIBOR through defendants’ submissions to ICE. These actions have been consolidated. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

Non-US benchmarks civil actions

Legal proceedings (which include the claims referred to below in ‘Local authority civil actions concerning LIBOR’) have been brought or threatened against Barclays Bank PLC (and, in certain cases, Barclays Bank UK PLC) in the UK in connection with alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other benchmarks. Proceedings have also been brought in a number of other jurisdictions in Europe and Israel. Additional proceedings in other jurisdictions may be brought in the future.

Foreign Exchange investigations and related civil actions

In 2015, the Group reached settlements totalling approximately $2.38bn with various US federal and state authorities and the FCA in relation to investigations into certain sales and trading practices in the Foreign Exchange market. Under the related plea agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ), which received final court approval in January 2017, the Group agreed to a term of probation of three years. The Group also continues to provide relevant information to certain authorities.

The European Commission is one of a number of authorities still conducting an investigation into certain trading practices in Foreign Exchange markets. The European Commission announced two settlements in May 2019 and the Group paid penalties totalling approximately €210m. In June 2019, the Swiss Competition Commission announced two settlements and the Group paid penalties totalling approximately CHF 27m. The financial impact of the ongoing matters is not expected to be material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position.

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions have also threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and other banks in relation to alleged manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets, and may do so in the future. Certain actions remain pending.

FX opt out civil action

In 2018, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI settled a consolidated action filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets (Consolidated FX Action), for a total amount of $384m. Also in 2018, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the Consolidated FX Action filed a complaint in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants.

Retail basis civil action

In 2015, a putative class action was filed against several international banks, including Barclays PLC and BCI, on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who exchanged currencies on a retail basis at bank branches (Retail Basis Claims). The SDNY has ruled that the Retail Basis Claims are not covered by the settlement agreement in the Consolidated FX Action. The Court subsequently dismissed all Retail Basis Claims against the Group and all other defendants. The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.

State law FX civil action

In 2017, the SDNY dismissed consolidated putative class actions brought under federal and various state laws on behalf of proposed classes of (i) stockholders of Exchange Traded Funds and others who purportedly were indirect investors in FX instruments, and (ii) investors who traded FX instruments through FX dealers or brokers not alleged to have manipulated Foreign Exchange Rates. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint as to their state law claims is pending.

Non-US FX civil actions

In addition to the actions described above, legal proceedings have been brought or are threatened against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and Barclays Execution Services Limited (BX) in connection with alleged manipulation of Foreign Exchange in the UK, a number of other jurisdictions in Europe, Israel and Australia and additional proceedings may be brought in the future.

Metals investigations and related civil actions

Barclays Bank PLC previously provided information to the DoJ, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other authorities in connection with investigations into metals and metals-based financial instruments.

A number of US civil complaints, each on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs, have been consolidated and transferred to the SDNY. The complaints allege that Barclays Bank PLC and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold and gold derivative contracts in violation of US antitrust and other federal laws. This consolidated putative class action remains pending. A separate US civil complaint by a proposed class of plaintiffs against a number of banks, including Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and BX (formerly, Barclays Capital Services Limited), alleging manipulation of the price of silver in violation of the CEA, the Antitrust Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, has been dismissed as against the Barclays entities. The plaintiffs have the option to seek the court’s permission to appeal.

Civil actions have also been filed in Canadian courts against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Canada Inc. and BCI on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of gold and silver prices.

US residential mortgage related civil actions

There are various pending civil actions relating to US Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS), including four actions arising from unresolved repurchase requests submitted by Trustees for certain RMBS, alleging breaches of various loan-level representations and warranties (R&Ws) made by Barclays Bank PLC and/or a subsidiary acquired in 2007 (the Acquired Subsidiary). The unresolved repurchase requests received as at 31 December 2019 had an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $2.1bn. The Trustees have also alleged that the relevant R&Ws may have been breached with respect to a greater (but unspecified) amount of loans than previously stated in the unresolved repurchase requests.

These repurchase actions are ongoing. In one repurchase action, the New York Court of Appeals held that claims related to certain R&Ws are time-barred. Barclays Bank PLC has reached a settlement to resolve two of the repurchase actions, which is subject to final court approval. The financial impact of the settlement is not expected to be material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. The remaining two repurchase actions are pending.

Government and agency securities civil actions and related matters

Certain governmental authorities are conducting investigations into activities relating to the trading of certain government and agency securities in various markets. The Group provided information in cooperation with such investigations. Civil actions have also been filed on the basis of similar allegations, as described below.

Treasury auction securities civil actions

Consolidated putative class action complaints filed in US federal court against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions under the Antitrust Act and state common law allege that the defendants (i) conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities market and/or (ii) conspired to prevent the creation of certain platforms by boycotting or threatening to boycott such trading platforms. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

In addition, certain plaintiffs have filed a related, direct action against BCI and certain other financial institutions, alleging that defendants conspired to fix and manipulate the US Treasury securities market in violation of the Antitrust Act, the CEA and state common law.

Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds civil actions

Civil antitrust actions have been filed in the SDNY and Federal Court of Canada in Toronto against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, BX (formerly, Barclays Services Limited), Barclays Capital Securities Limited and, with respect to the civil action filed in Canada only, Barclays Capital Canada, Inc. and other financial institutions alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for US dollar-denominated Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds.

In one of the actions filed in the SDNY, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with respect to Barclays Bank PLC and certain Group entities. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss those plaintiffs’ remaining claims against BCI. The remaining action filed in the SDNY is stayed.

Variable Rate Demand Obligations civil actions

Civil actions have been filed against Barclays Bank PLC and BCI and other financial institutions alleging the defendants conspired or colluded to artificially inflate interest rates set for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs). VRDOs are municipal bonds with interest rates that reset on a periodic basis, most commonly weekly. Two actions in state court have been filed by private plaintiffs on behalf of the states of Illinois and California. Two putative class action complaints, which have been consolidated, have been filed in the SDNY.

Government bond civil actions

In a putative class action filed in the SDNY in 2019, plaintiffs alleged that BCI and certain other bond dealers conspired to fix the prices of US government sponsored entity bonds in violation of US antitrust law. BCI has agreed a settlement of $87m, subject to court approval. In 2019, the Louisiana Attorney General and the City of Baton Rouge each filed a complaint against Barclays Bank PLC and other financial institutions making similar allegations as the class action plaintiffs.

In 2018, a separate putative class action against various financial institutions including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, Barclays Bank Mexico, S.A., and certain other subsidiaries of the Group was consolidated in the SDNY. The plaintiffs asserted antitrust and state law claims arising out of an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of Mexican Government bonds. Barclays PLC has settled the claim, subject to court approval. The financial impact of the settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position.

BDC Finance L.L.C.

In 2008, BDC Finance L.L.C. (BDC) filed a complaint in the NY Supreme Court, demanding damages of $298m, alleging that Barclays Bank PLC had breached a contract in connection with a portfolio of total return swaps governed by an ISDA Master Agreement (collectively, the Agreement). Following a trial on certain liability issues, the court ruled in December 2018 that Barclays Bank PLC was not a defaulting party, which was affirmed on appeal.

In 2011, BDC’s investment advisor, BDCM Fund Adviser, L.L.C. and its parent company, Black Diamond Capital Holdings, L.L.C. also sued Barclays Bank PLC and BCI in Connecticut State Court for unspecified damages allegedly resulting from Barclays Bank PLC’s conduct relating to the Agreement, asserting claims for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and tortious interference with business and prospective business relations. This case is currently stayed.

Civil actions in respect of the US Anti-Terrorism Act

There are a number of civil actions, on behalf of more than 4,000 plaintiffs, filed in US federal courts in the US District Court in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) and SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and a number of other banks. The complaints generally allege that Barclays Bank PLC and those banks engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate US dollar-denominated transactions for the Government of Iran and various Iranian banks, which in turn funded acts of terrorism that injured or killed plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ family members. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for pain, suffering and mental anguish under the provisions of the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which allow for the trebling of any proven damages.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss one action in the EDNY, and plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The defendants have moved to dismiss two other EDNY actions. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss another action in the SDNY, but the plaintiffs have moved to file an amended complaint. The remaining actions are stayed pending decisions in these cases.

Interest rate swap and credit default swap US civil actions

Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, together with other financial institutions that act as market makers for interest rate swaps (IRS) are named as defendants in several antitrust class actions which were consolidated in the SDNY in 2016. The complaints allege the defendants conspired to prevent the development of exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages.

In 2018, trueEX LLC filed an antitrust class action in the SDNY against a number of financial institutions including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI based on similar allegations with respect to trueEX LLC’s development of an IRS platform. In 2017, Tera Group Inc. filed a separate civil antitrust action in the SDNY claiming that certain conduct alleged in the IRS cases also caused the plaintiff to suffer harm with respect to the Credit Default Swaps market. In November 2018 and July 2019, respectively, the court dismissed certain claims in both cases for unjust enrichment and tortious interference but denied motions to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, which remain pending.

Portuguese Competition Authority investigation

The Portuguese Competition Authority found that a subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC and other banks violated competition law by exchanging information about retail credit products relating to mortgages, consumer lending and lending to small and medium enterprises. The Group applied for immunity and received no fine.

2.Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Bank UK PLC

Since February 2018, the FCA has been investigating whether the Group implemented effective systems and controls with respect to collections and recoveries and whether it paid due consideration to the interests of customers in default and arrears. The FCA investigation is at an advanced stage.

In 2018, HMRC issued notices that have the effect of removing certain overseas subsidiaries that have operations in the UK from Barclays’ UK VAT group, in which group supplies between members are generally free from VAT. The notices have retrospective effect and correspond to assessments of £181m (inclusive of interest), of which Barclays would expect to attribute an amount of approximately £128m to Barclays Bank UK PLC and £53m to Barclays Bank PLC. HMRC’s decision has been appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

Following settlement by Barclays Bank PLC of various governmental investigations concerning certain benchmark interest rate submissions referred to above in ‘Investigations into LIBOR and other benchmarks and related civil actions’, in the UK, certain local authorities have brought claims against Barclays Bank PLC (and, in certain cases, Barclays Bank UK PLC) asserting that they entered into loans in reliance on misrepresentations made by Barclays Bank PLC in respect of its conduct in relation to LIBOR. Barclays has applied to strike out the claims.

The Group is engaged in various other legal, competition and regulatory matters in the UK, the US and a number of other overseas jurisdictions. It is subject to legal proceedings brought by and against the Group which arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time, including (but not limited to) disputes in relation to contracts, securities, debt collection, consumer credit, fraud, trusts, client assets, competition, data management and protection, money laundering, financial crime, employment, environmental and other statutory and common law issues.

The Group is also subject to enquiries and examinations, requests for information, audits, investigations and legal and other proceedings by regulators, governmental and other public bodies in connection with (but not limited to) consumer protection measures, compliance with legislation and regulation, wholesale trading activity and other areas of banking and business activities in which the Group is or has been engaged. The Group is cooperating with the relevant authorities and keeping all relevant agencies briefed as appropriate in relation to these matters and others described in this note on an ongoing basis.

At the present time, Barclays PLC does not expect the ultimate resolution of any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial position. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters and the matters specifically described in this note, there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter or matters (including formerly active matters or those matters arising after the date of this note) will not be material to Barclays PLC’s results, operations or cash flow for a particular period, depending on, among other things, the amount of the loss resulting from the matter(s) and the amount of profit otherwise reported for the reporting period.