Keep knowledgeable with free updates
Merely signal as much as the UK banks myFT Digest — delivered on to your inbox.
Former Barclays chief Jes Staley has failed to influence a California courtroom to throw out an investor lawsuit over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, in the identical week that he misplaced a separate UK courtroom battle over his ties to the late intercourse offender.
Staley, Barclays and its chair Nigel Higgins had requested the California courtroom to dismiss a declare by a gaggle of traders in Barclays’ US securities, which alleges that they misrepresented Staley’s relationship with Epstein and due to this fact inflated the worth of Barclays’ New York-traded American depositary receipts, which later fell.
A decide rejected that try this week, saying statements by the financial institution and by Staley on an earnings name had been probably deceptive. It means the US class motion case, which is being led by a New York Metropolis workers’ union and a St Louis firefighters’ retirement system, can go forward, although the decide dismissed one depend towards the financial institution and one a part of the declare that associated solely to Higgins declining to touch upon Staley’s departure from the financial institution.
The financial institution declined to remark. Requests for remark made to Staley and Higgins through their legal professionals weren’t instantly returned.
The California ruling mentioned that in Barclays’ 2019 annual report and a 2020 press launch, the financial institution mentioned Staley “developed knowledgeable relationship with Mr. Epstein”. This was “probably deceptive” as a result of a “affordable investor who learn the board’s statements wouldn’t assume that Staley and Epstein had a private relationship”, it mentioned.
The financial institution “contends that publications opined in any other case, so traders mustn’t have been misled”, in accordance with the ruling. Staley had requested the courtroom to think about articles printed within the Monetary Occasions, the New York Occasions and the Monetary Mail on Sunday about his ties to Epstein, which the courtroom agreed to do.
This argument “misses the purpose”, district decide Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong mentioned, because the press launch and annual report had been a response to an article within the New York Occasions and the financial institution was attempting “to set the document straight about Staley and Epstein’s relationship after doing their very own due diligence.”
The choice caps a troublesome week for Staley who on Thursday discovered that his bid to overturn a lifetime ban from the UK’s Monetary Conduct Authority had failed.
All through a month-long trial in London earlier this 12 months, Staley sought to attract a effective line between knowledgeable and private relationship relating to his ties to Epstein; a distinction rejected by the Higher Tribunal that heard his authorized problem.
The category-action lawsuit undermines Barclays’ makes an attempt to attract a line beneath the Epstein saga, which has hung over the financial institution for nearly six years. Higgins testified through the UK trial in March because the decide tried to find out whether or not the financial institution had had a full image of Staley’s relationship with Epstein.
Staley claimed he had been clear with each Higgins and Bob Hoyt, group normal counsel on the time, about his ties to Epstein by way of varied conversations with the 2 males and different senior executives at Barclays. Nonetheless, Higgins mentioned throughout his proof that he now had “a distinct image” of Staley and Epstein’s relationship based mostly on the brand new info now out there to him.
