Barclays Bank PLC : American Depositary Shares, Series 2

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Barclays Bank PLC : American Depositary Shares, Series 2 Summary: The complaint charges Barclays Bank, its senior insiders, Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Barclays Bank is a major global financial service provider engaged in retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”), selling 30 million shares at $25 per share (including the over-allotment), for proceeds of over $750 million. Then, in August 2008, Barclays announced huge multi-billion dollar impairment charges associated with its exposure to mortgage-related securities. Notwithstanding these huge write-downs, Barclays’ securities, including the Preferred Stock, did not decline appreciably due to Barclays’ assurances it did not require additional capital after raising £4.5 billion in a share sale in July. However, in mid-November 2008, Barclays was forced to acknowledge that it would indeed need to raise additional capital, and the price of the Preferred Stock fell to as low as $8.30 per share.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement for the Offering was false and misleading because it omitted the following true facts: (a) Barclays’ portfolio of mortgage-related securities was impaired to a much larger extent than had been disclosed; (b) defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; (c) Barclays’ internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its mortgage-related investments; and (d) Barclays was not as well capitalized as represented and would have to continually raise additional capital, which would dilute current holders and those investors purchasing Preferred Stock in the Offering.

On December 9, 2009, Judge Paul A. Crotty signed the order consolidating the cases under In re Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation. Freidus, Thompson and Mahboubi are hereby appointed Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP are approved as Lead Counsel. On February 12, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 19, 2010, the defendants filed two motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 5, 2011, the action was dismissed with prejudice. The case is now closed.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6029
Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Barclays Bank PLC
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	BCSP
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.barclays.co.uk/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Marshall Freidus, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-1989
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 03/04/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/21/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/04/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/04/2009
Order Consolidating The Related Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 12/09/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-1989
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 02/12/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/15/2005	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/08/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Radnor) 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7706, info@btkmc.com Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Walnut Creek) 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598 (voice) 925.945.0770, (fax) 925.945.0770, info@btkmc.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/12/2010
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 01/05/2011
Judgment
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 01/07/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/07/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Other		Date on the document: 10/03/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Jeffrey Lefcourt, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/23/2009
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Alfred Fait, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/20/2009

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�