Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/13/2013 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: July 10, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“Libor”) is a tool to measure risk within the banking system as a whole and it may be more surgically applied to test a particular bank’s creditworthiness. When a bank lends to a customer (in this case another bank), it fixes the interest rate and other terms premised on an assessment of the borrower’s ability to repay the loan. The greater the risk, the higher the rate the bank will charge to assume the risk. The opposite is true: the lower the credit risk, the lower the rate the bank will charge to take on the risk.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants did not act fairly, transparently, and try in good faith to fix Libor rates at levels that accurately reflected the inherent and actual risk in the market place. Defendants, instead, admittedly participated in an illegal scheme to manipulate the Libor interest rates for the benefit of Barclays’ traders and to make Barclays appear financially healthier than it was during the Class Period.

The Complaint further alleges that apart from participating in an illegal scheme to manipulate Libor rates in a way that would allow Defendants and other bankers to exploit borrowers and make even more money, the Defendants made material misstatements to the Company’s shareholders about the Company’s purported compliance with their principles and operational risk management processes and repeatedly told shareholders that Barclays was a model corporate citizen even though at all relevant times it was flouting the law.

On June 27, 2012, Barclays was found by US and UK regulators to have manipulated or “fixed” its Libor rate submissions. Barclays’ top management essentially admitted to the Bank’s malfeasance. In an open letter to the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Defendant explained that the authorities had highlighted two issues: First, a number of individual traders had attempted to influence the bank’s interest rate submissions in order to boost their own trading desk’s profits - operating purely for their own benefit; Defendant said this conduct was wholly inappropriate. Second, during the recent credit crisis, Barclays reduced its Libor submissions to protect the reputation of the bank from negative speculation, which arose as a result of Barclays’ higher rate submissions in comparison to other banks – i.e. the bank wanted to make itself look financially stronger relative to other banks in order to keep its borrowing costs down and market reputation up.

These revelations caused the Company’s ADRs initially to fall by 12%, from $12.33 per share to $10.84 per share on over 22 million shares traded and then an additional 5% on over 14 million shares traded.

October 1, 2012, an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel was issued by the Court.

On December 18, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the defendants.

On May 13, 2013, an Opinion and Order was issued by the Court granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Court was ordered to close this motion and this case.

On June 12, 2013, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk of the court to close the case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks
Headquarters: United Kingdom

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BCS
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05329
JUDGE: Hon. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 07/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/10/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
    995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311, Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, PA 19087
    (484) 588-5516 (484) 450-2582 ·
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05329
JUDGE: Hon. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 11/27/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/10/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
    79 Alfred Street, VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., MI 48201
    313.578.1200 313.578.1200 ·
  3. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date