Amanda Staveley loses £820m court struggle with Barclays


ARCLAYS now won its large courtroom fight from Amanda Staveley, who had claimed the financial institution owed her hundreds of hundreds of thousands of pounds for arranging financial commitment deals during the 2008 economic crisis.

The bank had generally insisted that Staveley, a glamorous financier who had as soon as dated Prince Andrew and had robust hyperlinks in the Middle East, was basically an introducer alternatively than a main participant.

Staveley was asking for £819 million in damages as a result of a civil lawsuit filed by her PCP Capital Associates financial commitment advisory agency. She experienced claimed she was ousted as an investor.

Barclays claimed: “We welcome the court’s determination to dismiss PCP’s declare in its entirety and award it no damages.”

The financial institution did not arise unscathed on the other hand, with the judge increasing serious questions about the conduct of some previous executives.

Barclays lifted more than £7 billion in October 2008 from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, thus preventing a bailout from the United kingdom government.

Staveley argued she was central to that deal, in a case that laid bare some of the inner workings of high finance.

The situation was fairly of an embarrassment for Barclays. The court docket heard that some executives had referred to Staveley, 47, as a “dolly bird”.

She mentioned: “In spite of Barclays’ attempts to concern my character and credentials, the courtroom has recognised my qualities as a businesswoman and the real truth of my account of situations.

“The judgment confirms what I have explained from the outset and repeated in my proof a senior govt at Barclays consistently lied to me when seeking private investment decision in the financial institution all through the 2008 economical crisis.

“The evidence at trial was clear and unequivocal PCP was an investor in the transaction and performed an integral purpose in the capital elevating, which in the long run prevented the bank from currently being nationalised.”

Her attorney Richard East of Quinn Emanuel stated: “Despite Barclays’ makes an attempt to besmirch Ms Staveley’s character during 6 days of no-retains-barred cross assessment, this judgment helps make clear that Ms Staveley was a dependable and sincere witness.

“It is disappointing that, regardless of the Choose discovering that Ms Staveley was a tough, persistent, intelligent and able negotiator, that he discovered in the long run that she could not have done the offer which she experienced put in spot and for this reason no reduction was suffered.  This is a astonishing result.”

Legal professionals symbolizing financial institution bosses criticised Ms Staveley, who suggests PCP introduced Manchester City operator Sheikh Mansour – a member of the royal spouse and children of Abu Dhabi – to Barclays as an trader, during the demo.

Jeffery Onions QC, who led Barclays’ lawful crew, instructed Mr Justice Waksman that she experienced a “inclination to exaggerate” when providing evidence. He mentioned her proof had been “peppered with hyperbole” and in some respects was “plainly dishonest”.

Mr Justice Waksman described Ms Staveley as “the driving force of PCP” and as a “tough, intelligent and imaginative entrepreneur”.

“Barclays contends that, in general, Ms Staveley was totally unreliable, her proof was inconsistent with files, she had a flawed recollection and she was responsible of ‘obvious embellishment and invention’,” said the decide.

He recognized Barclays’ submission that Ms Staveley experienced a “tendency to exaggerate” when providing evidence, but concluded it did not influence the truthfulness of her evidence.

He additional: “I thought that, for the most part, her evidence was reputable.”

He said PCP had succeeded on liability but unsuccessful on causation and decline. The choose said the final result was that the total assert unsuccessful.

He added: “I can understand why this result will be a severe disappointment to PCP, specially soon after I have uncovered Barclays to be guilty of severe deceit to it.”

Staveley claimed she is contemplating an appeal.