Barclays more than doubled litigation provisions in 2013
Barclays increased the amount it sets aside for litigation by 142% last year, in a move to hedge itself against several outstanding disputes and enforcement actions by authorities in the UK and US.
February 11, 2014 at 06:19 AM
3 minute read
Barclays increased the amount it sets aside for litigation by 142% last year, in a move to hedge itself against several outstanding disputes and enforcement actions by authorities in the UK and US.
The bank's annual report for 2013, published today (11 February) shows provisions grew from £200m to £485m in the year to 31 December 2013.
News of the provision increase comes as chief executive Anthony Jenkins said the resolution of conduct and litigation issues had hit statutory profit before tax, which fell to £2.9bn for 2013.
The bank's declining profit was due in part to £331m in charges for litigation and other regulatory penalties for its investment bank in Q4 2013.
In total, Barclays spent £1.25bn on consultancy, legal and professional fees in 2013, a 6% increase on the £1.18bn spent the previous year, despite the non-recurrence of the £290m penalty incurred in the Libor settlement with US and UK authorities in 2012.
Barclays also acknowledged it is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office over allegedly concealing £322m in payments to Qatari investors after they injected a total £12bn into the bank in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis.
Elsewhere, Barclays said an unrecovered sum of $1.6bn (£1.0bn) from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy had also been set aside as "a provision against the uncertainty inherent in the litigation and potential post-appeal proceedings".
The bank also confirmed it had spent £2.98bn of the £3.95bn allotted provision to redress payment protection insurance (PPI) claims by the end of last year.
In recent weeks, a string of lenders have reported reduced profits as a result of escalating litigation provisions and costs.
Two weeks ago, the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmed it had set aside £3bn for compensation and litigation relating to mis-sold products and conduct claims, as part of an expected £7-8bn pre-tax loss for 2013.
In January, Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley both confirmed they had had to set aside additional cash for legal expenses, with the pair racking up Q4 2013 legal costs of €528m (£435.7m) and $1.2bn (£730m).
US banking giant JP Morgan also reported a profit drop for the final quarter of 2013, with earnings hit by $1.1bn (£669m) of legal expenses, including its settlement in relation to the Bernie Madoff investment fraud case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250