The Complaint brought forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Barclays PLC (“Barclays” or the “Company”), and certain of its senior executives. The Complaint alleged that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Barclays’ American Depositary Shares (“ADS”) during the Class Period.
Barclays is a global financial services provider engaged in retail banking, credit cards, wholesale banking, investment banking, and wealth and investment management services with an extensive international presence in Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
Specifically, the Complaint alleged that during the Class Period, Barclays manipulated the rates it submitted to the British Bankers’ Association, a trade association which establishes the rate for the influential London Interbank Offered Rate. As a result of Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions regarding its LIBOR submission practices, Barclays’ stock price plummeted injuring shareholders.
On May 13, 2013, the Court dismissed the Complaint for, among other reasons, failure to adequately allege loss causation. Lead Plaintiffs appealed this ruling. On April 25, 2014, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Then October 20, 2014, the district court denied the Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. Then on August 20, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class and to appoint Class Representatives.
On September 3, 2015, Defendants filed a petition seeking review of the August 20, 2015 Order granting the Class Representatives’ motion for class certification. The Class Representatives opposed this petition on September 16, 2015. The petition had been stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal pending the outcome of the Settlement.
On November 24, 2015, the parties agreed to a $14,000,000 settlement to resolve the claims brought forth in the action. The Court held a fairness hearing on March 14, 2016 to determine whether the preliminarily-approved Settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable to Settlement Class Members. At the fairness hearing, the Court approved the Settlement granting its final approval in all respects.