But, according to Nicola Sharp of financial crime specialists Rahman Ravelli, the victory came at a cost to its reputation.
Businesswoman Amanda Staveley has lost her multi-million pound high court battle against Barclays over the bank’s Qatar fundraising.
Staveley’s private equity company PCP Capital Partners was claiming £830 million in damages from Barclays. The legal action was brought after she learnt that Barclays had offered her client, Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a worse deal than it offered to Qatar when the bank sought billions from potential investors in the 2008 banking crisis.
Judge David Waksman found that Barclays was guilty of “serious deceit” in how it raised emergency investment during the financial crisis and of “fraudulent misrepresentation”. But he ruled that Staveley’s company was not entitled to damages, as even if Barclays had been honest PCP would not have been able to raise the funds necessary to finance the deal.
After the case, Staveley said: “In spite of Barclays’ efforts to question my character and credentials, the court has recognised my abilities as a businesswoman and the truth of my account of events.
“The judgment confirms what I have said from the outset and repeated in my evidence - a senior executive at Barclays repeatedly lied to me when seeking private investment in the bank during the 2008 financial crisis.”
“The evidence at trial was clear and unequivocal; PCP was an investor in the transaction and played an integral role in the capital raising, which ultimately prevented the bank from being nationalised.
“I will be taking advice on appealing the judge’s decision not to award damages.”
Barclays had denied the allegations and said PCP’s case was “wrong at every stage’’. It argued that it had struck separate commercial agreements with Qatar.
While PCP had established that Barclays was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, this was not enough to win the case.
While Barclays has emerged the winner, comments the judge made that were critical of the bank’s conduct will have done little to enhance either its reputation or the perception that many have of the activities and motives of bankers during the financial crash.