UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)
Fecha: 10-Jul-2024
The Decision Notice
The Decision Notice
Paragraph 3 of the Decision Notice is headed “summary of reasons”, and reads:
“On the basis of the facts and matters described below, the Authority is not
satisfied that Mr Kalaris is a fit and proper person to perform the controlled
functions to which the Application relates. This is because there are reasonable grounds for considering that in interviews with the Authority in relation to two different investigations Mr Kalaris failed to be open and cooperative and gave untrue and misleading evidence. The Authority is therefore not satisfied as to his honesty and integrity.”
The “facts and matters” set out details of the capital raising exercise conducted by Barclays in June and October 2008, including the Authority’s view that further disclosure should have been made in the related prospectus and other documents; that Barclays’ failure to make those disclosures was “misleading, false and/or deceptive”, and that Mr Kalaris was “involved” in the transactions.
However, in subsequent correspondence, the Authority stated that it was not alleging Mr Kalaris had behaved improperly in relation to the capital raising itself, but rather that the answers he gave during the 2013 Interview relating the June 2008 exercise had lacked candour and/or were untrue.
In relation to the GenVen Report, the Decision Notice states, and the Authority subsequently confirmed, that the Decision was based on the answers given by Mr Kalaris during the 2014 Interview, and not on Mr Kalaris having acted improperly by suppressing the GenVen Report.
- Heading
- Introduction and Summary
- The Barclays references
- The Tribunal’s view
- Subsequently
- Legislation, case law and the Handbook
- The legislation and related case law
- The Handbook
- The Decision Notice
- Evidence
- The evidence on the capital raising issue
- Mr Beauchamp
- Mr Tinney
- Mr Perry
- Mr Mason
- Mr Biesinger
- Findings of fact
- Mr Kalaris
- Capital raising, GenVen and the Interviews
- The criminal proceedings
- Saranac
- The SWF initiative
- The economic situation
- The ASA
- The link between the ASA and the capital raising
- The text of the ASA
- The Prospectus
- The second capital raising and PCP
- The 2013 Interview
- What Mr Kalaris knew
- What the Authority knew
- What Mr Kalaris believed about the Authority’s knowledge
- Mr Kalaris’s responses relied on by the Authority
- Question 1: The “genesis of the agreement”
- Q1: The Authority’s position
- Who came up with the idea?
- The two paths
- Strategic relationship
- Unnecessary?
- The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 2: the purpose
- Q2: The Authority’s position
- Q2: Saranac’s position
- Q2: The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 3: the calculation
- Q3: The Authority’s position
- Q3: Saranac’s position
- Q3: The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 4: connection
- Q4: Saranac’s position
- Q4: The Tribunal’s findings
- Motive?
- Overall conclusion on the 2013 Interview
- THE 2014 INTERVIEW
- The culture at Barclays Wealth Americas
- The cultural audit
- The pre-meeting communications
- Briefing and the subsequent meetings
- Ms Hilgart
- The Cultural Workshop
- The Whistleblower email
- The Fed update
- The 2014 Interview
- The position of the parties
- Discussion and consideration
- The briefing on 30 March 2012
- The meeting on 5 April
- The meeting on 10 December 2012
- The weekend of 14-15 December 2012
- Overall findings
- OTHER FINDINGS
- The other evidence
- The Saranac assessment
- The personal references
- The capital raising and the GenVen Report
- Financial services experience
- Mr Kalaris’s approach to regulatory requirements in the past
- Compliance with restrictions
- Training
- The standing of the NEDs
- Mr Elliott
- Mr Neilly
- The Tribunal’s conclusion
- Conclusions