UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)
Fecha: 10-Jul-2024
The meeting on 5 April
The meeting on 5 April
During the 2014 Interview, Mr Trivedi asked Mr Kalaris about the meeting on 5 April 2012, and whether he remembered people referring to a report or to sections of the presentation. Mr Kalaris said no to those questions. He was also asked “with respect to the [interview] quotes, do you recall them referring to the quotes as being written down or documented” and Mr Kalaris again said “no”.
Mr Trivedi then asked “how did you think they were presenting the information or the quotes to you?”, to which Mr Kalaris responded:
“it never struck me to think about it – I wouldn’t have been paying a whole lot of attention to where it came from. I would have taken it as the set of conclusions or specific points that were being made as part of a briefing.”
Our starting point was that the meeting was attended by Mr Biesinger and Mr Wall as well as Mr Tinney, and all of those individuals knew the GenVen Report existed. Consistently with our conclusions about the briefing, we find that:
even if Mr Tinney had decided to conceal the existence of the GenVen Report (as Mr Kalaris said was the case), there is no evidence that both Mr Biesinger and Mr Wall were complicit in that concealment: and
it is not credible that throughout this meeting, none of those individuals referred to the fact that the GenVen Report existed.
In addition, Mr Kalaris accepted under cross-examination that “there was challenge and discussion about the interviews”; that Mr Wall was “reading from something” and was “not giving us this information off the top of his head” and that he had referred to specific quotations from the interviews. The level of detail and the type of information is consistent with a 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