UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)
Fecha: 10-Jul-2024
The Tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal’s findings
We make our findings on Q1 in the light of Mr Kalaris’s evidence and relevant submissions made by Mr Stanley and/or Mr Winter.
We find that Mr Kalaris knew Mr Beauchamp was asking him about the origin of the ASA; this is clear from his initial reply to Q1, which was focused on Barclays’ desire for a strategic relationship and not on the identity of the person who had drafted the document. It is also clear from the first part of his response to Mr Beauchamp’s next question, where he reiterates that Barclays wanted a strategic relationship with the Qataris. Moreover, as noted above,
Mr Kalaris accepted under cross-examination that he had had that understanding; and
on re-examination, he said he had understood “genesis” to have two meanings, one of which was “origin”.
We accept that Barclays wanted a strategic relationship with the Qataris, but this was only part of the picture. Mr Kalaris did not explain that to Mr Beauchamp that the ASA and the capital raising formed a “single package” and were “factually connected” because the ASA was the way in which the value gap was filled. Instead, he said there were “two paths”. Mr Stanley submitted that this was incomplete and misleading because there was only one path, or at best two intertwined paths which were neither “separate” nor “parallel”, and Mr Kalaris knew this was the case. We agree.
The only remaining explanation given by Mr Kalaris for his failure to tell Mr Beauchamp about the connection between the ASA and the capital raising was his evidence that he believed Mr Beauchamp already knew about that connection. However, we have already rejected that evidence, see §126 - §127.
We also reviewed each of Mr Kalaris’s replies to earlier questions asked by Mr Beauchamp, in other words, in the part of the Interview which preceded Q1, and found that at no point did Mr Kalaris explain the connection between the ASA and the capital raising.
Having considered each of Mr Kalaris’s explanations and justifications for his reply to Q1, we agree with Mr Stanley that he gave “a fundamentally misleading, incomplete, and partial explanation of the position”, and his response therefore lacked candour.
- 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