Company: BCS
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0001654954-25-008608
Chunk: 63

Company: BARCLAYS PLC
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form: 6-K
Chunk 63
---
CI and certain other financial institutions, alleging that defendants conspired to fix and manipulate the US Treasury securities market in violation of the Antitrust Act, the CEA and state common law. This action remains stayed.

#### Variable Rate Demand Obligations civil actions
Civil actions have been filed against Barclays Bank PLC and BCI and other financial institutions alleging the defendants conspired or colluded to artificially inflate interest rates set for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs). VRDOs are municipal bonds with interest rates that reset on a periodic basis, most commonly weekly. An action in state court has been filed by private plaintiffs on behalf of the state of California and the matter is in discovery. Three putative class action complaints have been consolidated in the SDNY. In the consolidated SDNY class action, certain of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in 2020 and 2022 and the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in 2023, which means the case may proceed as a class action. The defendants are appealing this decision.

#### Odd-lot corporate bonds antitrust class action
In 2020, BCI, together with other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a putative class action in the US. The complaint alleges a conspiracy to boycott developing electronic trading platforms for odd-lots and price fixing. The plaintiffs demand unspecified money damages. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in 2021, which the plaintiffs appealed. In July 2024, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the SDNY, where the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2024. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

#### Credit Default Swap civil action
A putative antitrust class action is pending in New Mexico federal court against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and various other financial institutions. The plaintiffs, the New Mexico State Investment Council and certain New Mexico pension funds, allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark price used to value Credit Default Swap (CDS) contracts at settlement (i.e. the CDS final auction price). The plaintiffs allege violations of US antitrust laws and the CEA, and unjust enrichment under state law. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in 2023. In January 2024, the SDNY ruled that settlement in an earlier CDS antitrust litigation bars these plaintiffs from asserting claims based on conduct occurring before 30 June 2014. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit and the appeal was denied in May 202