Company: BCS
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0000312069-25-000114
Chunk: 604

Company: BARCLAYS PLC
Filing Date: 2025-02-13
Form: 20-F
Chunk 604
---
, Tera declined to pursue its appeal against Barclays. In October 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal against the remaining defendants, including Barclays, and the matter is now concluded. BDC Finance L.L.C. In 2008, BDC Finance L.L.C. (BDC) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, demanding damages o f $ 298 m, alleging that Barclays Bank PLC had breached a contract in connection with a portfolio of total return swaps governed by an ISDA Master Agreement (the Master Agreement). Following a trial, the court ruled in 2018 that Barclays Bank PLC was not a defaulting party, which was affirmed on appeal. In 2021, the trial court entered judgment in favour of Barclays Bank PLC for $ 3.3 m and as yet to be determined legal fees and costs. In 2022, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment decision in favour of Barclays Bank PLC and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The parties filed cross-motions on the scope of trial. In January 2024, the court ruled in Barclays’ favour. In December 2024, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment. Civil actions in respect of the US Anti-Terrorism Act Eight civil actions, on behalf of more than 4,000 plaintiffs, were filed in US federal courts in the US District Court in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) and SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and a number of other banks. The complaints generally allege that Barclays Bank PLC and those banks engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate US dollar-denominated transactions for the Iranian g overnment and various Iranian banks, which in turn funded acts of terrorism that injured or killed the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs’ family members. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for pain, suffering and mental anguish under the provisions of the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which allow for the trebling of any proven damages. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss three out of the six actions in the EDNY. The plaintiffs appealed in one action and the dismissal was affirmed, and judgment was entered, in 2023. The plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the judgment is fully briefed. The other two dismissed actions in the EDNY were consolidated into one action. The plaintiffs in that action, and in one other action in the EDNY, filed amended complaints in 2023. Th e two other actions in the EDNY are currently stayed