Legal, competition and regulatory matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Legal, Competition And Regulatory Matters [Abstract]
Legal, competition and regulatory matters	Legal, competition and regulatory matters The Group faces legal, competition and regulatory challenges, many of which are beyond our control. The extent of the impact of these matters cannot always be predicted but may materially impact our operations, financial results, condition and prospects. Matters arising from a set of similar circumstances can give rise to either a contingent liability or a provision, or both, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. The recognition of provisions in relation to such matters involves critical accounting estimates and judgements in accordance with the relevant accounting policies applicable to Note 12, Provisions. We have not disclosed an estimate of the potential financial impact or effect on the Group of contingent liabilities where it is not currently practicable to do so. Various matters detailed in this note seek damages of an unspecified amount. While certain matters specify the damages claimed, such claimed amounts do not necessarily reflect the Group’s potential financial exposure in respect of those matters. Matters are ordered under headings corresponding to the financial statements in which they are disclosed. 1.Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC Proceedings relating to certain advisory services agreements In 2023, Barclays Bank PLC received requests for arbitration from two Jersey special purpose vehicles connected to PCP International Finance Limited asserting claims in relation to the October 2008 capital raising. This matter is now concluded, and there are no other outstanding matters relating to the advisory services agreements. Civil actions related to LIBOR and other benchmarks Various individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and other banks in relation to the alleged manipulation of LIBOR and/or other benchmarks. US civil actions related to LIBOR Multiple civil actions have been filed in the US against the Group and other banks alleging manipulation of USD LIBOR, Sterling LIBOR and the LIBOR benchmark that was administered by the Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and certain of its affiliates (ICE LIBOR). With respect to USD LIBOR, one action alleging that Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other financial institutions individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates remains pending in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking unspecified damages. Barclays Bank PLC has moved for summary judgment in this action, and briefing on that motion was completed in January 2025. The other action has settled. The settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. With respect to Sterling LIBOR, consolidated class actions filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks alleging, among other things, manipulation of the Sterling LIBOR rate in violation of the Antitrust Act, CEA and RICO, were dismissed in 2018. Oral argument on the plaintiffs’ appeal of that dismissal was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) in April 2024. With respect to ICE LIBOR, in August 2020, a group of individual plaintiffs in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of individual borrowers and consumers of loans and credit cards with variable interest rates linked to USD ICE LIBOR brought an action against Barclays Bank PLC and other financial institutions alleging Antitrust Act violations. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in 2022. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in December 2024. The plaintiffs’ petition for US Supreme Court review was denied in June 2025, concluding the matter. Non-US benchmarks civil actions The remaining UK claim, issued in 2017, against Barclays Bank PLC and other banks in connection with alleged manipulation of LIBOR has now settled. The settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. Proceedings have also been brought in Spain, Italy and Israel relating to alleged manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR. The proceedings in Israel have concluded. Foreign exchange civil actions Legal proceedings have been brought or are threatened against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and Barclays Execution Services Limited (BX) in connection with alleged manipulation of foreign exchange in the UK, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil and Australia. In the Australia and Israel proceedings settlements in principle have been agreed subject to court approval. The above-mentioned proceedings include a class action filed against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BX, BCI and other financial institutions in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in 2019. The CAT refused to certify the claim in 2022 and in 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the CAT’s decision and found that the claim should be certified on an opt-out basis. The UK Supreme Court heard arguments in April 2025, concerning the appeal brought by Barclays and the other financial institutions involved. Metals-related civil actions A US civil complaint alleging manipulation of the price of silver in violation of the CEA, the Antitrust Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws was brought by a proposed class of plaintiffs against a number of banks, including Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and BX, and transferred to the SDNY. The complaint was dismissed against these Barclays entities and certain other defendants in 2018, and against the remaining defendants in 2023. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the complaint against all defendants. Civil actions have also been filed in Canadian courts against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Canada Inc. and BCI on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of gold and silver prices. US residential mortgage-related civil action There remains one US Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) related civil action arising from unresolved repurchase requests submitted by Trustees for certain RMBS, alleging breaches of various loan-level representations and warranties made by Barclays Bank PLC and/or a subsidiary acquired in 2007. Barclays’ motion to dismiss the action was denied in 2023. The parties appealed the decision and in January 2025, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the action. The plaintiff has requested review by the New York State Court of Appeals. Government and agency securities civil actions Treasury auction securities civil actions Consolidated putative class action complaints filed in US federal court against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions under the Antitrust Act and state common law allege that the defendants: (i) conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities market; and/or (ii) conspired to prevent the creation of certain platforms by boycotting or threatening to boycott such trading platforms. The court dismissed the consolidated action in 2021 and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in 2022. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and in February 2024 the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs did not seek US Supreme Court review, thereby concluding the matter. In addition, certain plaintiffs have filed a related, direct action against BCI 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 2025. The case has returned to New Mexico federal court. Interest rate swap and credit default swap US civil actions Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, together with other financial institutions that act as market makers for interest rate swaps (IRS), are named as defendants in several antitrust actions, including one putative class action and individual actions brought by certain swap execution facilities, which are consolidated in the SDNY. The complaints allege the defendants conspired to prevent the development of exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages. The parties have reached a settlement of the class action, which received final court approval and has been paid. The financial impact of the settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. The individual claims are proceeding separately in the SDNY. 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 of $298m, 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 $3.3m 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 government 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. The two other actions in the EDNY are currently stayed. Out of the two actions in the SDNY, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first action. That action is stayed, and the second SDNY action is stayed pending any appeal on the dismissal of the first. Shareholder derivative action In 2020, a purported Barclays shareholder filed a putative derivative action in New York state court against BCI and a number of current and former members of the Board of Directors of Barclays PLC and senior executives or employees of the Group. The shareholder plaintiff filed the claim on behalf of nominal defendant Barclays PLC, alleging that the individual defendants harmed the company through breaches of their duties, including under the Companies Act 2006. The plaintiff sought damages on behalf of Barclays PLC for the losses that Barclays PLC allegedly suffered as a result of these alleged breaches. An amended complaint was filed in 2021, which BCI and certain other defendants moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted in 2022. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the dismissal was unanimously affirmed in 2023 by the First Judicial Department in New York. The plaintiff appealed the First Judicial Department’s decision to the New York Court of Appeals. The dismissal was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in May 2025, concluding the matter. Skilled person review in relation to historical timeshare loans and associated matters Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (CFS), which trades as Barclays Partner Finance and houses Barclays’ point-of-sale finance business, was required by the FCA to undertake a skilled person review in 2020 following concerns about historical affordability assessments for certain loans to customers in connection with timeshare purchases. The skilled person review was concluded in 2021. CFS complied fully with the skilled person review requirements, including carrying out certain remediation measures. CFS was not required to conduct a full back book review. Instead, CFS reviewed limited historical lending to ascertain whether its practices caused customer harm and has remediated any examples of harm. This work was substantially completed during 2023, utilising provisions booked to account for any remediations. This matter is now concluded. Motor finance commission arrangements In January 2024, the FCA appointed a skilled person to undertake a review of the historical use of discretionary commission arrangements and sales in the motor finance market across several firms. Barclays is cooperating fully with the FCA’s skilled person review, the outcome of which is unknown. This review follows two final decisions by the UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), including one upholding a complaint against CFS in relation to commission arrangements and disclosure in the sale of motor finance products, and a number of complaints and court claims, including some against CFS. In April 2024, CFS filed a judicial review challenge in the High Court against the FOS’s decision in relation to commission arrangements and disclosure in the sale of motor finance products. In December 2024, the High Court ruled against CFS. CFS has appealed the decision to the English Court of Appeal. Separately, in October 2024, the English Court of Appeal issued judgment against the lenders in three motor finance commissions cases. CFS is not a party to this litigation. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of these cases in April 2025 and judgment is yet to be issued. In light of the English Court of Appeal decision and onward appeal to the UK Supreme Court, the FCA extended its pause on complaints to include all motor finance commissions, not just discretionary commission arrangements. CFS ceased operating in the motor finance market in late 2019. In 2020, CFS was transferred from Barclays Bank PLC to Barclays Principal Investments Ltd (BPIL), another subsidiary of Barclays PLC. Barclays Bank PLC has provided an intragroup indemnity to BPIL in respect of historical litigation and conduct matters relating to CFS. Over-issuance of securities in the US In 2022, executive management became aware that Barclays Bank PLC had issued securities materially in excess of the set amount under its US shelf registration statements. In 2022, a purported class action claim was filed in the US District Court in Manhattan seeking to hold Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and former and current executives responsible for declines in the price of Barclays PLC’s American depositary receipts, which the plaintiffs claim occurred as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in its public disclosures. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in part and denied in part in February 2024. The parties reached a settlement in respect of such lawsuit, which has received final court approval and has been paid, concluding the matter. The financial impact of this settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. In addition, holders of VXX ETNs have brought a purported class action in federal court in New York against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and former and current executives and board members in the US alleging, among other things, that Barclays’ failure to disclose that these ETNs were unregistered securities misled investors and that, as a result, Barclays is liable for the holders’ alleged losses following the suspension of further sales and issuances of the ETNs. The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend and filed a new complaint in March 2024. Barclays’ motion to dismiss was granted in March 2025. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied in June 2025. The plaintiffs are appealing the decision. In March 2024, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and former and current executives. The plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of a class of short sellers, alleging that their short positions suffered substantial losses when Barclays suspended new issuances and sales of VXX ETNs as a result of the over-issuance of securities. Barclays’ motion to dismiss was granted in March 2025. The plaintiff is appealing the decision. 2.Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Bank UK PLC HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) assessments concerning UK Value Added Tax In 2018, HMRC issued notices that have the effect of either removing certain Barclays overseas subsidiaries that have operations in the UK from Barclays’ UK VAT group or preventing them from joining it. Supplies between members of a UK VAT group are generally free from VAT. The notices had both retrospective and prospective effect. Barclays appealed HMRC's decisions to the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in relation to both the retrospective VAT assessments and the ongoing VAT payments made since 2018. £181m of VAT (inclusive of interest) was assessed retrospectively by HMRC covering the periods 2014 to 2018, of which approximately £128m is expected to be attributed to Barclays Bank UK PLC and £53m to Barclays Bank PLC. This retrospectively assessed VAT was paid in 2018 and an asset, adjusted to reflect expected eventual recovery, is recognised. Since 2018 Barclays has paid, and recognised as an expense, VAT on intra-group supplies from the relevant subsidiaries to the members of the VAT group. In respect of the ongoing VAT payments, the court upheld HMRC’s denial of the VAT grouping in August 2024. Barclays has appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal. FCA investigations concerning financial crime systems and controls and compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations The FCA conducted civil enforcement investigations into Barclays Bank PLC’s and Barclays Bank UK PLC’s compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations and the FCA’s Principles of Business and Rules relating to anti-money laundering and financial crime systems and controls. The FCA’s investigation of Barclays Bank PLC focused primarily on the historical oversight and management of a customer with heightened risk. In July 2025, Barclays Bank PLC agreed a settlement with the FCA to resolve the investigation. At the same time, Barclays Bank UK PLC reached a settlement with the FCA in a separate investigation concerning the onboarding of a client money account for an FCA-regulated firm. The FCA recognised Barclays’ cooperation in both matters, which are now concluded. UK bank levy In November 2024, HMRC updated its published guidance on the treatment of beneficiary accounts for the purposes of the exclusion of protected deposits from the UK bank levy charge. HMRC’s interpretation of the UK bank levy legislation differs from Barclays’ interpretation of the legislation, which has been applied in Barclays’ UK bank levy returns and which Barclays continues to consider is correct. In December 2024, HMRC wrote to notify Barclays of its intention to challenge this treatment. Engagement with HMRC is at an early stage and assessments have not yet been issued. 3.Barclays PLC Civil action in respect of statements concerning Barclays' former CEO In 2023, a purported class action was filed in federal court in California against Barclays PLC and a number of current and former senior executives of Barclays PLC. It was amended in 2024 to assert claims under US and UK securities laws against Barclays PLC and individual defendants. The complaint seeks to hold the defendants responsible for declines in the price of Barclays PLC’s American depositary receipts and Barclays’ shares, which the plaintiffs claim occurred as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in Barclays’ public disclosures relating to its former CEO’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Barclays PLC and an individual defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025, while another individual defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. General The Group is engaged in various other legal, competition and regulatory matters in the UK, the US and a number of other overseas jurisdictions. It is subject to legal proceedings brought by and against the Group which arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time, including (but not limited to) disputes in relation to contracts, securities, guarantees, debt collection, consumer credit, fraud, trusts, client assets, competition, data management and protection, intellectual property, money laundering, financial crime, employment, environmental and other statutory and common law issues. The Group is also subject to enquiries and examinations, requests for information, audits, investigations and legal and other proceedings by regulators, governmental and other public bodies in connection with (but not limited to) consumer protection measures, measures to combat money laundering and financial crime, compliance with legislation and regulation, wholesale trading activity and other areas of banking and business activities in which the Group is or has been engaged. The Group is cooperating with the relevant authorities and keeping all relevant agencies briefed as appropriate in relation to these matters and others described in this note on an ongoing basis. At the present time, Barclays PLC does not expect the ultimate resolution of any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial position. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters and the matters specifically described in this note, there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter or matters (including formerly active matters or those matters arising after the date of this note) will not be material to Barclays PLC’s results, operations or cash flows for a particular period, depending on, among other things, the amount of the loss resulting from the matter(s) and the amount of profit otherwise reported for the reporting period.

The Group faces legal, competition and regulatory challenges, many of which are beyond our control. The extent of the impact of these matters cannot always be predicted but may materially impact our operations, financial results, condition and prospects. Matters arising from a set of similar circumstances can give rise to either a contingent liability or a provision, or both, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances.

The recognition of provisions in relation to such matters involves critical accounting estimates and judgements in accordance with the relevant accounting policies applicable to Note 12, Provisions. We have not disclosed an estimate of the potential financial impact or effect on the Group of contingent liabilities where it is not currently practicable to do so. Various matters detailed in this note seek damages of an unspecified amount. While certain matters specify the damages claimed, such claimed amounts do not necessarily reflect the Group’s potential financial exposure in respect of those matters.

In 2023, Barclays Bank PLC received requests for arbitration from two Jersey special purpose vehicles connected to PCP International Finance Limited asserting claims in relation to the October 2008 capital raising. This matter is now concluded, and there are no other outstanding matters relating to the advisory services agreements.

Multiple civil actions have been filed in the US against the Group and other banks alleging manipulation of USD LIBOR, Sterling LIBOR and the LIBOR benchmark that was administered by the Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and certain of its affiliates (ICE LIBOR).

With respect to USD LIBOR, one action alleging that Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other financial institutions individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates remains pending in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking unspecified damages. Barclays Bank PLC has moved for summary judgment in this action, and briefing on that motion was completed in January 2025. The other action has settled. The settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position.

With respect to Sterling LIBOR, consolidated class actions filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks alleging, among other things, manipulation of the Sterling LIBOR rate in violation of the Antitrust Act, CEA and RICO, were dismissed in 2018. Oral argument on the plaintiffs’ appeal of that dismissal was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) in April 2024.

With respect to ICE LIBOR, in August 2020, a group of individual plaintiffs in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of individual borrowers and consumers of loans and credit cards with variable interest rates linked to USD ICE LIBOR brought an action against Barclays Bank PLC and other financial institutions alleging Antitrust Act violations. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in 2022. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in December 2024. The plaintiffs’ petition for US Supreme Court review was denied in June 2025, concluding the matter.

The remaining UK claim, issued in 2017, against Barclays Bank PLC and other banks in connection with alleged manipulation of LIBOR has now settled. The settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. Proceedings have also been brought in Spain, Italy and Israel relating to alleged manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR. The proceedings in Israel have concluded.

Legal proceedings have been brought or are threatened against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and Barclays Execution Services Limited (BX) in connection with alleged manipulation of foreign exchange in the UK, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil and Australia. In the Australia and Israel proceedings settlements in principle have been agreed subject to court approval.

The above-mentioned proceedings include a class action filed against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BX, BCI and other financial institutions in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in 2019. The CAT refused to certify the claim in 2022 and in 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the CAT’s decision and found that the claim should be certified on an opt-out basis. The UK Supreme Court heard arguments in April 2025, concerning the appeal brought by Barclays and the other financial institutions involved.

A US civil complaint alleging manipulation of the price of silver in violation of the CEA, the Antitrust Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws was brought by a proposed class of plaintiffs against a number of banks, including Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and BX, and transferred to the SDNY. The complaint was dismissed against these Barclays entities and certain other defendants in 2018, and against the remaining defendants in 2023. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the complaint against all defendants.

There remains one US Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) related civil action arising from unresolved repurchase requests submitted by Trustees for certain RMBS, alleging breaches of various loan-level representations and warranties made by Barclays Bank PLC and/or a subsidiary acquired in 2007. Barclays’ motion to dismiss the action was denied in 2023. The parties appealed the decision and in January 2025, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the action. The plaintiff has requested review by the New York State Court of Appeals.

Consolidated putative class action complaints filed in US federal court against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions under the Antitrust Act and state common law allege that the defendants: (i) conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities market; and/or (ii) conspired to prevent the creation of certain platforms by boycotting or threatening to boycott such trading platforms. The court dismissed the consolidated action in 2021 and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in 2022. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and in February 2024 the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs did not seek US Supreme Court review, thereby concluding the matter.

In addition, certain plaintiffs have filed a related, direct action against BCI 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.

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.

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.

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 2025. The case has returned to New Mexico federal court.

Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, together with other financial institutions that act as market makers for interest rate swaps (IRS), are named as defendants in several antitrust actions, including one putative class action and individual actions brought by certain swap execution facilities, which are consolidated in the SDNY. The complaints allege the defendants conspired to prevent the development of exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages. The parties have reached a settlement of the class action, which received final court approval and has been paid. The financial impact of the settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. The individual claims are proceeding separately in the SDNY.

In 2008, BDC Finance L.L.C. (BDC) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, demanding damages of $298m, 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 $3.3m 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.

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 government 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. The two other actions in the EDNY are currently stayed. Out

In 2020, a purported Barclays shareholder filed a putative derivative action in New York state court against BCI and a number of current and former members of the Board of Directors of Barclays PLC and senior executives or employees of the Group. The shareholder plaintiff filed the claim on behalf of nominal defendant Barclays PLC, alleging that the individual defendants harmed the company through breaches of their duties, including under the Companies Act 2006. The plaintiff sought damages on behalf of Barclays PLC for the losses that Barclays PLC allegedly suffered as a result of these alleged breaches. An amended complaint was filed in 2021, which BCI and certain other defendants moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted in 2022. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the dismissal was unanimously affirmed in 2023 by the First Judicial Department in New York. The plaintiff appealed the First Judicial Department’s decision to the New York Court of Appeals. The dismissal was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in May 2025, concluding the matter.

Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (CFS), which trades as Barclays Partner Finance and houses Barclays’ point-of-sale finance business, was required by the FCA to undertake a skilled person review in 2020 following concerns about historical affordability assessments for certain loans to customers in connection with timeshare purchases. The skilled person review was concluded in 2021. CFS complied fully with the skilled person review requirements, including carrying out certain remediation measures. CFS was not required to conduct a full back book review. Instead, CFS reviewed limited historical lending to ascertain whether its practices caused customer harm and has remediated any examples of harm. This work was substantially completed during 2023, utilising provisions booked to account for any remediations. This matter is now concluded.

In January 2024, the FCA appointed a skilled person to undertake a review of the historical use of discretionary commission arrangements and sales in the motor finance market across several firms. Barclays is cooperating fully with the FCA’s skilled person review, the outcome of which is unknown. This review follows two final decisions by the UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), including one upholding a complaint against CFS in relation to commission arrangements and disclosure in the sale of motor finance products, and a number of complaints and court claims, including some against CFS.

In April 2024, CFS filed a judicial review challenge in the High Court against the FOS’s decision in relation to commission arrangements and disclosure in the sale of motor finance products. In December 2024, the High Court ruled against CFS. CFS has appealed the decision to the English Court of Appeal.

Separately, in October 2024, the English Court of Appeal issued judgment against the lenders in three motor finance commissions cases. CFS is not a party to this litigation. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of these cases in April 2025 and judgment is yet to be issued. In light of the English Court of Appeal decision and onward appeal to the UK Supreme Court, the FCA extended its pause on complaints to include all motor finance commissions, not just discretionary commission arrangements.

CFS ceased operating in the motor finance market in late 2019. In 2020, CFS was transferred from Barclays Bank PLC to Barclays Principal Investments Ltd (BPIL), another subsidiary of Barclays PLC. Barclays Bank PLC has provided an intragroup indemnity to BPIL in respect of historical litigation and conduct matters relating to CFS.

In 2022, a purported class action claim was filed in the US District Court in Manhattan seeking to hold Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and former and current executives responsible for declines in the price of Barclays PLC’s American depositary receipts, which the plaintiffs claim occurred as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in its public disclosures. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in part and denied in part in February 2024. The parties reached a settlement in respect of such lawsuit, which has received final court approval and has been paid, concluding the matter. The financial impact of this settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position.

In addition, holders of VXX ETNs have brought a purported class action in federal court in New York against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and former and current executives and board members in the US alleging, among other things, that Barclays’ failure to disclose that these ETNs were unregistered securities misled investors and that, as a result, Barclays is liable for the holders’ alleged losses following the suspension of further sales and issuances of the ETNs. The plaintiffs were

In March 2024, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and former and current executives. The plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of a class of short sellers, alleging that their short positions suffered substantial losses when Barclays suspended new issuances and sales of VXX ETNs as a result of the over-issuance of securities. Barclays’ motion to dismiss was granted in March 2025. The plaintiff is appealing the decision.

In 2018, HMRC issued notices that have the effect of either removing certain Barclays overseas subsidiaries that have operations in the UK from Barclays’ UK VAT group or preventing them from joining it. Supplies between members of a UK VAT group are generally free from VAT. The notices had both retrospective and prospective effect. Barclays appealed HMRC's decisions to the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in relation to both the retrospective VAT assessments and the ongoing VAT payments made since 2018. £181m of VAT (inclusive of interest) was assessed retrospectively by HMRC covering the periods 2014 to 2018, of which approximately £128m is expected to be attributed to Barclays Bank UK PLC and £53m to Barclays Bank PLC. This retrospectively assessed VAT was paid in 2018 and an asset, adjusted to reflect expected eventual recovery, is recognised. Since 2018 Barclays has paid, and recognised as an expense, VAT on intra-group supplies from the relevant subsidiaries to the members of the VAT group. In respect of the ongoing VAT payments, the court upheld HMRC’s denial of the VAT grouping in August 2024. Barclays has appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal.

The FCA conducted civil enforcement investigations into Barclays Bank PLC’s and Barclays Bank UK PLC’s compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations and the FCA’s Principles of Business and Rules relating to anti-money laundering and financial crime systems and controls. The FCA’s investigation of Barclays Bank PLC focused primarily on the historical oversight and management of a customer with heightened risk. In July 2025, Barclays Bank PLC agreed a settlement with the FCA to resolve the investigation. At the same time, Barclays Bank UK PLC reached a settlement with the FCA in a separate investigation concerning the onboarding of a client money account for an FCA-regulated firm. The FCA recognised Barclays’ cooperation in both matters, which are now concluded.

In November 2024, HMRC updated its published guidance on the treatment of beneficiary accounts for the purposes of the exclusion of protected deposits from the UK bank levy charge. HMRC’s interpretation of the UK bank levy legislation differs from Barclays’ interpretation of the legislation, which has been applied in Barclays’ UK bank levy returns and which Barclays continues to consider is correct. In December 2024, HMRC wrote to notify Barclays of its intention to challenge this treatment. Engagement with HMRC is at an early stage and assessments have not yet been issued.

In 2023, a purported class action was filed in federal court in California against Barclays PLC and a number of current and former senior executives of Barclays PLC. It was amended in 2024 to assert claims under US and UK securities laws against Barclays PLC and individual defendants. The complaint seeks to hold the defendants responsible for declines in the price of Barclays PLC’s American depositary receipts and Barclays’ shares, which the plaintiffs claim occurred as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in Barclays’ public disclosures relating to its former CEO’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Barclays PLC and an individual defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025, while another individual defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.

The Group is engaged in various other legal, competition and regulatory matters in the UK, the US and a number of other overseas jurisdictions. It is subject to legal proceedings brought by and against the Group which arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time, including (but not limited to) disputes in relation to contracts, securities, guarantees, debt collection, consumer credit, fraud, trusts, client assets, competition, data management and protection, intellectual property, money laundering, financial crime, employment, environmental and other statutory and common law issues.

The Group is also subject to enquiries and examinations, requests for information, audits, investigations and legal and other proceedings by regulators, governmental and other public bodies in connection with (but not limited to) consumer

protection measures, measures to combat money laundering and financial crime, compliance with legislation and regulation, wholesale trading activity and other areas of banking and business activities in which the Group is or has been engaged. The Group is cooperating with the relevant authorities and keeping all relevant agencies briefed as appropriate in relation to these matters and others described in this note on an ongoing basis.