Barclays bankers including former boss Bob Diamond lose High Court bid to remain anonymous over alleged involvement in Libor-fixing scandal

Former Barclays boss Bob Diamond among those denied anonymity

High Court judge said public confidence in justice could have been damaged

More than 100 names on list released, but not all involved in any impropriety

Former Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond, who was among a number of executives who unsuccessfully attempted to keep their identity secret during hearings in which the rigging of a lending rate was discussed

A judge yesterday named the Barclays bosses who tried to  keep their identities secret in a landmark case linked to the rate-fixing scandal.
Former chief executives Bob Diamond and John Varley, current investment bank boss Rich Ricci and ‘casino banker’ Jerry del Missier were among those trying to keep their involvement in the case under wraps.
But the judge said it would be an ‘affront to the principle of open justice’ to bar the public from knowing the names involved – and demanded that they be published immediately.
The decision to reveal the names heaps further embarrassment on a bank which has been hit by a string of scandals, including the rigging of the Libor rate and the ‘aggressive’ mis-selling of payment protection insurance.
In his written ruling, Mr Justice Flaux said the public had ‘a legitimate interest in learning who in the banking community is alleged to have been implicated in the manipulation of Libor’ and should be given ‘the full picture’.
Barclays became the first lender to be fined last June when it was hit with a £290million penalty by regulators in the UK and the US.
Damning emails showed how traders bragged about rigging interest rates, promising each other bottles of champagne to take part.
Five Barclays staff have been sacked over the scandal, with another eight disciplined.
The  revelations also led to the departure of Mr Diamond and his right-hand man Mr del Missier, both of whom denied knowledge of the conspiracy.
Following the judge’s ruling, 104 names have been published – all of them employees whose emails were handed to the City watchdog as part of its probe into Barclays.
THE SUPER-RICH BANKERS WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE NAMED

John Mann, a member of the powerful Treasury select committee, said: ‘There is no justification for hiding the names, particularly those at the very top.
'There are still questions to be answered about how far up this went at Barclays.’ 

The revelations came in a preliminary hearing for a case between Barclays and care home operator Guardian, which alleges the bank mis-sold it a so-called ‘interest rate swap’, which was linked to the Libor rate.
A Barclays spokesman said: ‘This started as an alleged mis-selling case which the bank considers has no merit.
'The addition of a claim based on what happened with Libor does not change the bank’s view.
'The fact that someone’s documents were reviewed by the bank during its review of millions of documents does not mean that person was involved in any wrongdoing.’

The list of 104 names

Mr Justice Flaux said more than 100 people had asked to be anonymised - and lawyers released a list yesterday containing 104 names.
The judge said not all those listed were thought to have been involved in any impropriety.
He said more than 20 were on a 'shortlist' of people believed to have been referred to in 'notices in respect of Libor'. The emails of others had been provided to regulators investigating alleged Libor manipulation.
Several firms are airing grievances against Barclays in litigation which Mr Justice Flaux described as a 'test case'.
Bosses at companies which run care homes sued after claiming that Barclays sold financial products without warning that the inter-bank lending rate on which they were based was likely to have been 'undermined' by manipulation.
Barclays disputes the companies' allegations. Bank bosses say they do not believe that 'any aspect of the case has merit'.
Scroll down for list of those who sought anonymity

Mr Diamond resigned as Barclays' chief executive in July 2012 in the wake of the rate-rigging scandal

Mr Justice Flaux said a trial was due to take place in London later this year.
The judge said public confidence in the administration of justice could have been damaged if Barclays' staff involved in the manipulation of Libor had been granted anonymity.
He dismissed the anonymity application earlier this week, after editors at three national newspapers and a news agency raised objections.

MR JUSTICE FLAUX'S REASONS FOR HIS DECISION

'The public has a legitimate interest in learning who in the banking community is alleged to have been implicated in the manipulation of Libor,' said Mr Justice Flaux, in his written ruling yesterday.

'In my judgment, for the court to permit individuals who were involved in such manipulation the protection of an anonymity order is not only not necessary for the proper administration of justice, but would be an affront to the principle of open justice and would potentially damage public confidence in the administration of justice.'

The judge added: 'So far as individuals who were not involved in the manipulation and are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing are concerned, the suggestion that they could be prejudiced by being identified seems to me somewhat unreal.'  

He gave detailed reasons for his decision in a written ruling published yesterday.
'The involvement of Barclays in manipulation of Libor is only one part of a much bigger picture concerning the manipulation of Libor by a substantial number of banks,' said the judge.
'There is a legitimate public interest in the true picture in relation to the manipulation of Libor by banks generally, not just Barclays, being brought fully to light.
'In my judgment, fair and accurate media reporting of all aspects of Libor manipulation, including the involvement of employees and ex-employees of Barclays and their identity, is an important aspect of the public obtaining that true picture.'
Mr Justice Flaux said bankers making the anonymity application wanted restrictions imposed in relation to preliminary court hearings. But the judge said full reporting of the case should not be put off.
'The manipulation of Libor by banks, including Barclays, is in the news now,' he added. 'The media... should be able to report the matter fully now, not at the time of a trial in ten months' time.'
Mr Justice Flaux also said the identity of a number of 'key' individuals - including former senior executives Bob Diamond and Jerry del Missier - was already in the public domain.
He said a parliamentary committee report had discussed the dealings Mr Diamond and Mr del Missier had with the Bank of England.
Lord Pannick QC, for the bankers seeking anonymity, had argued that naming his clients in public at preliminary hearings would be unfair.
He said information could be revealed out of context and reports might give the wrong impression about an individual’s involvement. His clients would have no right of reply to information which might emerge and their reputations and job prospects could be unfairly damaged, he added.
'It is simply unfair for names of these individuals to be published by reason of these proceedings, Lord Pannick told the judge.
'Fairness is a reason not to name someone who has not been heard in the proceedings.'
The Times and Telegraph newspaper groups, the Financial Times and the Bloomberg agency raised objections.
Guy Vassall-Adams, for the media groups, said the Libor case was a 'compelling' matter of public concern and the 'sort of stuff' journalists should report. He said courts should treat bankers like they treated everyone else and adhere to the principle of open justice.
And he told the judge that the public would think it a 'joke' if identities could not be revealed.
'They may be grand. They may be wealthy. They may consider themselves above all this. They may even be able to afford Lord Pannick,' said Mr Vassall-Adams.
'But they are just like any other individuals in court proceedings up and down this country.'
He added: 'What this really comes down to is a group of some wealthy individuals saying the court should depart from the normal principles covering civil litigation.'
Barclays last year tried to stop damages claims relating to Libor being brought. But Mr Justice Flaux ruled that firms could air their claims, following a hearing in London in October.

'They may be grand. They may be wealthy. They may consider themselves above all this. They may even be able to afford Lord Pannick, but they are just like any other individuals in court proceedings up and down this country'

- Guy Vassall-Adams, for the media groups

 

Firms had already complained of being mis-sold financial products but wanted to add more claims in the wake of rulings by financial regulation authorities on Libor manipulation.
Barclays objected, saying the new claims relating to Libor did not have 'real prospects' of success and should not be allowed.
The judge ruled against Barclays after hearing legal arguments from both sides. He said he had 'no doubt whatsoever' that the Libor claims passed the 'sufficient argument' threshold and should be aired at a trial.
The judge was told that Barclays was fined after regulators in England and the United States concluded there had been 'misconduct and wrong-doing' in relation to Libor manipulation between 2005 and 2009.
One firm, Guardian Care Homes, said the judge’s decision to allow the Libor claims to proceed was a 'huge milestone'.
The firm, based in Wolverhampton, says it was sold two interest rate swap arrangements worth £70 million between 2007 and 2008 when it sought to refinance loans with Barclays.
Bosses say they should never have been sold the products, which are designed to insure businesses against rising interest rates.

LIST RELEASED BY LAWYERS OF THE 104 WHO SOUGHT ANONYMITY

Mr Justice Flaux said that not all those listed were thought to have been involved in any impropriety. He said more than 20 were on a 'shortlist' of people believed to have been referred to in 'notices in respect of Libor'. The emails of others had been provided to regulators investigating alleged Libor manipulation...

1. Abbot, Angus
2. Anil, Atluri
3. Bagguley, Mike
4. Barnes, Nick
5. Bartosik, Kristofer Kasimir Kristofer
6. Baynes, Kenneth
7. Behiri, Chris
8. Bellemin, Velik
9. Bermingham, Colin
10. Bhattacharyya, Arrak
11. Bommensath, Eric
12. Bond, Tim
13. Brown, Conor
14. Buckley, Aiden
15. Callow, Julian
16. Carter, Sarah Camilla
17. Chamadia, Mayank
18. Chatterton, Simon
19. Chu, Sarah
20. Coleman, Aisling
21. Contogoulas, Stylianos
22. Dai, Ian
23. Darbyshire, Hamish
24. Daulby, Sarah
25. de Vitry, Benoit
26. de Waal, Eldon

27. Dearlove, Mark
28. del Missier, Jerry
29. Desler, Jon Michael
30. DeSouza, Derek
31. Diamond, Bob
32. Dymov, David
33. Egawa, Tomohiko
34. Eng, Jennifer
35. Fowden, Rupert
36. Franco, Stefano
37. Frisbee, Rick
38. Fry, Scott
39. Goudie, Paul
40. Guarnay, Adrien
41. HaIl, John
42. Harimoto, Makoto
43. Harrison, Harry
44. Herbert, Simon
45. Jancic, Aleks
46. Jiang, Joe
47. Johnson, Peter
48. Kai, Shinichiro
49. Kassam, Adil
50. Kerr, Chris
51. Kunimura, Hiroshi
52. Lee, Don
53. Lee, John H

54. Lloyd, Ben
55. Lucas, Chris
56. Lundstrom, Jan
57. Luthra, Rahul
58. Masayuki, Ebira
59. Mathew, Jonathan
60. Mitchell, Mike
61. Modhvadia, Vijay
62. Morse, Stephen
63. Murayama, Chiga
64. Murayama, Daisuke
65. Muri, Mats
66. Murray, Kilian
67. Nagai, Hideki
68. Pabon, Alex
69. Pal, Ronti
70. Palombo, Carlo
71. Pan, Xuan
72. Parrie, Hadley
73. Penketh, Steve
74. Perrette, Clement
75. Petrie, David
76. Pike, Ian
77. PoIlak, Michael
78. Porter, John
79. Reich, Ryan
80. Ricci, Rich

81. Ridgway, Jon
82. Ritossa, Ivan
83. Roberts, John
84. Saarbach, Christian
85. Savill, Susie
86. Scammell, John
87. Schwartz, John
88. Shah, Bineet
89. Shinoda, Mark
90. Spence, Peter
91. Stone, Jon
92. Storey, Miles
93. Story, Kevin
94. Taylor, Ryan
95. Thrash, Robert
96. Trebault, Pierre
97. Tsappis, Alex Thomas Henry
98. Turner, Nathaniel Joe
99. Tyce, Nat
100. Varley, John
101. Wikmark, Johan Bo Olaf
102. Yarian, Michael
103. Yeong, John C
104. Zhou, Lin Yi