High Court case is lost by Staveley

A WOULD-BE Newcastle United owner who sued Barclays for hundreds of millions of pounds has lost a High Court battle.

Amanda Staveley made complaints about the behaviour of Barclays bosses when negotiating investment deals during the 2008 financial crisis.

The 47-year-old was also at the forefront of a consortium, backed by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which looked to buy the Magpies from current owner Mike Ashley last year.

Ms Staveley said PCP Capital Partners, a private equity firm she runs, would have invested on “vastly better terms” but for Barclays’ “false representations.”

The bank disputed her allegations and said the claim should be dismissed. A High Court judge ruled against her yesterday.

Mr Justice Waksman heard evidence at a trial in London during the summer of 2020.

Ms Staveley said bank bosses agreed to provide an unsecured £2bn loan to Qatari investors but alleged the loan was “concealed” from the market, shareholders and PCP Capital Partners.

She said PCP was induced to invest on “manifestly worse terms” than Qatari investors.

Lawyers representing PCP told the judge an initial damages claim was for a sum between £1.6bn and £400m.

By the end of the hearing PCP was arguing for amounts ranging between around £830m and around £600m.

Lawyers representing bank bosses criticised Ms Staveley, who says PCP introduced Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour – a member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi – to Barclays as an investor during the trial.

Jeffery Onions QC, who led Barclays’ legal team, told Mr Justice Waksman she had a “tendency to exaggerate” when giving evidence.

He said her evidence had been “peppered with hyperbole” and in some respects was “plainly dishonest.”

Richard East, who represented Ms Staveley and PCP Capital Partners said he was surprised by some of the judge’s rulings.

He said: “Despite Barclays’ attempts to besmirch Ms Staveley’s character, this judgment makes clear Ms Staveley was a reliable and honest witness.”

He called the judgement “disappointing.”

After the ruling was handed down, Ms Staveley said she would consider whether to appeal.