Strategic Shareholder Climate and Risk Financial Financial Barclays PLC 481 report information sustainability report Governance review review statements Annual Report 2022 Notes to the financial statements (continued) Accruals, provisions, contingent liabilities and legal proceedings manipulation of the price of silver in violation of the CEA, the Antitrust Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, has been dismissed as against the Barclays entities. The plaintiffs have the option to seek the court’s permission to appeal. 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 actions There are two pending US Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) related civil actions arising from unresolved repurchase requests submitted by Trustees for certain RMBS, alleging breaches of various loan-level representations and warranties (R&Ws) made by Barclays Bank PLC and/or a subsidiary acquired in 2007. In one action, the Barclays defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in June 2022 and the plaintiffs’ R&W breach claim was dismissed. The plaintiffs are appealing the decision. The other repurchase action is pending. Barclays Bank PLC reached settlements to resolve two other repurchase actions, which have received final court approval. Payment of the settlement amounts was completed in July 2022. These matters are now concluded. The financial impact of the settlements is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. In 2020, a civil litigation claim was filed in the New Mexico First Judicial District Court by the State of New Mexico against six banks, including BCI, on behalf of two New Mexico state pension funds and the New Mexico State Investment Council relating to legacy RMBS purchases. As to BCI, the complaint alleges that the funds purchased approximately $22m in RMBS underwritten by BCI. The parties have reached a joint settlement to resolve this matter for $32.5m. The settlement was paid in April 2022. The financial impact of BCI’s share of the joint settlement is not material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. 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 March 2021. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in March 2022. The plaintiffs are appealing this decision. 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. Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds civil actions Civil antitrust actions have been filed in the SDNY and Federal Court of Canada in Toronto against Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, BX, Barclays Capital Securities Limited and, with respect to the civil action filed in Canada only, Barclays Capital Canada, Inc. and other financial institutions alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for US dollar-denominated Supranational, Sovereign and Agency bonds. In one of the actions filed in the SDNY, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal; however, the district court subsequently informed the parties of a potential conflict. The matter was assigned to a new district court judge and the plaintiffs moved to vacate the dismissal order, which was denied. The plaintiffs’ time to appeal has expired and this matter is now concluded. The plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the other SDNY action. In the Federal Court of Canada action, the parties have reached a settlement in principle, which will require court approval. The financial impact of the settlement is not expected to be material to the Group’s operating results, cash flows or financial position. 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. Two actions in state court have been filed by private plaintiffs on behalf of the states of Illinois and California. 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 November 2020 and June 2022. In the California action, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in June 2021. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. In the Illinois action, trial has been scheduled for August 2023. Odd-lot corporate bonds antitrust class action In 2020, BCI, together with other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a putative class action. 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 and the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. 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 class actions which were consolidated in the SDNY in 2016. The complaints allege the defendants conspired to prevent the development of exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages. In 2018, trueEX LLC filed an antitrust class action in the SDNY against a number of financial institutions including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI based on similar allegations with respect to trueEX LLC’s development of an IRS platform. In 2017, Tera Group Inc. filed a separate civil antitrust action in the SDNY claiming that certain conduct alleged in the IRS cases also caused the plaintiff to suffer harm with respect to the Credit Default Swaps market. In 2018 and 2019, respectively, the court dismissed certain claims in both cases for unjust enrichment and tortious interference but denied motions to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, which remain pending.