(Bloomberg) — Barclays Plc is seeking to block more than £3.5 million ($4.6 million) in deferred payments to a former senior banker after he retired from the lender and then took up a job at a hedge fund.
Kamal Sandhu and Barclays traded London lawsuits in a legal spat that started after he joined US hedge fund Point72 Asset Management. Sandhu, who was head of credit trading for central, eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, left Barclays in May 2023 to look after his ill son but started work at the hedge fund months later when the health care costs soared, according to court filings.
Sandhu was owed deferred payments between 2024 and 2027 as part of his retirement deal, according to his lawyers. The terms also specified he wasn’t permitted to take up a role at a likely competitor after retirement.
The unvested deferred remuneration lapsed once Sandhu started working as a portfolio manager at Point72, the bank’s lawyers said. The bank denied Sandhu was misled. Yet Sandu’s lawyers argued in court filings that his role at the hedge fund was entirely different from his work in Barclays and that Point72 does not compete with the bank.
After 14 years at Barclays, Sandhu left following an “outstanding” performance in 2022 when his desk generated $300 million and he personally made $120 million for the bank. This was despite the challenging conditions at home where his son could scream in pain for as much as eight hours a day, his lawyers said.
Sandhu and Barclays spokespeople declined to comment on the ongoing case.
The banker’s unvested shares and cash awards would have lapsed if he’d resigned and Sandhu was “treated more favorably” with career retirement, Barclays argued in court filings.
Sandhu first sued the bank at a London employment tribunal last year seeking the unpaid amount. Barclays filed a lawsuit against Sandhu in the High Court arguing that the tribunal didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. It has asked a judge to declare that Sandhu failed to comply with retirement conditions and is not entitled to the payments.
Sandhu and Barclays accused each other of “jurisdiction shopping,” which means taking the case to a forum where litigants see better chances of success.
Barclays is trying to drive up Sandhu’s legal costs and discourage him from pursuing his entitlements, Sandhu’s lawyers said. The bank wants “to gain tactical advantages, primarily of a financial nature, against the defendant, the father of a severely disabled child,” his lawyers said.
“The allegation that the claimants are jurisdiction shopping, when in fact it was the defendant who was doing so, and further that they are doing so for an improper purpose, are without merit,” the bank’s lawyers said.
Point72 is not a party in the case and not accused of any wrongdoing.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Leave a Reply