Advertisement
UK markets close in 7 hours 3 minutes
  • FTSE 100

    7,853.78
    -111.75 (-1.40%)
     
  • FTSE 250

    19,391.31
    -307.58 (-1.56%)
     
  • AIM

    741.52
    -8.76 (-1.17%)
     
  • GBP/EUR

    1.1720
    +0.0009 (+0.08%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2444
    -0.0003 (-0.02%)
     
  • Bitcoin GBP

    50,886.94
    -2,403.45 (-4.51%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,061.82
    -61.59 (-1.20%)
     
  • DOW

    37,735.11
    -248.13 (-0.65%)
     
  • CRUDE OIL

    85.29
    -0.12 (-0.14%)
     
  • GOLD FUTURES

    2,385.10
    +2.10 (+0.09%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    38,471.20
    -761.60 (-1.94%)
     
  • HANG SENG

    16,248.97
    -351.49 (-2.12%)
     
  • DAX

    17,789.86
    -236.72 (-1.31%)
     
  • CAC 40

    7,950.82
    -94.29 (-1.17%)
     

UK Court of Appeal refuses Libyan SWF right to appeal in Goldman case

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Court of Appeal has refused Libya's $67 billion (£50.8 billion) sovereign wealth fund the right to appeal against the 2016 judgement handed down by Britain's High Court in the fund's $1.2 billion case against Goldman Sachs.

The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) lost the 2016 case, which related to nine equity derivatives investments carried out in 2008 that turned out to be worthless.

In the trial, the fund had argued that it was too unsophisticated to understand what it was buying, and that Goldman had abused its position as a trusted adviser. But the trial judge dismissed these claims.

The LIA subsequently sought permission to appeal, but in the court order seen by Reuters and obtained from the Court of Appeal, Judge Launcelot Henderson refused the request.

ADVERTISEMENT

A spokesman for the LIA said the fund was "considering its options".

Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

One of the grounds the LIA had cited as the basis for an appeal related to an internship offered by Goldman Sachs to Haitem Zarti, the younger brother of Mustafa Zarti, a key LIA decision-maker at the time the trades were carried out.

However, Judge Henderson said the LIA's arguments in this regard had "no real prospect of success".

He added that it was not open to the LIA to advance a new case that the offer of the internship constituted a bribe as a matter of law.

(Reporting by Claire Milhench, editing by Pritha Sarkar)