The CEO tries not once but twice to get the company security people to investigate who raised a stink over one of the CEO’s buddies getting hired. The CEO gets a formal reprimand and gets his bonus docked. Now the Chairman of the Board supports the CEO.
“Barclays Chairman Backs CEO Amid Shareholder Calls for Firing,” The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2017 B3. Barclays also got hit for $97 million to settle an over-billing claim. The CEO also tried to intervene with one of the bank’s major clients that was in a dispute with the CEO’s brother-in-law. Nearly all the shareholders voting at the annual meeting also supported the CEO (some abstained).
The WSJ article ends with
On Wednesday, the SEC said Barclays improperly recommended more expensive share classes, charged fees to clients for due diligence and monitoring services that weren’t performed and collected extra mutual-fund sales charges and fees.
What does this say about the culture (a) on the Board, (b) for the Barclays shareholders, and (c) the employees see? How does the SEC (and other regulators) view them?
infogovnuggets 