US appeals court revives Libor manipulation claims against banks – archyde

NEW YORK, Dec 30 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Thursday resurrected a lawsuit accusing a number of major banks of conspiracy to manipulate the Libor rate, including during the 2008 financial crisis, to at the expense of profits the investor increase and the banks appear healthier than they were.

The 2nd Manhattan appeals court said a lower court judge had antitrust claims from investors, including Charles Schwab Corp, who bought various Libor-based products from banks or bought Libor-based futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange .

Without ruling on the matter, District Judge Richard Sullivan said the allegations that bank executives and executives in the United States ordered the suppression of Libor were the jurisdiction under a conspiracy-based liability theory.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to

to register

The appeals court accepted this theory after U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed investor claims in Manhattan in 23 separate cases from the ten-year-old litigation.

The 43-page decision by a three-person panel on Thursday revived many of these claims, and the appeals court returned these cases to Buchwald for further processing.

The defendant banks sat on a committee that was involved in setting the Libor.

These included Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest, Norinchukin Bank, Rabobank, Royal Bank of Canada, Societe Generale, UBS and WestLB .

Lawyers who represented the banks and investors at the oral hearings in May 2019 did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Libor, or the London Interbank Offered Rate, has supported hundreds of trillion dollars in transactions, including $ 265 trillion in early 2021.

It was used to set interest rates on things like credit cards, student loans, and mortgages.

The benchmark will be abolished on January 1, 2022 in the wake of interest rate manipulation that resulted in fines for several banks.

It will be replaced by alternative tariffs, preferably those recommended by several banks and based on actual transactions.

Der Fall ist In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, Nr. 17-1569, 17-1915, 17-1989, 17-2056, 17-2343, 17-2347, 17-2351, 17-2352, 17-2360, 17-2376, 17-2381, 17-2383 und 17-2413.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to

to register

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Arrangement by Richard Pullin

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *