LIBOR Update: Rigged Revelations

We have written extensively on LIBOR-related issues over the years, and we were interested to see the two recent publications by Andy Verity, the BBC’s economics correspondent, in The Times (see here and here). The linked articles are extracts from Verity’s upcoming book, Rigged, which investigates the LIBOR-rigging scandal—and presents claims that “investigating agencies, including the FBI in the United States and Britian’s financial regulator, were told in November 2010 of an international drive to get Libor and Euribor rates down, regardless of the real cost of borrowing cash.” Continue reading LIBOR Update: Rigged Revelations

Swiss Franc LIBOR Class Action: Credit Suisse Settlement

While we have written frequently on various LIBOR-related litigations, this post will focus on a yet-uncovered action—Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. V. Credit Suisse Group AG et al.—targeting the Swiss Franc LIBOR.

The 2015 class action complaint, brought by Sonterra Capital against Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, RBS, UBS, and a series of Doe defendants, alleged that Defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate Swiss Franc LIBOR and the prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-based derivatives.  As with the many other LIBOR actions, the heart of the allegations concerns misreporting: namely, that Defendants failed to accurately report their borrowing costs—the basis for the Swiss Franc LIBOR calculation—and instead altered their pricing submissions to manipulate the prices of financial instruments based on that metric, for their own financial benefit. 

Continue reading Swiss Franc LIBOR Class Action: Credit Suisse Settlement

Breaking LIBOR was Easy. Fixing it May be Hard.

This post is the first in a series of posts on the particularly complex issue of LIBOR transition on asset-backed securities, such as residential mortgage-backed securities, which face the additional complication of there being two levels of transition: LIBOR-indexed mortgage notes that are assets of the securitization trust and LIBOR-indexed interest rates paid on the securities issued the securitization trust. Continue reading Breaking LIBOR was Easy. Fixing it May be Hard.

Litigating LIBOR Losses: London Edition

Well, dear readers, this post is going to be a bit outside the usual realm for the Manipulation Monitor. But, in light of my colleague John Whelan’s recent post on the class action settlement in In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-02262 (“In re Libor“), I thought it might be fun to provide a bit of color (or colour) on a related LIBOR action currently proceeding in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Continue reading Litigating LIBOR Losses: London Edition

New LIBOR Suit Alleging Rate-Rigging Continued After 2014 Not Added to Existing LIBOR MDL

Law360 reports that the Southern District of New York has refused to join a new LIBOR class action filed by Putnam Bank with the ongoing LIBOR multi-district litigation that is being overseen by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. The existing LIBOR MDL concerns rate-rigging from 2007 to 2009/2010, when the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) was the LIBOR administrator, whereas Putnam’s action concerns rate-rigging from 2014 onward, after Intercontinental Exchange Inc., which owns the New York Stock Exchange, had replaced BBA as LIBOR administrator by. Putnam’s claims have been widely reported in the British press. Continue reading New LIBOR Suit Alleging Rate-Rigging Continued After 2014 Not Added to Existing LIBOR MDL

The LIBOR Over-the-Counter Defendants Argue That Their Transactions Were Above the Board

In this post, we provide an update on our August 20, 2018, post that reported on the motion of LIBOR Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (together, the “OTC Defendants” or “Defendants”) for partial judgment on the pleadings, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) to dismiss the OTC Plaintiff Class’ antitrust claims, and the OTC Plaintiffs’ related opposition. In their motion, the OTC Defendants seek to eliminate antitrust claims for transactions where a member of the panel involved in setting the LIBOR interest rate was not both the issuer and direct seller by arguing that the OTC Plaintiffs cannot be “efficient enforcers” of antitrust claims in order to have standing to bring antitrust claims for such transactions. Continue reading The LIBOR Over-the-Counter Defendants Argue That Their Transactions Were Above the Board