In an opinion Monday, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Buchwald’s dismissal of antitrust claims based on the alleged manipulation of LIBOR (covered here). Judge Buchwald ruled that the process of establishing LIBOR was a “cooperative” endeavor that, even if manipulated, would not cause harm to competition for purposes of the antitrust laws. The Second
11 MD 02262
Judge Buchwald Rejects Student Loan Borrower Claims in LIBOR Litigation
By Michael Keough on
As part of the ongoing LIBOR litigation (previous coverage here), Judge Buchwald dismissed yesterday claims brought by student loan borrowers claiming that LIBOR manipulation both constituted fraud and ran afoul of state laws preventing banks from controlling a floating interest rate. Judge Buchwald held that the student loan plaintiffs could not show that lenders…
Judge Buchwald Issues 433-Page Ruling Largely Allowing Individual LIBOR Fraud Cases to Proceed
By Charles Michael on
In a wide-ranging 433-page ruling yesterday, Judge Buchwald concluded (among many other things) that certain individual plaintiffs could bring fraud claims against banks they accuse of manipulating LIBOR.
The introduction of the opinion notes that the fraud claims present the plaintiffs, after four years of litigation, with a potential “comprehensive remedy”:Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Issues 433-Page Ruling Largely Allowing Individual LIBOR Fraud Cases to Proceed
In Allowing Foreign Exchange Price-Fixing Case to Proceed, Judge Schofield Disagrees With Judge Buchwald’s LIBOR Ruling
By Charles Michael on
In an opinion yesterday, Judge Schofield denied various banks’ motion to dismiss a price fixing case concerning a foreign exchange benchmark called the “Fix.” Notably, Judge Schofield distinguished her ruling from Judge Buchwald’s ruling dismissing a similar case concerning the LIBOR benchmark (covered here). Judge Buchwald had ruled there could be no “antitrust injury” because LIBOR is set by banks acting “cooperative[ly]” (as opposed to acting as competitors) to estimate their borrowing costs, whereas, as Judge Schofield pointed out, banks establish the Fix by actual transactions. Judge Schofield went on to disagree with the LIBOR ruling, to the extent it could be read to require a showing, at the pleading stage, that the injury alleged could not have resulted from unilateral (as opposed to collusive) conduct:
Continue Reading In Allowing Foreign Exchange Price-Fixing Case to Proceed, Judge Schofield Disagrees With Judge Buchwald’s LIBOR Ruling
Banks Challenge Jurisdiction in LIBOR Suits; Emphasize That LIBOR Is Set In London
By Charles Michael on
In a motion yesterday, various banks involved in the multidistrict litigation relating to alleged LIBOR manipulation moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They argue that LIBOR is set in set in London by foreign banks or foreign employees and, thus, the allegations lack a sufficient connection to the United States:
Continue Reading Banks Challenge Jurisdiction in LIBOR Suits; Emphasize That LIBOR Is Set In London
Judge Buchwald Dismisses Substantial Portion of LIBOR Cases
By Charles Michael on
Banks Move to Dismiss LIBOR Antitrust Class Action
By Charles Michael on
On Friday, various banks moved to dismiss an antitrust class action arising from similar LIBOR manipulation allegations for which Barclays just agreed to pay $453 million. They argue (among other things):
Continue Reading Banks Move to Dismiss LIBOR Antitrust Class Action