U.S. appeals court revives Libor-rigging claims against banks

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday revived litigation accusing a slew of large banks of conspiring to rig the Libor interest rate benchmark, including during the 2008 financial crisis, to boost profits at investors' expense and make the banks appear healthier than they were.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a lower court judge had jurisdiction over antitrust claims by investors including Charles Schwab Corp SCHW.N that bought various Libor-based products from the banks, or bought Libor-based futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Without ruling on the merits, Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan said accusations that bank executives and managers in the United States were ordering the suppression of Libor provided jurisdiction under a conspiracy-based theory of liability.

The appeals court adopted that theory after U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan had dismissed investor claims in 23 separate cases from the decade-old litigation.

Thursday's 43-page decision by a three-judge panel revived many of those claims, and the appeals court returned those cases to Buchwald for further proceedings.

The defendant banks sat on a panel involved in setting Libor.

They 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 representing the banks and the investors at the oral arguments, which were held in May 2019, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Libor, or the London Interbank Offered Rate, has underpinned hundreds of trillions of dollars of transactions, including $265 trillion at the start of 2021.

It has been used to set interest rates on such things as credit cards, student loans and mortgages.

The benchmark is being scrapped Link on Jan. 1, 2022 in the wake of rate-rigging that led to fines for several banks.

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

The case is In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 17-1569, 17-1915, 17-1989, 17-2056, 17-2343, 17-2347, 17-2351, 17-2352, 17-2360, 17-2376, 17-2381, 17-2383 and 17-2413.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Richard Pullin

免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務,允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容,但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限,並受以下條款與條例約束:(i)條款與條例;(ii)風險提示;(iii)完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊,僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意,我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成,也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。


本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容,包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接,皆爲‘按原狀’,並作爲一般市場評論所提供,而非投資建議。請理解和接受,所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容,並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性,而根據法律要求所編寫,而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊,相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。

我們運用 cookies 提供您最佳之網頁使用經驗。更改您的cookie 設定跟詳情。