The Second Circuit has reversed a lower federal court decision that had first determined that widespread collusion amongst international banks to price-fix the London Interbank Offered Rate (aka Libor) was not a violation of antitrust law for want of competition.

The Second Circuit’s decision gives some clarity as to what conduct is regulated under international and American anti-trust rules. The district court judge, Naomi Rice Buchwalk dismissed plaintiffs’ case against Barclays, UBS, and Deutsche Bank because upon a look-see of the evidence, she was convinced that the Libor rate setting process was a “collaborative” process and not a competitive one. Banks submit reports of their preferred and willing rates of interest; the numbers are averaged, and the result forms the basis of the Libor rate. There’s nothing competitive about that according to the district, and this is why it was not in violation of antitrust laws.

But the circuit effectively ruled that Buchwalk didn’t take her reasoning far enough. The better analysis was to heed the complainants’ allegations that the banks circumvented Libor rules in order to manipulate the rate. Banks may not have created the Libor mechanism, but they certainly sold securities that incorporated the Libor rates. And when they sell, they are unquestionably competitors. This should have been the focus of the court’s analysis.

Coincidental Parallel Conduct

The banks failed at their attempts to convince the circuit that their conduct was not sufficiently pled to show a conspiracy. The theory was that whatever allegedly bad-faith conduct that was alleged was not illegal but merely coincidental to the plaintiffs’ injuries.

“Efficient Enforcers”

Interestingly, the banks’ primary hope lies either with the Supreme Court or a remand back to the district on an issue that was actually never addressed by the lower court: whether or not the plaintiff investors are the proper one’s to bring a claim as “efficient enforcers” under anti-trust doctrine. Our take is that the district court will fall into place and find not only that the plaintiffs were of the right class and standing, but that all the necessary facts were properly pled. After all, the court all but said that plaintiffs had met at least that burden.

Related Resources:

  • 2nd Circuit Speaks: LIBOR Plaintiffs May Pursue Claims (Antitrust Update Blog)
  • ‘Hustle’ Case Reversed: BofA Escapes $1.3 Billion Penalty (FindLaw’s U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
  • 2nd Cir. Refuses to Re-Open Arab Bank Terrorism Suit (FindLaw’s U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
  • WWII Vet Writes 2nd Cir., Reprimands the Panel Over ‘Deflategate’ (FindLaw’s U.S. Second Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules