Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust Litigation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,026|Likes:
Published by Foreclosure Fraud

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Foreclosure Fraud on Apr 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK ----------------------------------------XIn re:LIBOR-Based Financial InstrumentsAntitrust Litigation. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Cases----------------------------------------X
11 MD 2262 (NRB)
I. Introduction
 These cases arise out of the alleged manipulation of theLondon InterBank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), an interest ratebenchmark that has been called “the worlds most importantnumber.British Bankers’ Assn, BBA LIBOR: The Worlds MostImportant Number Now Tweets Daily (May 21, 2009), http://www.bbalibor.com/news-releases/bba-libor-the-worlds-most-important-number-now-tweets-daily. As numerous newspaper articles overthe past year have reported, domestic and foreign regulatoryagencies have already reached settlements with several banksinvolved in the LIBOR-setting process, with penalties reachinginto the billions of dollars. The cases presently before us do not involve governmentalregulatory action, but rather are private lawsuits by personswho allegedly suffered harmas a result of the suppression o
Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 161
2LIBOR. Starting in mid-2011, such lawsuits began to be filed inthis District and others across the country. On August 12,2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferredseveral such cases fromother districts to this Court for“coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.In reLibor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 802 F. Supp. 2d1380, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (2006).On June 29, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss.Four categories of cases are subject to defendants’ motions todismiss: cases brought by (1) over-the-counter (“OTC”)plaintiffs, (2) exchange-based plaintiffs, (3) bondholderplaintiffs, and (4) Charles Schwab plaintiffs (the “Schwabplaintiffs”). The first three categories each involve purportedclass actions, and each has a single lead action. The leadaction for the OTC plaintiffs is Mayor and City Council oBaltimore v. Bank of America (11 Civ. 5450); the lead action forthe exchange-based plaintiffs is FTC Capital GmbH v. CreditSuisse Group (11 Civ. 2613), and the lead action for thebondholder plaintiffs is Gelboimv. Credit Suisse Group (12 Civ.1025). By contrast, the Schwab plaintiffs do not seek torepresent a class, but rather have initiated three separatecases: Schwab Short-TermBond Market Fund v. Bank of AmericaCorp. (11 Civ. 6409), Charles Schwab Bank, N.A. v. Bank o
Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 161
3America Corp. (11 Civ. 6411), and Schwab Money Market Fund v.Bank of America Corp. (11 Civ. 6412).Subsequent to defendants’ filing of their motion todismiss, several new complaints were filed. It quickly becameapparent to us that information relating to this case wouldcontinue indefinitely to come to light, that new complaintswould continue to be filed, and that waiting for the “dust tosettle” would require an unacceptable delay in the proceedings. Therefore, on August 14, 2012, we issued a MemorandumandOrder imposing a stay on all complaints not then subject todefendants’ motions to dismiss, pending the present decision.In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 11 MD2262, 2012 WL 3578149 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2012). Although weencouraged the prompt filing of new complaints, see id. at *1n.2, we determined that the most sensible way to proceed wouldbe to wait on addressing those cases until we had clarified thelegal landscape through our decision on defendants’ motions.For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions todismiss are granted in part and denied in part. With regard toplaintiffsfederal antitrust claim
and RICO claim, defendants’motions are granted. With regard to plaintiffs’ commodities
Because each amended complaint asserts only one federal antitrust claim, wewill refer in the singular to plaintiffs’ federal antitrust “claim.Similarly, because each of the Schwab amended complaints asserts one RICOclaimand one Cartwright Act claim, we will refer in the singular to theSchwab plaintiffs’ RICO “claim” and Cartwright Act “claim.
Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 161

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->