Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP ENHANCED FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT UTILITY AND ENERGY FUND L.P., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS FUND I, L.P., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS FUND II, L.P., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS OFFSHORE FUND LTD., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS OFFSHORE FUND II LTD., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS SRI FUND LTD., HG HOLDINGS LTD., HG HOLDINGS II LTD., and FRANK DIVITTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against - CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BLUECREST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLP, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB GROUP SERVICES UK LIMITED, AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50,

Defendants. Docket No. 15-cv-00871 (SHS)

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:15-cv-00871-SHS Document 36 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 116

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................... 6 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 9 A.

The BlueCrest Defendant

....................................................................................... 14

The Credit Suisse Defendants

................................................................................ 15

The Deutsche Bank Defendants

............................................................................. 19

The JPMorgan Defendant

...................................................................................... 20

The RBS Defendant

............................................................................................... 21

The UBS Defendant

............................................................................................... 23

John Doe Defendants

............................................................................................. 25

U.S. Market Activity

.............................................................................................. 25

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 27 I. Swiss Franc LIBOR ........................................................................................................... 27 II. Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives............................................................................. 28 A.

............................................................................................................. 28

Pricing Swiss Franc-LIBOR Based Derivatives

.................................................... 32

III. Defendants Agreed to and Did Restrain Trade In, and Intentionally Manipulated the Prices of, Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives ........................................................... 34 A.

Bid-Ask Spread Conspiracy: Defendants Agreed to and Did Fix the Bid-Ask Spread on OTC Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives, Overcharging Class Members for Purchases and Underpaying Class Members for Sales of Such Derivatives.

............................................................................................................ 35

Swiss Franc LIBOR Manipulation Conspiracy: Defendants Agreed to and Did Manipulate Swiss Franc LIBOR to Artificial Levels for Their Financial Gain, and to the Detriment of Plaintiffs and Other Market Participants.

............................... 37

IV. Defendants’ Pervasive Conspiratorial and Manipulative Conduct Deprived Class Members of the Benefit of Competition, And Rendered Swiss franc LIBOR and the Prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives Artificial During the Class Period ..... 69 A.

Swiss Franc LIBOR Was Artificial Throughout the Class Period

........................ 69

Defendants Manipulated the Prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives to Artificial Levels During the Class Period

.............................................................. 74

The Conspiracy to Fix the Bid-Ask Spread on the OTC Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives, and the Conspiracy to Manipulate Swiss Franc LIBOR Furthered One Another and Worked Together To Injure Competition

................. 80

i

Case 1:15-cv-00871-SHS Document 36 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 116

V. Plaintiff Transacted in Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives at Artificial Prices Proximately Caused by Defendants’ Manipulative Conduct ............................................. 81 A.

Plaintiff Sonterra

.................................................................................................... 81

FrontPoint Plaintiffs

............................................................................................... 82

Hunter Plaintiffs

..................................................................................................... 85

........................................................................................................... 86

TRADE AND COMMERCE........................................................................................................ 88 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................. 88 EQUITABLE TOLLING AND FRADULENT CONCEALMENT ............................................ 90 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 92 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................... 92 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 94 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 96 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 98 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................... 98 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF...................................................................................................... 99 A.

Defendants Engaged in Conduct Actionable Under RICO

.................................... 99

Defendants Conducted the Affairs of a RICO Enterprise

.................................... 100

Defendants Have Conducted the Affairs of an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

.......................................................................................... 104

The Pattern of Racketeering Activity Was Directed to, and Did Affect, Interstate Commerce

............................................................................................ 106

Plaintiffs Suffered Injury Proximately Caused By the Pattern of Racketeering Activity

.......................................................................................... 106

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 107 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................ 108 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................... 110 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 111 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .................................................................................................. 112 ii

Case 1:15-cv-00871-SHS Document 36 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 116