Market interest rates are not "market"! JPMorgan Chase (JPM.US), UBS (UBS.US) and others are suspected of manipulating libor and subject to U.S. jurisdiction

Time:2021-12-30 Source: 978 views Trending Copy share

Zhitong Finance A PP was informed that the New York federal appeals court ruled that JP Morgan Chase (JPM.US), UBS (UBS.US) and other international banks for allegedly manipulating the London interbank offered rate (Libor) and subject to US jurisdiction.

  On Thursday, a panel of three judges ruled that if other members of the collusion take steps to advance the plan in the United States, the US courts can exercise "conspiracy jurisdiction" (conspiracy jurisdiction) against these banks. The appellate court overturned the 2016 ruling of U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. She rejected the accusation on the grounds that her court lacked jurisdiction over the bank defendant.

  Buchwald is in charge of a lawsuit involving multiple regions, including dozens of antitrust lawsuits filed by institutional investors, including municipalities and public pension funds , alleging Libor manipulation. While 16 accused, there are many banks headquartered in the United States, but they are by themselves in the British bankers involved in the Libor pricing membership of a group association (British Bankers' Association) in.

  However, the Court of Appeal pointed out that there is evidence that executives based in the United States instructed employees suspected of manipulating Libor. The judges cited an email in which an executive of JPMorgan Chase in New York allegedly told the bank’s Libor author to “don’t do too low” when setting interest rates and emphasized keeping up with peers. The importance of "consistency".

  In another email cited in the Court of Appeal, allegedly Citi Bank (C.US) An employee in the United States, told the bank's Libor submitters, "We should play a leading role, so that Libor back to a more reasonable level ."

  U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan wrote on behalf of the three judges: "The plaintiff claimed to have taken public action in the United States to advance the suppression of collusion; this is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction at this stage of the litigation."

  This judicial ruling was a victory for the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal made an unfavorable ruling against investors and supported Judge Buchwald’s ruling, namely Charles Schwab (SCHW.US) and a group of purchases of libor from third parties. The bondholders of the relevant bonds lack the legal status to initiate antitrust lawsuits against these banks.

Disclaimer : The above empty space does not represent the position of this platform. If the content of the article is not logical or has irregularities, please submit feedback and we will delete or correct it, thank you!

Top News