Tweet
this is almost funny...
So Much for the Libor Gold Rush
so i guess the only question is (or becomes):
whois: Judge Buchwald
and who does she answer to - or would that be: who did she answer when the obvious implications arose about how this would get 'adjudicated' ?
6 years later, the questions only get more obvious and IN OUR FACES, the bonus pools continue to jump and STILL next to nobody has done any jail time whatsover.
again - COULD YOU JUST IMAGINE IF 'big oil' had totally f___ked the entire economy, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE in a period of 10 years?
JUST HOW BIG THE HEADLINES WOULD BE ??
- April 3, 2013, 7:12 p.m. ET
So Much for the Libor Gold Rush
In addition to huge quantities of high dudgeon, the Libor interest-rate fixing scandal produced a huge legal gold rush: By some estimates, private claims against the banks were set to reach $176 billion. But on Good Friday in New York, U.S. federal Judge Naomi Buchwald threw out most of those claims, and all of the most expensive ones. It's looking like Libor won't be the legal bonanza that the trial bar was hoping for.
...snip....
Private legal actions poured in hard on the heels of the Barclays settlement. And no wonder: Here are deep-pocketed defendants, a government investigation that had performed some salacious discovery, and the possibility of combining huge plaintiff classes—such as anyone who owned a Libor-linked bond at the time—with antitrust and racketeering claims against the banks.
Judge Buchwald's 161-page order threw out the antitrust and racketeering claims, meaning treble damages are off the table. On racketeering, the judge relied on the longstanding principle that in securities cases federal securities law applies, rather than RICO laws written to go after organized crime.
Her reasoning on the antitrust claims is especially instructive. The plaintiffs argued that the banks engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to suppress reported Libor rates during 2007 and 2008. But Judge Buchwald's order points out that banks did not compete over Libor, which was an average to which they all contributed. An antitrust conspiracy would have to involve some sort of collusion over the products tied to Libor—bonds, loans, interest-rate swaps and the like. But the plaintiffs never argued for that, perhaps because there's no evidence for it.
In any case, an artificially low Libor average would not necessarily benefit the banks or hurt their customers or counterparties. That would depend, for example, on whether you were borrowing or lending at a Libor-linked interest rate.
Judge Buchwald also ruled that on some of the claims the statute of limitations has run out, and for an interesting reason. At least as far back at May 2008, the financial press, especially this newspaper, was full of stories about how Libor seemed unnaturally low relative to other interest rates. But none of these suits were filed at that time. The plaintiffs bar, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other Johnny-come-latelys to this supposed crime of the century, waited until the political hunt was in full cry to join up.
The lack of suits in 2008 reveals a great deal about the extent to which Libor has been an ex post facto scandal. The banks that low-balled their Libor submissions during the crisis did so to avoid getting caught even deeper in the panic. And in at least some cases, their regulators encouraged them not to stray from the pack, lest they signal weakness. But with the banks settling for nine- and 10-figure sums with regulators over conduct that was winked-at in the heat of the moment, the lawyers piled on with claims of a nefarious conspiracy.
Judge Buchwald's dismissal of most of the claims could be appealed. But as of now the Libor legal gold rush appears to be over.
...snip....
Private legal actions poured in hard on the heels of the Barclays settlement. And no wonder: Here are deep-pocketed defendants, a government investigation that had performed some salacious discovery, and the possibility of combining huge plaintiff classes—such as anyone who owned a Libor-linked bond at the time—with antitrust and racketeering claims against the banks.
Judge Buchwald's 161-page order threw out the antitrust and racketeering claims, meaning treble damages are off the table. On racketeering, the judge relied on the longstanding principle that in securities cases federal securities law applies, rather than RICO laws written to go after organized crime.
Her reasoning on the antitrust claims is especially instructive. The plaintiffs argued that the banks engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to suppress reported Libor rates during 2007 and 2008. But Judge Buchwald's order points out that banks did not compete over Libor, which was an average to which they all contributed. An antitrust conspiracy would have to involve some sort of collusion over the products tied to Libor—bonds, loans, interest-rate swaps and the like. But the plaintiffs never argued for that, perhaps because there's no evidence for it.
In any case, an artificially low Libor average would not necessarily benefit the banks or hurt their customers or counterparties. That would depend, for example, on whether you were borrowing or lending at a Libor-linked interest rate.
Judge Buchwald also ruled that on some of the claims the statute of limitations has run out, and for an interesting reason. At least as far back at May 2008, the financial press, especially this newspaper, was full of stories about how Libor seemed unnaturally low relative to other interest rates. But none of these suits were filed at that time. The plaintiffs bar, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other Johnny-come-latelys to this supposed crime of the century, waited until the political hunt was in full cry to join up.
The lack of suits in 2008 reveals a great deal about the extent to which Libor has been an ex post facto scandal. The banks that low-balled their Libor submissions during the crisis did so to avoid getting caught even deeper in the panic. And in at least some cases, their regulators encouraged them not to stray from the pack, lest they signal weakness. But with the banks settling for nine- and 10-figure sums with regulators over conduct that was winked-at in the heat of the moment, the lawyers piled on with claims of a nefarious conspiracy.
Judge Buchwald's dismissal of most of the claims could be appealed. But as of now the Libor legal gold rush appears to be over.
whois: Judge Buchwald
and who does she answer to - or would that be: who did she answer when the obvious implications arose about how this would get 'adjudicated' ?
6 years later, the questions only get more obvious and IN OUR FACES, the bonus pools continue to jump and STILL next to nobody has done any jail time whatsover.
again - COULD YOU JUST IMAGINE IF 'big oil' had totally f___ked the entire economy, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE in a period of 10 years?
JUST HOW BIG THE HEADLINES WOULD BE ??
Comment