Legal Theories in LIBOR and FX Lawsuits

While this article in CapLaw discusses the history of the allegations, investigations and lawsuits in the FX and LIBOR scandals, we thought it most interesting to focus on the legal theories and their current status.

In LIBOR, the US consolidated case held that there was no antitrust damage as the LIBOR rate setting process was not competitive in nature and thus there could not be anti-competitive behavior.  However, "second-generation" lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming direct trading losses from derivatives with banks that provided benchmark LIBOR rates, are moving through the legal system.  Two large plaintiffs are the FDIC, on behalf of 38 failed banks, claiming fraud and collusion were used by the LIBOR setting banks to suppress rates, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, claiming that LIBOR manipulations caused them to suffer losses on mortgages and financial derivatives.

LIBOR cases in the UK have been limited, with only two cases filed, one of which was settled and the other remains with the courts.

In the FX benchmarks, the US has consolidated numerous class action suits into one.  Differences between the rate setting process in FX vs. LIBOR make it unclear whether antitrust charges will hold up in the FX case.  Fraud and collusion charges remain in FX as well, but the later start of FX allegations, the complexity of the cases and the continuing regulatory and internal bank investigations, means that further clarity will not be forthcoming until at least late 2014.