Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 29, 2013

In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Cases

Page 667

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 668

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 669

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 670

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 671

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 672

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 673

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 674

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 675

For FTC Capital GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, FTC Futures Fund SICAV, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Gary Francis, Plaintiffs: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Nathaniel Haynes, Plaintiffs: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Merrill G Davidoff, Berger & Montague, P.C, Philadelphia, PA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Darren J. Robbins, PRO HAC VICE, David W. Mitchell, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (SANDIEGO), San Diego, CA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Darren J. Robbins, PRO HAC VICE, David W. Mitchell, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (SANDIEGO), San Diego, CA; George E. Barrett, Barrette, Johnsn & Parsley, Nashville, TN; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY. Timothy L. Miles, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, Nashville, TN.

For Ravan Investments, LLC, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Jay W. Eisenhofer, Linda P. Nussbaum, Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. (NY), New York, NY; John D. Radice, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, New York, NY; Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman and Criden, Coral Gables, FL; Michael E. Criden, Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce & Heise, P.A., Miami, FL; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff: Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Drew D Hansen, PRO HAC VICE, Susman Godfrey LLP (Seattle), Seattle, WA; Hilary K Scherrer, Nathaniel C. Giddings, William P. Butterfield, PRO HAC VICE, Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC. Marc M. Seltzer, PRO HAC VICE, SUSMAN GODFRYE L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA; Ralph Johnson Bunche, III, Hausfeld, LLP (DC), Washington, DC; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY. Seth D. Ard, Susman Godfrey LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For Richard Hershey, Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Douglas Mason Chalmers, Douglas M. Chalmers P.C., Chicago, IL; Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., White Plains, NY; Robert F. Coleman, PRO HAC VICE, Coleman Law Firm, Chicago, IL; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; Steve R. Jakubowski, Coleman Law Firm, Chicago, IL; Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., White Plains, NY.

For Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, Schwab U.S. Dollar Liquid Assets Fund, Plaintiffs: Brendan Patrick Glaskin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, NY; Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Eric B. Fastiff, PRO HAC VICE, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Joseph Richard Saveri, PRO HAC VICE, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Lowell Harry Haky, PRO HAC VICE, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., Office of Corporate Counsel, San Francisco, CA; Richard M. Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.

For Schwab Money Market Fund, Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Investor Money Fund, Schwab Cash Reserves, Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Schwab Yieldplus Fund, Schwab Yieldplus Fund Liquidation Trust, Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, Plaintiffs: Andrew Scirica Kingsdale, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (SF), San Francisco, CA; Brendan Patrick Glaskin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, NY; Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Eric B. Fastiff, PRO HAC VICE, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Joseph Richard Saveri, PRO HAC VICE, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Lowell Harry Haky, PRO HAC VICE, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., Office of Corporate Counsel, San Francisco, CA; Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, NY; Richard M. Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.

For Metzler Investment GmbH, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Roger W Kirby, LEAD ATTORNEY, Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Deborah M. Sturman, Milberg LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Joseph F. Rice, PRO HAC VICE, Motley Rice LLC (SC), Mount Pleasant, SC; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC (CT), Hartford, CT.

Roberto E. Calle Gracey, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Lori Ann Fanning, Marvin Alan Miller, Matthew E Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Chicago, IL; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For City of New Britain Firefighters' and Police Benefit Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Christopher William Madel, PRO HAC VICE; Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. (MN); Minneapolis, MN; Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; David R. Scott, Scott & Scott, LLC(CT), Colchester, CT; K. Craig Wildfang, PRO HAC VICE, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Max Raphael Schwartz, Scott Scott, L.L.P. (NYC), New York, NY; Richard A. Mescon, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; Stacey Paige Slaughter, PRO HAC VICE, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Thomas J. Undlin, PRO HAC VICE, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi(MN), Minneapolis, MN.

For AVP Properties, LLC, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY; W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN.

For 303030 Trading LLC, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Merrill G Davidoff, Berger & Montague, P.C, Philadelphia, PA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Ellen Gelboim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Daniel Hume, David E Kovel, Roger W Kirby, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; David Haym Weinstein, Jeremy S. Spiegel, PRO HAC VICE, Steven A. Asher, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Karen L. Morris, Morris & Morris, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Patrick F Morris, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, Wilmington, DE; Robert S. Kitchenoff, PRO HAC VICE, Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman, Ltd., Philadelphia, PA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Community Bank & Trust, Plaintiff: Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, PRO HAC VICE, Los Angeles, CA; Patrick Anthony Klingman, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Chester, CT; Thomas V. Urmy, Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, L.L.P., Boston, MA.

For The Berkshire Bank, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiffs: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Marc Ian Gross, Michael Morris Buchman, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, New York, NY; Joshua B. Silverman, One North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL.

Elizabeth Lieberman, Plaintiff, Pro se.

For 33-35 Green Pond Road Associates, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Dylan J. McFarland, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN; Joseph J. DePalma, PRO HAC VICE, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, L.L.C., Newark, NJ; Mayra Velez Tarantino, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, & Rivas, L.L.C. (NJ), Newark, NJ; Steven Joesph Greenfogel, PRO HAC VICE, Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Steven A. Kanner, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., Chicago, IL; William H. London, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL.

For Elizabeth Lieberman, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Todd Augenbaum, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Brian Philip Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NYC2), New York, NY; Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NYC2), New York, NY; Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, New York, NY; Lionel Z. Glancy, PRO HAC VICE, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Courtyard at Amwell II, LLC, Greenwich Commons II, LLC, Jill Court Associates II, LLC, Maidencreek Ventures II LP, Raritan Commons, LLC, Lawrence W. Gardner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For Annie Bell Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Dennis Paul Fobes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Leigh E. Fobes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Margaret Lambert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Betty L. Gunter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: John Walter Sharbrough, John W. Sharbrough, III, PC, Mobile, AL; Stephen George Stim, Stimconsul Ltd., Mill Neck, NY.

For Carl A. Payne, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Kenneth W. Coker, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff: Daniel Alberstone, Roland Karim Tellis, PRO HAC VICE, Baron Budd, P.C., Encino, CA; Mark Philip Pifko, PRO HAC VICE, Baron & Budd, P.C., Encino, CA; Peter Francis Smith, PRO HAC VICE, Baron and Budd, P.C., Encino, CA.

For City of Riverside, The Riverside Public Financing Authority, Plaintiffs: Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Sacramento, CA; Gregory P Priamos, Nanci E. Nishimura, Richard A Milligan, PRO HAC VICE, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA.

For East Bay Municipal Utility District, Plaintiff: Craig Stephen Spencer, Office of General Counsel, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA; Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Sacramento, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA; Jylana Collins, City of Richmond, Office of City Attorney, Richmond, CA; Nanci E. Nishimura, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA.

For County of San Mateo, Plaintiff: Nanci E. Nishimura, LEAD ATTORNEY, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA; Bert Shinji Nishimura, Eng & Nishimura, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Eugene Whitlock, John C. Beiers, San Mateo County Counsel's Office, Redwood City, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Sacramento, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA; Lee Andrew Thompson, San Mateo County Counsel, Redwood City, CA.

For San Mateo Couty Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff: Nanci E. Nishimura, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA; Bert Shinji Nishimura, Eng & Nishimura, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Eugene Whitlock, San Mateo, John C. Beiers, San Mateo County Counsel's Office, Redwood City, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Sacramento, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA; Lee Andrew Thompson, San Mateo County Counsel, Redwood City, CA.

For City of Richmond, Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, Plaintiff: Bruce Reed Goodmiller, City Attorney's Office, City of Richmond, Richmond, CA; Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Everett Jenkins, Office of the City attorney, Richmond, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, burlingame, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA; Nanci E. Nishimura, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA.

For The Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff: Bruce Reed Goodmiller, City Attorney's Office, City of Richmond, Richmond, CA; Daniel R. Sterrett, PRO HAC VICE, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Everett Jenkins, Office of the City attorney, Richmond, CA; Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, burlingame, CA; Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA; Nanci E. Nishimura, PRO HAC VICE, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA.

For County of San Diego, Plaintiff: Daniel R. Sterrett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Brulingame, CA; Nanci E. Nishimura, Riverside City Attorney, Riverside, CA.

For Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Andrew C. Shen, Joseph Solomon Hall, Michael John Guzman, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC (DC), Washington, DC; Caitlin Sinclair Hall, PRO HAC VICE, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; R. Bryant McCulley, PRO HAC VICE, McCulley McCluer PLLC, Birmingham, AL; Stuart Halkett McCluer, McCulley Mccluer PLLC, Oxford, MS; W. Percy Badham, Badham & Buck LLC, Birmingham, AL.

For Heather M. Earle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Henryk Malinowski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Linda Carr, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Eric Friedman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Elana Katcher, Gregory Keith Arenson, Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Jeffrey Craig Block, Whitney Erin Street, Block & Leviton LLP, New York, NY.

For County of Riverside, Plaintiff: Benjamin Galdston, PRO HAC VICE, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), San Diego, CA; Blair A Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA.

For Jerry Weglarz, Nathan Weglarz, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, Plaintiff: Cathleen M. Combs, Daniel A. Edelman, PRO HAC VICE, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Chicago, IL; James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs & Latturner, Chicago, IL; Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Chicago, IL.

For Direcors Financial Group, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, New York, NY.

For SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (SANDIEGO), San Diego, CA; Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman & Robbins, San Diego, CA; Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Maxwell Van De Velde, Movant: Patrick Anthony Klingman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Chester, CT; Thomas V. Urmy, Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, L.L.P., Boston, MA.

For Brian McCormick, Vito Spillone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Movants: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Oak Park, IL; Karl P. Barth, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA; Steve W. Berman, PRO HAC VICE, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle), Seattle, WA.

For Bank of America Corporation, Defendant: Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Barclays Bank Plc, Defendant: Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; David R. Boyd, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (D.C.), Washington, DC; David Harold Braff, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; James Brian Meadows, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Joshua Seth Kyle, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; Robert B Silver, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP(Westchester), Armonk, NY; Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY.

For Citibank NA, Defendant: Alan M. Wiseman, PRO HAC VICE, Covington & Burling, L.L.P. (DC), Washington, DC; Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP(NYC), New York, NY; David Marx, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL; Jonathan James Gimblett, Thomas A. Isaacson, PRO HAC VICE, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC; Mark Jacob Altschul, PRO HAC VICE, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, IL; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Credit Suisse Group AG, Defendant: Elai E. Katz, Herbert Scott Washer, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant: Andrew Corydon Finch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Moses Silverman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), New York, NY; Jessica Lillian Brach, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For HSBC Holdings plc., Defendant: Edwin R Deyoung, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY; Roger Brian Cowie, PRO HAC VICE, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P., Dallas, TX.

For J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant: Dana Ashley Jupiter, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Juan Alberto Arteaga, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY; Lawrence H. Heftman, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL; Matthew Charles Crowl, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY; Thomas C. Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For Lloyds Banking Group plc, Defendant: Eric Jonathan Stock, Marc Joel Gottridge, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP (nyc), New York, NY; Megan Polly Davis, Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant: Robert G. Houck, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clifford Chance US, LLP (NYC), New York, NY; James Drew Miller, Clifford Chance US, LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For The Norinchukin Bank, Defendant: Andrew W. Stern, Thomas Andrew Paskowitz, Sidley Austin LLP (NY), New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY; William J. Nissen, Sidley Austin, LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL.

For UBS AG, Defendant: Peter Sullivan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (NY), New York, NY; David Jarrett Arp, PRO HAC VICE, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (DC), Washington, DC; Gary R. Spratling, PRO HAC VICE, Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, New York, NY; Rachel Alden Lavery, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For WestLB AG, Defendant: Christopher Martin Paparella, Ethan Edward Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (NY), New York, NY; Morgan Jessen Feder, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Rabobank Group, Defendant: David Robert Gelfand, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, NY; Melanie Westover, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Sean Miles Murphy, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For Credit Suisse Group, NA, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendants: Elai E. Katz, Herbert Scott Washer, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY.

For HBOS PLC, Defendant: Marc Joel Gottridge, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP (nyc), New York, NY; Eric Jonathan Stock, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP (nyc), New York, NY; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Defendant: Christopher Michael Viapiano, Daryl Andrew Libow, LEAD ATTORNEY, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Washington DC), Washington, DC; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Royal Bank of Canada, Defendant: Arthur W. Hahn, Brian J. Poronsky, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Chicago, Il; Christian T. Kemnitz, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL; Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendants: Andrew Corydon Finch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Moses Silverman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), New York, NY; Jessica Lillian Brach, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays U.S. Funding LLC, Defendants: Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; David R. Boyd, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (D.C.), Washington, DC; David Harold Braff, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; James Brian Meadows, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Joshua Seth Kyle, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; Robert B Silver, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP(Westchester), Armonk, NY; Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY.

For Citiigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant: Alan M. Wiseman, PRO HAC VICE, Covington & Burling, L.L.P. (DC), Washington, DC; Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP(NYC), New York, NY; Jonathan James Gimblett, Thomas A. Isaacson, PRO HAC VICE, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.

For Bank of America, N.A., Defendant: Robert Frank Wise, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For HSBC Bank PLC, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Defendants: Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY.

For Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., Defendant: David Robert Gelfand, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Melanie Westover, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (NYC), Robert Frank Wise, Jr, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., New York, NY; Sean Miles Murphy, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For JPMorgan Chase & Co, Defendant: Chet Alan Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY; Thomas C. Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For Barklays Bank Plc, Barclays PLC, Defendants: Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; David R. Boyd, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (D.C.), Washington, DC; James Brian Meadows, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Robert B Silver, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP(Westchester), Armonk, NY.

For JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant: Joan Eileen Flaherty, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant: Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; David R. Boyd, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (D.C.), Washington, DC; James Brian Meadows, PRO HAC VICE, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Matthew Joseph Porpora, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; Robert B Silver, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP(Westchester), Armonk, NY.

For JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Defendant: Joan Eileen Flaherty, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), New York, NY.

OPINION

Page 676

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. Introduction

These cases arise out of the alleged manipulation of the London InterBank Offered Rate (" LIBOR" ), an interest rate benchmark that has been called " the world's most important number." British Bankers' Ass'n, BBA LIBOR: The World's Most Important 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 over the past year have reported, domestic and foreign regulatory agencies have already reached settlements with several banks involved in the LIBOR-setting process, with penalties reaching into the billions of dollars.

The cases presently before us do not involve governmental regulatory action, but rather are private lawsuits by persons who allegedly suffered harm as a result of the suppression of LIBOR. Starting in mid-2011, such lawsuits began to be filed in this District and others across the country. On August 12, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred several such cases from other districts to this Court for " coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 802 F.Supp.2d 1380, 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 to dismiss: cases brought by (1) over-the-counter (" OTC" ) plaintiffs, (2) exchange-based plaintiffs, (3) bondholder plaintiffs, and (4) Charles Schwab plaintiffs (the " Schwab plaintiffs" ). The first three categories each involve purported class actions, and each has a single lead action. The lead action for the OTC plaintiffs is Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America (11 Civ. 5450); the lead action for the exchange-based plaintiffs is FTC Capital GmbH v. Credit Suisse Group (11 Civ. 2613), and the lead action for the bondholder plaintiffs is Gelboim v. Credit Suisse Group (12 Civ. 1025). By contrast, the Schwab plaintiffs do not seek to represent a class, but rather have initiated three separate cases: Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund v. Bank of America Corp. (11 Civ. 6409), Charles Schwab Bank, N.A. v. Bank of America Corp. (11 Civ. 6411), and Schwab Money Market Fund v. Bank of America Corp. (11 Civ. 6412).

Subsequent to defendants' filing of their motion to dismiss, several new complaints were filed. It quickly became apparent to us that information relating to this case would continue indefinitely to come to light, that new complaints would continue to be filed, and that waiting for the " dust to settle" would require an unacceptable delay in the proceedings.

Page 677

Therefore, on August 14, 2012, we issued a Memorandum and Order imposing a stay on all complaints not then subject to defendants' motions to dismiss, pending the present decision. In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 11 MD 2262, 2012 WL 3578149 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2012). Although we encouraged the prompt filing of new complaints, see [WL] at *1 n.2, we determined that the most sensible way to proceed would be to wait on addressing those cases until we had clarified the legal landscape through our decision on defendants' motions.

For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. With regard to plaintiffs' federal antitrust claim[1] and RICO claim, defendants' motions are granted. With regard to plaintiffs' commodities manipulation claims, defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part. Finally, we dismiss with prejudice the Schwab plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim and the exchange-based plaintiffs' state-law claim, and we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

II. Background

Despite the legal complexity of this case, the factual allegations are rather straightforward. Essentially, they are as follows: Defendants are members of a panel assembled by a banking trade association to calculate a daily interest rate benchmark. Each business day, defendants submit to the association a rate that is supposed to reflect their expected costs of borrowing U.S. dollars from other banks, and the association computes and publishes the average of these submitted rates. The published average is used as a benchmark interest rate in financial instruments worldwide. According to plaintiffs, defendants conspired to report rates that did not reflect their good-faith estimates of their borrowing costs, and in fact submitted artificial rates over the course of thirty-four months. Because defendants allegedly submitted artificial rates, the final computed average was also artificial. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered injury because they held positions in various financial instruments that were negatively affected by defendants' alleged fixing of the benchmark interest rate.

As one would expect, the parties' primary factual disagreement concerns whether defendants conspired to submit artificial rates and whether they in fact did so. Plaintiffs have included in their complaints extensive evidence that allegedly supports their allegations on these points, and defendants, were this case to proceed to trial, would surely present evidence to the contrary with equal vigor. However, our present task is not to resolve the parties' factual disagreements, but rather to decide defendants' motions to dismiss. These motions raise numerous issues of law, issues that, although they require serious legal analysis, may be resolved without heavy engagement with the facts. Therefore, we will set out in this section only those factual allegations necessary to provide context for our decision, and will cite further allegations later as appropriate. This section will begin by explaining what LIBOR is and will then discuss defendants' alleged misconduct and how it allegedly injured plaintiffs.

Page 678

A. LIBOR

LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate disseminated by the British Bankers' Association (the " BBA" ), a " leading trade association for the U.K. banking and financial services sector." OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 42 (quoting BBA, About Us, http://www.bba.org.uk/about-us (last visited Mar. 29, 2013)).[2] LIBOR is calculated for ten currencies, including the U.S. dollar (" USD LIBOR" ). Id. ¶ 43. For each of the currencies, the BBA has assembled a panel of banks whose interest rate submissions are considered in calculating the benchmark (a " Contributor Panel" ); each member of the Contributor Panel must be a bank that " is regulated and authorized to trade on the London money market." Id. ¶ 46. The Contributor Panel for USD LIBOR, the only rate at issue in this case, consisted at all relevant times of sixteen banks. The defendants here, or one of their affiliates, are each members of that panel.

Each business day, the banks on a given LIBOR Contributor Panel answer the following question, with regard to the currency for which the bank sits on the Contributor Panel: " At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?" Id. ¶ 48. Importantly, this question does not ask banks to report an interest rate that they actually paid or even an average of interest rates that they actually paid; rather, it inquires at what rate the banks " predict they can borrow unsecured funds from other banks in the London wholesale money market." Id. ¶ 44. Each bank will answer this question with regard to fifteen maturities, or tenors, ranging from overnight to one year. Id.; Settlement Agreement Between Dep't of Justice, Criminal Div., and Barclays (June 26, 2012), Appendix A, ¶ 5, Ex. 3, Scherrer Decl. [hereinafter DOJ Statement]. The banks submit rates in response to this question (" LIBOR quotes" or " LIBOR submissions" ) each business day by 11:10 AM London time to Thomson Reuters, acting as the BBA's agent. OTC. Am. Compl. ¶ 47; DOJ Statement ¶ 3. Each bank " must submit its rate without reference to rate contributed by other Contributor Panel banks." DOJ Statement ¶ 6.

After receiving quotes from each bank on a given panel, Thomson Reuters determines the LIBOR for that day (the " LIBOR fix" ) by ranking the quotes for a given maturity in descending order and calculating the arithmetic mean of the middle two quartiles. OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 48; DOJ Statement ¶ 4. For example, suppose that on a particular day, the banks on the Contributor Panel for U.S. dollars submitted the following quotes for the three-month maturity (" three-month USD LIBOR" ): 4.0%, 3.9%, 3.9%, 3.9%, 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.7%, 3.6%, 3.5%, 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.3%, 3.3%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 3.0%. The quotes in the middle two quartiles would be: 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.7%, 3.6%, 3.5%, 3.5%, 3.4%, and 3.3%. The arithmetic mean of these quotes, 3.575%, would be the LIBOR fix for that day.

Page 679

Thomson Reuters publishes the new LIBOR fix each business day by approximately 11:30 AM London time. DOJ Statement ¶ 5. In addition to publishing the final fix, " Thomson Reuters publishes each Contributor Panel bank's submitted rates along with the names of the banks." Id. Therefore, it is a matter of public knowledge not only what the LIBOR fix is on any given business day, but also what quote each bank submitted and how the final fix was calculated.

LIBOR is " the primary benchmark for short term interest rates globally." OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 44. For example, market actors " commonly set the interest rate on floating-rate notes [in which the seller of the note pays the buyer a variable rate] as a spread against LIBOR," such as LIBOR plus 2%, and " use LIBOR as a basis to determine the correct rate of return on short-term fixed-rate notes [in which the seller of the note pays the buyer a fixed rate] (by comparing the offered rate to LIBOR)." In short, LIBOR " affects the pricing of trillions of dollars' worth of financial transactions." Id. ¶ 45.

B. Defendants' Alleged Misconduct

According to plaintiffs, " Defendants collusively and systematically suppressed LIBOR during the Class Period," defined as August 2007 to May 2010. OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ ¶ 4-8; Exchange Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendants allegedly did so by each submitting an artificially low LIBOR quotes to Thomson Reuters each business day during the Class Period. OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 6.

Plaintiffs argue that defendants had two primary motives for suppressing LIBOR. First, " well aware that the interest rate a bank pays (or expects to pay) on its debt is widely, if not universally, viewed as embodying the market's assessment of the risk associated with that bank, Defendants understated their borrowing costs (thereby suppressing LIBOR) to portray themselves as economically healthier than they actually were." OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Moreover, " because no one bank would want to stand out as bearing a higher degree of risk than its fellow banks, each Defendant shared a powerful incentive to collude with its co-Defendants to ensure it was not the 'odd man out.'" Id. ¶ 52. Second, " artificially suppressing LIBOR allowed Defendants to pay lower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments that Defendants sold to investors, including [plaintiffs], during the Class Period." Id. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶ 53.

Plaintiffs devote the bulk of their complaints to amassing evidence that LIBOR was fixed at artificially low levels during the Class Period. For one, plaintiffs offer statistical evidence showing that LIBOR diverged during the Class Period from benchmarks that it would normally track. First, each defendant's LIBOR quotes allegedly diverged over the Class Period from its probabilities of default, as calculated by experts retained by plaintiffs. OTC Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 57-66. A bank's probability of default should correlate positively with its cost of borrowing, based on the basic principle that " investors require a higher . . . rate of return as a premium for taking on additional risk exposure." Id. ¶ 59. However, plaintiffs' experts found " a striking negative correlation between USD-LIBOR panel bank's LIBOR quotes and [probabilities of default] during 2007 and 2008." Id. ¶ 66. This suggests that defendants " severely depressed LIBOR during that time." Id.

Second, LIBOR diverged during the Class Period from another comparable benchmark, the Federal Reserve Eurodollar Deposit Rate (the " Fed Eurodollar Rate" ). Eurodollars are defined as " U.S. dollars deposited in commercial banks outside the United States." Exchange Am.

Page 680

Compl. ¶ 200 (quoting CME Group, Eurodollar Futures, http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/ interest-rates/files/IR148_Eurodollar_Futures_Fact_Card.pdf). Like LIBOR, the Fed Eurodollar Rate " reflect[s] the rates at which banks in the London Eurodollar money market lend U.S. dollars to one another," OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 68, though because LIBOR is based on the interest rate that banks expect lenders to offer them (an " offered rate" ), whereas the Fed Eurodollar Rate is based on what banks are willing to pay to borrow (a " bid rate" ), " the Fed's Eurodollar rate should be less than LIBOR." Scott Peng et al., Citigroup, Special Topic: Is LIBOR Broken?, Apr. 10, 2008. However, plaintiffs' experts found that LIBOR was lower than the Fed Eurodollar Rate, and that individual defendants' LIBOR quotes were also lower than the Fed Eurodollar Rate, for most of the Class Period. OTC Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 67-88. According to plaintiffs, this finding suggests not only that " suppression of LIBOR occurred during the Class Period," but also that defendants conspired to suppress LIBOR, as " [t]he sustained period during which the [Fed Eurodollar Rate] - LIBOR Spread fell and remained starkly negative . . . is not plausibly achievable absent collusion among Defendants." Id. ¶ 88.

In addition to the above statistical analysis, plaintiffs cite " publicly available analyses by academics and other commentators" which " collectively indicate ILBOR was artificially suppressed during the Class Period." Id. ¶ 89. For instance, plaintiffs discuss studies that found " variance between [banks'] LIBOR quotes and their contemporaneous cost of buying default insurance . . . on debt they issued during [the Class Period]." Id. ¶ 90; see also id. ¶ ¶ 90-103. Plaintiffs also note commentators' findings that defendants' LIBOR quotes " demonstrated suspicious 'bunching' around the fourth lowest quote submitted by the 16 banks," which " suggests Defendants collectively depressed LIBOR by reporting the lowest possible rates that would not be excluded from the calculation of LIBOR on a given day. Id. ¶ 105; see also id. ¶ ¶ 105-13.

Plaintiffs further observe that " during 2008 and 2009 at least some of [defendants'] LIBOR quotes were too low in light of the dire financial circumstances the banks faced." Id. ¶ 128. For instance, the LIBOR submissions of Citigroup, RBS, and WestLB were suspiciously low given the financial troubles facing those banks during the Class Period. Id. ¶ ¶ 128-38.

Finally, plaintiffs allege that they were not aware of defendants' manipulation " until March 15, 2011, when UBS released its annual report 20-F stating that it had received subpoenas from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, as well as an information request from the Japanese Financial Supervisory Agency, all relating to its interest rate submissions to the BBA." Id. ¶ 205. UBS had explained that these investigations addressed " whether there were improper attempts by UBS, either acting on its own or together with others, to manipulate LIBOR at certain times." Plaintiffs maintain that, even though several news articles had warned as early as spring 2008 that LIBOR was suspiciously low,[3] these warnings did not provide notice of defendants' alleged manipulation of LIBOR because they were counteracted by public statements from the BBA and individual defendants that provided alternative explanations for why LIBOR had failed to track comparable benchmarks. Id. ¶ ¶ 192-204.

Page 681

Following the filing of plaintiffs' amended complaints on April 30, 2012, several governmental agencies disclosed that they had reached settlements with Barclays with regards to Barclays' submission of artificial LIBOR quotes. Although plaintiffs were not able to incorporate information from these settlements into their amended complaints, they have submitted to the Court, in the course of opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, settlement documents issued by the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the " CFTC" ), and the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority (the " FSA" ). See DOJ Statement; CFTC Settlement Order (June 27, 2012) [hereinafter CFTC Order], Ex. 4, Scherrer Decl.; FSA Final Notice (June 27, 2012), Ex. 5, Scherrer Decl. [hereinafter FSA Notice].

These agencies found that Barclays had engaged in " wrongful conduct spann[ing] from at least 2005 through at least 2009," at times " on an almost daily basis." CFTC Order 2. Specifically:

During the period from at least mid-2005 through the fall of 2007, and sporadically thereafter into 2009, Barclays based its LIBOR submissions for U.S. Dollar (and at limited times other currencies) on the requests of Barclays' swaps traders, including former Barclays swaps traders, who were attempting to affect the official published LIBOR, in order to benefit Barclays' derivatives trading positions; those positions included swaps and futures trading positions . . . .

Id. The agencies documented instances in which Barclays' LIBOR submitters had accommodated requests from traders for an artificially high LIBOR quote as well as instances where the LIBOR submitters had accommodated requests for an artificially low LIBOR quote. See, e.g., id. at 7-11. In addition to this manipulation to benefit daily trading positions, leading to either an artificially high or artificially low LIBOR quote, the agencies found that from " late August 2007 through early 2009," Barclays's LIBOR submitters, " [p]ursuant to a directive by certain members of Barclays' senior management," consistently submitted artificially low LIBOR quotes " in order to manage what [Barclays] believed were inaccurate and negative public and media perceptions that Barclays had a liquidity problem." Id. at 3.

C. Plaintiffs' Alleged Injury

As discussed above, the present motions to dismiss apply to the amended complaints of four groups of plaintiffs: the OTC, bondholder, exchange-based, and Schwab plaintiffs. Each of these groups alleges that it suffered a distinct injury as a result of defendants' alleged misconduct. We will address each group in turn.

1. OTC Plaintiffs

The lead OTC plaintiffs are the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (" Baltimore" ) and the City of New Britain Firefighters' and Police Benefit Fund (" New Britain" ). Baltimore " purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in interest rate swaps directly from at least one Defendant in which the rate of return was tied to LIBOR." OTC Am. Compl. ¶ 12. New Britain " purchased tens of millions of dollars in interest rate swaps directly from at least one Defendant in which the rate of return was tied to LIBOR." Id. ¶ 13. These plaintiffs seek to represent a class of " [a]ll persons or entities . . . that purchased in the United States, directly from a Defendant, a financial instrument that paid interest indexed to LIBOR . . . any time during the [Class Period]." Id. ¶ 34. According to plaintiffs, they suffered injury as a result of defendants' alleged misconduct

Page 682

because their financial instruments provided that they would receive payments based on LIBOR, and when defendants allegedly suppressed LIBOR, plaintiffs received lower payments from defendants. See id. ¶ ¶ 8, 219.

2. Bondholder Plaintiffs

The lead bondholder plaintiffs are Ellen Gelboim (" Gelboim" ) and Linda Zacher (" Zacher" ). Gelboim " is the sole beneficiary of her Individual Retirement Account that during the Class Period owned a . . . LIBOR-Based Debt Security issued by General Electric Capital Corporation." Bondholder Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Similarly, Zacher " is the sole beneficiary of her late husband's Individual Retirement Account that during the Class Period owned a . . . LIBOR-Based Debt Security issued by the State of Israel." Id. ¶ 16. These plaintiffs seek to represent the following class:

[A]ll [persons] who owned (including beneficially in 'street name') any U.S. dollar-denominated debt security (a) that was assigned a unique identification number by the [Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures] system; (b) on which interest was payable at any time [during the Class Period]; and (c) where that interest was payable at a rate expressly linked to the U.S. Dollar Libor rate.

Id. ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 198. This class excludes holders of debt securities to the extent that their securities were " issued by any Defendant as obligor." Id. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered injury as a result of defendants' alleged misconduct because they " receiv[ed] manipulated and artificially depressed amounts of interest on [the] [d]ebt [s]ecurities they owned during the Class Period." Id. ¶ 14.

3. Exchange-Based Plaintiffs

In order to place the exchange-based plaintiffs' claims in context, we will first provide a brief overview of Eurodollar futures contracts. We will then summarize who plaintiffs are and how they allege they were injured.

a. Eurodollar Futures Contracts

A futures contract " is an agreement for the sale of a commodity on a specific date (the 'delivery date')." In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 269 F.R.D. 366, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The seller of a futures contract, known as the " short," agrees to deliver the commodity specified in the contract to the buyer, known as the " long," on the delivery date. See id. However, in most cases, the commodity never actually changes hands; rather, " [m]ost investors close out of their positions before the delivery dates," id., such as by entering into offsetting contracts whereby the commodity delivery requirements cancel out and " [t]he difference between the initial purchase or sale price and the price of the offsetting transaction represents the realized profit or loss," Exchange Am. Compl. ¶ 208.

Although many futures contracts are based on an underlying commodity that is a physical good, such as copper, others are not. One such futures contract is a Eurodollar futures contract, which is " the most actively traded futures contract[] in the world." Id. ¶ 201; see also DOJ Statement 4 (" In 2009, according to the Futures Industry Association, more than 437 million Eurodollar futures contracts were traded . . . ." ). Eurodollar futures contracts, traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the " CME" ), Exchange Am. Compl. ¶ 201, are based on an " underlying instrument" of a " Eurodollar Time Deposit having a principal value of USD $1,000,000 with a three-month maturity." CME Group, Eurodollar Futures: Contract

Page 683

Specifications, http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/stir/eurodollar_contract_specifications.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2013). " Eurodollars are U.S. dollars deposited in commercial banks outside the United States." CME Group, Eurodollar Futures, http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/files/IR148_Eurodollar_Futures_Fact_Card.pdf.

Eurodollar futures contracts do not require the seller actually to deliver cash deposits to the buyer, but rather provide that at the end of the contract, the " settlement date," the seller pays the buyer a specified price. The price at settlement " is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate," which rate is defined as the USD three-month LIBOR fix on the contract's last trading day. CME Group, Eurodollar Futures Final Settlement Procedure, http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/files/final-settlement-procedure-eurodollar-futures.pdf. Like other futures contracts, Eurodollar futures contracts may be traded prior to settlement, and their ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.