The plaintiffs have not proven a motive to manipulate ICE LIBOR rates, and there is no evidence of collusion or conspiracy. If you are interested in learning more about the ICE LIBOR rate manipulation lawsuit, then read on. Whether you should file a lawsuit will depend on your circumstances, but if you think you have grounds for a claim, you should do so. Here’s why you should.
ICE LIBOR
In an ICE LIBOR Rate Manipulation lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to have Defendants pay for their alleged collusion to manipulate the market’s interest rates. However, such an assertion is unsupported by evidence, including the fact that the rates themselves were not artificially manipulated, as the Plaintiffs assert. In addition, they rely on metrics rather than actual ICE LIBOR rates to prove their claims.
The Plaintiffs’ claim of parallel conduct is not supported by evidence, either. The Defendants have provided a chart of the bank’s submissions throughout the class period, showing that each bank’s ICE LIBOR submissions were systematically different over time. The chart also shows that the Plaintiffs failed to assert any correlation between ICE LIBOR rates and other market indicators during the class period.
ICE TIBOR
Despite the widespread suspicion about ICE TIBOR rate manipulation, a judge recently dismissed a putative class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs had alleged that banks conspired to depress the ICE LIBOR benchmark interest rate. This rate is set daily by a panel of financial institutions. Its manipulation has led to an increase in interest rates for certain forms of short-term financing. The lawsuits were filed against several banks, but the judge found no proof of collusion between the parties.
The lawsuit against ICE TIBOR rate manipulation included more than twenty financial institutions. The complaint detailed an alleged conspiracy among the banks to manipulate LIBOR rates and submit agreed-upon estimates. Mr. Laydon also claimed to have suffered thousands of dollars in damages due to the alleged price manipulation. The case was filed in 2011 and settled in 2016.
Barclays PLC
The ICE LIBOR rate is a key component of the global financial system, and its manipulation is a major source of uncertainty. Barclays PLC is suing the ICE to stop it from adjusting the rate. The Defendants deny any wrongdoing, but they do not dispute that the rate was artificially manipulated.
The allegations are not new and the Bank has been subject to investigations and legal proceedings by various competition authorities and regulators. Despite the allegations of wrongdoing, the SFO closed its investigation in June 2011 without taking any action against the Bank or its subsidiaries. However, various individual and corporate entities have brought or threatened civil actions against Barclays. Several of these cases have since been consolidated into one case.
NY Fed
The ICE LIBOR Rate Manipulation lawsuit against the NY Federal Reserve is the latest in a long-running investigation of the manipulation of interest rates. The case involves floating-rate notes, such as Yankee CDs and certificates of deposit, as well as other debt instruments. These include bank notes, senior unsecured notes, subordinated and unsecured bonds, trust preferred securities, and interest rate swaps.
Although the Federal Reserve has publicly defended its ICE LIBOR as an official benchmark, there is a growing suspicion that LIBOR has been manipulated. While the ICE LIBOR rate appears to be based on a minuscule number of transactions – on some days, there are no transactions at all – banks are accused of manipulating the benchmark by consistently low-balling their submissions to the ICE.
British Bankers’ Association
The case focuses on the way that LIBOR rate changes are set and used by banks to influence the price of financial assets. Banks and brokers often manipulate the rate using collusion between them. In addition to LIBOR, other financial instruments are manipulated as well, including floating-rate notes, Yankee CDs, and banknotes. Other types of debt instruments include interest rate swaps, bank notes, and subordinated and senior unsecured bonds.
After the financial crisis, there were signs that LIBOR was being manipulated, and the banks involved were sanctioned. However, despite the sanctions, the practice continued. Banks were still sharing information and agreeing on rates before submission, and the lawsuit points to published statements from banks and members of the Alternative Reference Rates Committee. The lawsuit also features charts that show LIBOR rates against other market indicators, such as credit default swaps, treasury repurchase general collateral, and banks’ bonds. Throughout these charts, LIBOR consistently falls.
