Amicus Curiae Brief in Gelboim v. Bank of America (Libor Manipulation Litigation) on Behalf of Financial Markets Law Professors in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants

J. Barry, Brian J. Broughman, Eric C. Chaffee, Christopher Henkel, R. Hockett, Michael P. Malloy, Peter Marchetti, Christopher K. Odinet, Charles R. P. Pouncy, Andrew Verstein
{"title":"Amicus Curiae Brief in Gelboim v. Bank of America (Libor Manipulation Litigation) on Behalf of Financial Markets Law Professors in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants","authors":"J. Barry, Brian J. Broughman, Eric C. Chaffee, Christopher Henkel, R. Hockett, Michael P. Malloy, Peter Marchetti, Christopher K. Odinet, Charles R. P. Pouncy, Andrew Verstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2839130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This amicus brief, filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Gelboim v. Bank of America (LIBOR Manipulation Litigation), primarily aims to help the Court by providing relevant background information. Many of the plaintiffs in this case are bringing antitrust claims based on defendant banks' alleged collusion while selling plaintiffs over-the-counter derivatives. To evaluate these plaintiffs’ allegations, one must understand the nature of these derivative transactions, the economics of the over-the-counter derivatives market, and the specific role that the London Interbank Offer Rate (“LIBOR”) plays in that market. This brief provides that information. With this background in place, it becomes clear that these plaintiffs have properly alleged an antitrust injury. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, who controlled the over-the-counter derivatives market, conspired to manipulate LIBOR in order to increase their profits in the over-the-counter derivatives market. Plaintiffs allege that they, in their capacity as defendants’ customers in the over-the-counter derivatives market, suffered an injury as a result of defendants’ collusive LIBOR-setting behavior. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this is a classic antitrust injury.Accordingly, this court should reverse the district court’s opinion and remand for further proceedings.","PeriodicalId":431402,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","volume":"206 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2839130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This amicus brief, filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Gelboim v. Bank of America (LIBOR Manipulation Litigation), primarily aims to help the Court by providing relevant background information. Many of the plaintiffs in this case are bringing antitrust claims based on defendant banks' alleged collusion while selling plaintiffs over-the-counter derivatives. To evaluate these plaintiffs’ allegations, one must understand the nature of these derivative transactions, the economics of the over-the-counter derivatives market, and the specific role that the London Interbank Offer Rate (“LIBOR”) plays in that market. This brief provides that information. With this background in place, it becomes clear that these plaintiffs have properly alleged an antitrust injury. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, who controlled the over-the-counter derivatives market, conspired to manipulate LIBOR in order to increase their profits in the over-the-counter derivatives market. Plaintiffs allege that they, in their capacity as defendants’ customers in the over-the-counter derivatives market, suffered an injury as a result of defendants’ collusive LIBOR-setting behavior. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this is a classic antitrust injury.Accordingly, this court should reverse the district court’s opinion and remand for further proceedings.
代表金融市场法教授支持原告-上诉人的Gelboim诉美国银行(Libor操纵诉讼)案法庭之友摘要
本法庭之友摘要提交给第二巡回上诉法院审理Gelboim诉美国银行(LIBOR操纵案),主要目的是通过提供相关背景信息来帮助法院。该案的许多原告都提出了反垄断诉讼,理由是被告银行涉嫌勾结,向原告出售场外衍生品。为了评估这些原告的指控,人们必须了解这些衍生品交易的性质,场外衍生品市场的经济学,以及伦敦银行同业拆借利率(LIBOR)在该市场中所起的具体作用。本摘要提供了这些信息。有了这样的背景,很明显,这些原告恰当地提出了反垄断损害的指控。原告声称,控制场外衍生品市场的被告合谋操纵LIBOR,以增加他们在场外衍生品市场的利润。原告声称,他们作为被告在场外衍生品市场的客户,因被告串通设定libor的行为而受到损害。如果原告的指控属实,这就是典型的反垄断损害。因此,本院应推翻地区法院的意见,并将其发回进一步诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信