SIBOR Singapore Interbank Offered Rate Settlement

Continually hunting for news of emerging and newly filed class action litigation

Request Information on This Case

SETTLED

SIBOR Singapore Interbank Offered Rate Settlement

FILING DEADLINES:

01/20/2023 ($155,458,000 ANZ Bank, Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citibank, Commerzbank, Credit Agricole, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, JP Morgan, UBS, United Overseas Bank, DBS Group)

icon-filing-deadline

CASE NUMBER:

1:16-CV-05263

CLASS PERIOD:

January 1, 2007 — December 31, 2011

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND:

$155,458,000.00

  • icon-settling-defendants

    SETTLING DEFENDANTS

    Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, ING Bank N.V., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Credit Suisse AG, ANZ, Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, S.A., Commerzbank AG, Crédit Agricole, DBS, MUFG Bank, OCBC, RBS, Standard Chartered, UBS, UOB

  • icon-eligible-class

    ELIGIBLE CLASS

    All persons or entities that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in financial instruments that were priced, benchmarked, and/or settled based on SIBOR and/or SOR at any time from at least January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2011. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their employees, agents, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries and co-conspirators, whether or not named in this complaint, and the United States government.

  • icon-eligible-instruments

    ELIGIBLE INSTRUMENTS

    SIBOR/SOR based derivatives: All financial instruments that were priced, benchmarked, and/or settled based on SIBOR and/or SOR and that were transacted in U.S. based transactions, including over the counter instruments such as interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, and foreign exchange swaps and forwards.

  • icon-allegations

    Preliminary Allegations

    The complaint alleges that Defendants agreed, combined and conspired to rig SIBOR and SOR to fix the prices of SIBOR- and SOR-based derivatives in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the common law. Specifically, the defendants (1) knowingly submitted (or caused to be submitted) SIBOR and SOR quotes that were false, misleading, or inaccurate because they were manipulative, based in whole or in part on impermissible and illegitimate factors, such as the rate that would financially benefit Defendants’ SIBOR based derivatives positions and/or the SIBOR-based derivatives positions of their coconspirators; (2) Defendants implicitly represented that their SIBOR submissions were a reliable and truthful assessment of, and only of, each Defendant’s competitive market borrowing costs; (3) Defendants used secret, collusive trades in the swap market to manipulate SOR and the prices of SOR-based derivatives.

  • icon-case-summary

    Case Summary

    Antitrust class action about Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy to increase the profitability of their derivatives trading in the United State through the manipulation of two related benchmark rates—the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (“SIBOR”) and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate (“SOR”). At the same time that they were manipulating SIBOR and SOR, Defendants traded derivatives incorporating these tainted rates with investors located in the United States.

Case Updates

  • On July 1, 2016, this litigation was initiated as a putative class action on behalf of the named Plaintiffs and other holders of SIBORand/or SOR-Based Derivatives. ECF No. 4. The original complaint named two representative Plaintiffs: FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, LP (“FrontPoint”); and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (“Sonterra”).
  • On October 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and asserted claims under the Sherman Act, RICO, and common law. ECF No. 119. Defendants moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 144.
  • On August 18, 2017, the district court issued an opinion denying in part and granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC, with leave to file a further amended complaint. ECF No. 225.
  • On September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 230, 237. Defendants again filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. ECF Nos. 238-45.
  • On November 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 249. While the motion to dismiss the SAC was pending, Citi and JPMorgan reached settlements in principle with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and Citi executed a binding term sheet and notified the Court of the Citi Settlement in a letter dated April 9, 2018. ECF No. 280. Plaintiffs and JPMorgan executed a binding term sheet and notified the Court of the JPMorgan Settlement on June 5, 2018. ECF No. 301.
  • On October 4, 2018, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 302. The court dismissed with prejudice the RICO claims and the antitrust claims asserted against certain Defendants, but sustained the antitrust claims asserted against Defendants that were members of the panel that set SIBOR. The Court also held that FrontPoint was an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws for many of its claims, and that Sonterra was not an efficient enforcer. Lastly, the Court held that the documents submitted appeared to show an assignment of rights by FrontPoint and Sonterra to Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC (“FLH”), which potentially had capacity to sue and granted leave to substitute FLH as plaintiff in a third amended complaint. Prior to the filing of this initial complaint, FLH had received assignments of claims and irrevocable powers of attorney from FrontPoint and Sonterra. FrontPoint and Sonterra then later dissolved. ECF No. 412. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), with the caption updated to name FLH as plaintiff. ECF No. 308.
  • On November 15, 2018, Plaintiffs sought preliminary approval for the two settlements reached with Citi and JPMorgan. ECF Nos. 314-17. On the same day, Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC, arguing, among other things, that the case had been a legal nullity from its outset and FLH’s claims could not relate back to the initial complaint, making the claims time-barred. ECF Nos. 318-29. Plaintiff filed its opposition on December 10, 2018. ECF No. 344.
  • On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff FLH moved to file a fourth amended complaint to join two new representative plaintiffs from the Class, Moon Capital Partners Master Fund, Ltd. and Moon Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (the “Moon Plaintiffs”), who also transacted directly with the defendants and were injured by the exact same defendant conduct, to cure the specific antitrust standing deficiency identified by the Court in its October 4, 2018 opinion. ECF Nos. 347-48.
  • On July 26, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the TAC on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire action from its outset. ECF No. 393. The Court also held that this lack of jurisdiction could not be remedied through substitution of a new class representative with standing to sue. ECF No. 393. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary approval of the settlements with Citi and JPMorgan based on its holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Action. ECF No. 393.
  • On August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s July 26, 2019 opinion. ECF No. 397. After the parties fully briefed the issues, on March 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the Court’s July 26, 2019 opinion. ECF No. 412. The Second Circuit held that the Court had and always had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Action and that any issues related to capacity of certain of the Plaintiffs could be cured through substitution. The Second Circuit also stated that the Court should allow for the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint and the addition of the Moon Plaintiffs. Between August 2021 and October 2021, Plaintiffs reached individual agreements in principle with ING, Credit Suisse, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank to settle the claims against them in the Action.
  • On October 22, 2021, the Court granted FLH and the Moon Plaintiffs leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”), which they filed on October 25, 2021. ECF Nos. 436-37. On November 24, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the 4AC on the grounds that: the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over certain foreign Defendants, and that Plaintiffs lack statutory antitrust standing or fail to allege an antitrust conspiracy. ECF Nos. 446-48. FLH and the Moon Plaintiffs opposed the motion. ECF No. 451. After Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 4AC has been fully briefed and just prior to the scheduled oral argument on the motion, Plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle with ANZ, BOA, Barclays, BNPP, Commerzbank, CACIB, DBS, MUFG, OCBC, RBS, SCB, UBS, and UOB to settle the claims against them.
  • On May 13, 2022, FLH and the Moon Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlements with Citi, JPMorgan, ING, Deutsche, HSBC, and Credit Suisse. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlements on June 9, 2022. ECF Nos. 510-15. On May 27, 2022, FLH and the Moon Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement with ANZ, BOA, Barclays, BNPP, Commerzbank, CACIB, DBS, MUFG, OCBC, RBS, SCB, UBS, and UOB. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 9, 2022. ECF No. 509.

Next Steps

Contact your Battea Customer Service Representative directly.

  • icon-company-profile

    BRIEF COMPANY PROFILE

View More Settled Cases