Court ruling could bankrupt 16 largest banks
May 24, 2016
Yesterday a US appeals court overruled a lower court decision from 2013. The lower court judge had insisted earlier that the big banks did not violate antitrust laws when they rigged the Libor benchmark interest rates. That judge’s opinion soon became ridiculous after many of those banks had to pay penalties for their manipulative practices.
These big banks ought to have their assets confiscated and to be turned into public institutions owned by the Treasury Department (i.e., the people). The Federal Reserve itself should never have been independent and should be owned by the Treasury Department, so that private bankers do not have the right to create money and loan it to the government at interest.
Lawsuit accusing 16 big banks of Libor manipulation reinstated by US court
Judge warns case could ‘bankrupt 16 of the world’s most important financial institutions’ including Barclays, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and UBS.
A US appeals court on Monday reinstated a civil lawsuit accusing 16 major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate. The ruling, which overturns a 2013 decision, could bankrupt the institutions, the judges warned….
In litigation that began in 2011, investors accused big banks of suppressing Libor during the financial crisis in order to boost earnings or make their finances appear healthier.
Back in early 2013, Manhattan federal district court judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the claims filed by private plaintiffs. According to her 161-page decision, the banks did not violate antitrust laws when they colluded to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate and that the plaintiffs failed to prove harm from such collusion.
Buchwald’s 2013 decision surprised some, as at the time Barclays, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland had already settled cases with more than $2.5bn in penalties. Since then penalties in Libor-rigging probes have climbed to roughly $9bn, including a penalty of $2.5bn against Deutsche Bank.
The three-judge appellate court panel disagreed with her decision.