The memorandum and order of Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 11-2262), dated March 29, 2013 — granting the bank defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims and partially dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of commodities manipulation as well as racketeering and state-law claims – here.
From some exasperated commentary on Judge Buchwald’s memorandum and order, see:
No Civil Recovery for Antitrust Violations in LIBOR Collusion Case
And see here for the May 3, 2013 order of the court — as well as commentary thereon — which, among other things, grants the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion to amend their amended complaints.
Plus see here as to the “long road ahead” for the LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation.
The Salz Review of Barclays’ Business Practices was released in final form today — please see here.
For the 3-page “terms of reference” of the review — led by Anthony Salz, a corporate lawyer and investment banker, per commission by Barclays PLC — please see here.
The full, 244-page report — “Salz Review: An Independent Review of Barclays’ Business Practices” — is here.
(The original, July 24, 2012 press release announcing establishment of the Salz Review is here.)
On March 14, 2013, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or “Freddie Mac”) sued the major banks and related entities involved in LIBOR manipulation — see here and here for some reports on the lawsuit.
The complaint (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia docket number 13-00342) is here.
UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd.-related documents (December 2012)…U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut docket no. 12-00268: