May 30, 2013
CPI Cartel Column edited by Rosa Abrantes-Metz (NYU Stern School of Business)
Introduction by Rosa Abrantes-Metz
Welcome to the May issue of “From Collusion to Competition.” This month we will be reading about one of the most topical cartel matters of the recent times: LIBOR!
The manipulation and conspiracy of LIBOR is a most fascinating matter: first flagged by screens used by the Wall Street Journal and my own work with co-authors in 2008, and followed years later by other studies, in March 2011 we learned that UBS was being investigated. Soon after in the Spring of 2011 a leniency application was filed with the Department of Justice, and since then, admissions of attempted manipulation and collusion were made, jail time is already being served by some participants, settlement agreements have been reached (with more to come), investigations have been initiated in similar rates such as Euribor and TIBOR, as well as in other markets (swaps), some banks’ management have resigned, an impressive effort was initiated and led by the CFTC and FSA through IOSCO to reform financial benchmarks across the world, and of course, a significant amount of private litigation is underway.
The two excellent articles starred today provide comments on the recent decision by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York, on the consolidated class actions brought by a diverse group of investors against LIBOR panel contributing banks, in which allegations of antitrust violations were dismissed.
The first article by Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr. and Raymond Girnys, respectively Shareholder and Associate at Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., is titled “No Antitrust Injury In Libor Rate-Setting?—What Happened To Effects?”
No Antitrust Injury In Libor Rate-Setting?—What Happened To Effects? – Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr. and Raymond Girnys (Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.)
The second article, “A License to Collude,” is authored by Sandeep Vaheesan, Special Counsel at the American Antitrust Institute. Both articles put forward reasons why such antitrust claims should not have been dismissed.
A License to Collude – Sandeep Vaheesan (Special Counsel, American Antitrust Institute)
I hope you enjoy the reading as much as I have, this is certainly an engaging topic from a law and economics standpoint. We welcome your comments below.
Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz
Featured News
Massachusetts AG Sues Insulin Makers and PBMs Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Apple and Amazon Avoid Mass Lawsuit in UK Over Alleged Collusion
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Top Agent Network Drops Antitrust Suit Against National Association of Realtors
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Russian Court Imposes Hefty Fine on Google for Non-Compliance with Content Removal Orders
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand