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
DirecTV and Disney Resolve Dispute, Restore Programming for Subscribers
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Authority Raises Concerns Over Vodafone-Three Merger
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Brazilian Supreme Court Lifts Freeze on Starlink Accounts, Transfers $3.3 Million to National Treasury
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Steptoe Expands Antitrust Practice with Key London Hire
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Instant Ad Auctions at the Heart of Google’s Federal Monopoly Case
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
Francisco Javier Núñez Melgoza
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
Julio Garcia
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
Alejandra Palacios Prieto
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
Mateo Fernández