Worldwide: LIBOR Manipulation Press Coverage - June 2013

Last Updated: 19 June 2013
Article by James Cooper

Investigations and regulator action

In the February Bulletin we referred to the investigations by Germany's banking supervisor, BaFin, into possible EURIBOR manipulation by at least three banks. BaFin's preliminary findings have been summarised in an internal report, however this has not been made public. Investigations are continuing. The person in charge of the investigation, Raimund Roeseler, is quoted as saying that, so far, there has been no evidence of systematic crime involving management board members.

Deutsche Bank confirmed it was cooperating with regulatory authorities in Europe, North America and Asia Pacific after receiving subpoenas and requests for information from various law and regulatory enforcement agencies probing their role in the rates-manipulation scandal.

The Canadian Competition Bureau has indicated that the Canadian affiliate of RBS has abandoned its challenge to an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice compelling it to produce certain records located outside of Canada to the Commission. The Commission has indicated that this will allow it to move forward with its investigation in relation to the setting of Yen LIBOR rates. It is reported that the bank has said that it is cooperating fully with the investigation, and only challenged the method of obtaining the information due to confidentiality concerns.

The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which sets standards for the regulation of securities markets around the world, prepared a Consultation Report on 'Principles for Financial Benchmarks'. This closed on 16 May 2013. The principles are intended to be used as guidelines by benchmark administrators, national regulators and other relevant bodies. They set out the roles and responsibilities of administrators and contributors, accountability mechanisms and complaints procedures. They also include guidelines on establishing benchmarking quality, including design, input and periodic review processes. The way the principles are applied should be proportional to the size and risks posed by each benchmark setting process, which may or may not include regulatory action. The Report also discusses the feedback from the Consultation Report on Financial Benchmarks published by IOSCO on 11 January 2013 (see more below).

Global regulators have said that the only way to repair and maintain public confidence in the financial industry is to urgently overhaul the rules for interbank lending rates and other benchmark rates.

A roundup of the views of the various regulators is noted in the table below:

Regulator Rules for internet lending rates
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) (a group of finance ministers, central bankers and regulators from G-20 countries) Mark Carney, in his role as Chairman of the FSB, is of the opinion that whilst policymakers can set the standard of good conduct, it is ultimately up to the private sector to decide how to achieve that standard, including whether or not to change the way benchmark rates are set. Carney also stated that regulators internationally should ensure that the setting of benchmark rates globally meet a global standard of "transparency and good governance"
The Financial Stability and Oversight Council (FSOC), a panel of US regulators FSOC think interest-rate benchmarks must be tied to market transactions, instead of estimates, in order to adequately protect the financial system across the world. They also think that prompt action needs to be taken to find an alternative system as concerns about LIBOR manipulation is damaging market integrity
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Martin Wheatley, Head of the FCA, states that the approach should not be to "throw something away before you have an alternative." He suggests a 'dual track' with the current rate-setting process, which relies on input from a panel of banks, running alongside a transaction based rate – at least until the LIBOR system can be fully overhauled. He gave warning about the difficulties of suddenly replacing LIBOR because many long-term contracts are linked to LIBOR -- an estimate of USD 350 trillion worth of contracts worldwide.
The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which sets standards for the regulation of securities markets around the world The IOSCO thinks that global benchmark interest rates should be based on actual transactions rather than estimates. Gary Gensler, who is Chairman of the US's CTFC but also co-chairman of the IOSCO's Benchmark Taskforce (with Martin Wheatley), has said that: "to promote market integrity, it is critical that benchmark interest rates be anchored in observable transactions and supported by appropriate governance structures [...] I support that international regulators and market participants have begun to discuss appropriate alternatives and possible approaches to a smooth and orderly transition from LIBOR, Euribor and similar rates." IOSCO has also demanded a more effective mechanism for whistle-blowers, and codes of conduct for those involved in the rate-setting.

Other financial benchmark rates investigations

The US's Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFC) is now investigating potential rate-manipulation of other benchmark rates, known as ISDAfix, for interest-based swaps. ISDAfix is used as a benchmark for credit default swap contracts, an instrument designed to protect banks and their customers from swings in interest rates.

The European Commission confirmed it carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several companies active in and providing services to crude oil, refined oil products and bio fuels sectors. The EC has "concerns that the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a Price Reporting Agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and bio fuel products". The prices assessed and published by Price Reporting Agencies serve as benchmarks for trade in the physical and financial derivative markets for a number of commodity products in Europe and globally.

Industry response

The public's response to the IOSCO's Consultation Report on Financial Benchmarks can be located on the IOSCO's website. More than 50 responses were received. The Consultation Report discusses concerns regarding the potential inaccuracy or manipulation of Benchmarks and identifies Benchmark related policy issues across securities and derivatives and other financial sectors.

The Salz Review ("the Review") of Barclays' Business Practices delivered its report to the Board of Barclays PLC. The full report, which has been published at Barclays' request, is available at the Review website The Review was commissioned by the Board of Barclays in July 2012 as an independent external Review of Barclays' business practices to be led by Anthony Salz. The Review's mandate was to determine how Barclays can rebuild trust and develop business practices which make it a leader, not only among its business peers, but also among multinational corporates more generally. The Review was not mandated to determine the truth or otherwise of allegations surrounding past events, or to pass judgment on the shape of the business or strategic decisions previously taken. The two conclusions at the heart of the Salz Review were:

  • that 'pay contributed significantly to a sense among a few that they were somehow unaffected by the ordinary rules' and
  • Barclays' willingness to push the rules and let an adversarial relationship with regulators develop..... The institutional cleverness....stretched relationships with regulators and resulted in them and the market questioning some of Barclays' financial information. Barclay was sometimes perceived as being within the letter of the law but not within the spirit'.


In both the US and UK, claimants bringing private law actions for damages against LIBOR banks, arising out of the regulatory investigations into LIBOR manipulation, are not having an easy time of it.


Re LIBOR based financial instruments anti-trust litigation – these are the consolidated cases being heard in the federal court. The plaintiffs include various municipalities, commodities traders, investors, bond holders and Charles Schwab against the global banks. In April US District Judge Buchwald's dismissed individual claims by Charles Schwab and two class actions (one by owners of LIBOR pegged securities and the other by derivatives traders) that raised anti-trust and racketeering allegations (see April Bulletin for her reasoning). She then granted leave to the Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their complaints 'given the obvious magnitude of this litigation', but she went on to express scepticism that the pleadings could be amended sufficiently to address the concerns that led her to grant the motion to dismiss. She will also review the amended complaint prior to requiring the defendants to respond to any motion for leave to amend in light of her concerns, the 'comprehensive manner' of her prior order and the 'tremendous amount of resources already expended by the defendants'.

Gusinsky v Barclays – this is the Barclays shareholders securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of class of persons who purchased Barclays ADRs between 10 July 2007 and 27 June 2012. It alleges that the defendants participated in an illegal scheme to manipulate the LIBOR rates and 'made material misstatements to the company's shareholders about the company's purported compliance with their principles and operational risk management processes and repeatedly told shareholders that Barclays was a model corporate citizen even though at all relevant times it was flouting the law'. Judge Scheindlin has granted Barclays and two of its former executives (former CEO, Robert Diamond and former Chairman, Marcus Agius), motion to dismiss. Judge Scheindlin found that many of the statements concerning Barclay's business practices, particularly general statements about its high standards constituted 'mere puffery'. She also noted that even if certain statements relating to LIBOR practices were arguably not puffery, the plaintiff's allegations failed to connect the statements to the company's LIBOR practices – 'finding such statements actionable on these facts would render every financial institution liable to every investor for every act that broke the law or harmed reputation'. Plaintiffs have been denied leave to amend.

Charles Schwab Corporation - meanwhile one of the plaintiffs from the consolidated LIBOR litigation filed an action in San Francisco County Superior Court asserting a variety of common and statutory law claims as well as claims under the Securities Act 1933. The action pleads multiple separate causes of action including fraud, deceit and concealment, breach of contract and unjust enrichment; violation of the California Corporate Code and federal Securities Act 1933. It also alleges that LIBOR banks conspired to suppress the benchmark borrowing rate and this artificial suppression permitted the banks to pay unduly low interest rates on both floating-rate securities fixed to LIBOR and short-term fixed-rate notes with returns based on LIBOR rates.

Salix Capital v [a dozen LIBOR banks] – the Plaintiff owns claims belonging to several shuttered hedge funds that once operated under the FrontPoint umbrella. It has filed a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court in which it alleges that in 2007 and 2008 the FrontPoint funds engaged in Libor-pegged interest rate swaps with LIBOR panel banks as part of complex, multi-security deals known as corporate bond basis packages. The swaps were supposed to be a hedge against the global banking crises since LIBOR should have increased as it became more expensive for banks to borrow from one another. Instead the panel banks artificially suppressed LIBOR, undermining the trading strategy of FrontPoint funds'. It blames the LIBOR manipulation for FrontPoint funds' big losses in 2008 and demise in 2009 and claims USD 250 million in damages from, amongst other reasons listed, inflated payments to the defendants. Common law fraud and breach of contract is asserted against the banks.


Graiseley Properties Ltd (and Guardian Care Homes) v Barclays Bank - this is the test case being brought against Barclay's for damages arising from mis-selling of interest rate swap products which used LIBOR as a benchmark. In October 2012 the High Court gave Graiseley permission to amend its claim to plead fraudulent misrepresentation based on certain implied representations as to the integrity of LIBOR. The application by Graiseley followed publication of the FSA's final notice against Barclays in June 2012. Barclays have been granted permission to appeal this decision and the appeal is listed between September 2013 and January 2014.

Deutsche Bank & Others v Unitech Ltd & Others. Unitech is appealing the decision to refuse it permission to amend its counterclaim to include a claim for misrepresentations based on alleged manipulation of LIBOR. The court denied permission on the basis that:

  • some of the implied representations alleged by Unitech were too wide and uncertain to arise, as they placed in the mouth of one bank a statement about overall integrity of the system and the parts played by every bank in it
  • there was a difference between an implied term of a contract that a party will not manipulate the specific LIBOR rate referred to in it, and a separate non-contractual representation that nothing has been done or is now being done to impact on any of the many LIBOR rates claimed

The details of the court's decision are looked at more thoroughly in the April Bulletin. The decision has been appealed and is listed for hearing between July and December 2013.

It is possible that both appeals will be heard together.


A number of Regulators offer views on how best to regulate interbank lending rates and other benchmark rates. IOSCO's Consultation Report on the Principles for Financial Benchmarks follows on from its Consultation Report on Financial Benchmarks earlier this year. The Consultation closed on 16 May 2013. The Salz Review into Barclays delivers its report and recommendations to Barclays. Barclays Chairman, Sir David Walker, says it made 'uncomfortable reading'. The eye of the Regulators moves from LIBOR to other financial benchmark rates. CTFC starts probing ISDAfix for interest based swaps. The EC also looks at published prices for a number of oil and bio fuel products. On the litigation front a number of US class actions are dismissed whilst new individual actions are brought pleading 'tight targeted fraud claims'. Meanwhile in the UK it is possible that both the Graiseley Properties Ltd (test case) and Deutsche Bank v Unitech appeals will be heard together sometime between July 2013 and January 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.