In a sweeping decision that closes one of the most high-profile financial cases of the past decade, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has dismissed all remaining claims in the Libor-rigging litigation, bringing an end to a legal battle that began more than 14 years ago.
The case, heard in the Southern District of New York, involved accusations that 16 of the world’s largest banks colluded to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) — once one of the most important benchmark interest rates in the world. Libor served as the reference point for an estimated $300 trillion in financial contracts, including mortgages, student loans, credit cards, and derivatives.
Judge’s 273-Page Opinion
In a meticulously detailed 273-page opinion, Judge Buchwald ruled that the plaintiffs — which included major investors, municipalities, universities, and federal agencies — failed to provide sufficient evidence of a coordinated conspiracy.
“The evidence they cite does not tend to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently,” Buchwald wrote, underscoring that the bar for proving an antitrust conspiracy remains extremely high.
This decision applies to lawsuits filed by a diverse group of plaintiffs, including Principal Financial Group, the cities of Baltimore and Houston, several California counties, Yale University, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and even the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for banks that failed during the financial crisis.
The Defendants
The litigation targeted a who’s who of global finance, including:
- Bank of America
- Barclays
- Deutsche Bank
- HSBC
- JPMorgan Chase
- Lloyds Banking Group
- NatWest
- Portigon
- Rabobank
- Royal Bank of Canada
- UBS
These institutions were accused of conspiring to submit artificially low interest rates to the British Bankers’ Association, which calculated Libor. Plaintiffs claimed the banks sought to appear financially stronger during the global financial crisis while minimizing what they paid to investors.
Plaintiffs’ Claims
The lawsuits alleged that this coordinated manipulation:
- Depressed payouts on instruments tied to Libor, such as municipal bonds and swaps.
- Harmed pension funds, investors, and municipalities by lowering the interest income they were entitled to receive.
- Created unfair market conditions, inflating bank profits and undermining confidence in global financial markets.
Plaintiffs relied heavily on chat logs, email correspondence, and expert analyses to argue that the manipulation was not incidental but part of a multi-year, deliberate conspiracy.
Libor’s Decline and Regulatory Fallout
Libor’s reputation was permanently damaged after regulators worldwide began investigating in 2011. Over the next decade, banks paid more than $9 billion in fines and settlements to resolve allegations of rate manipulation. Several traders and brokers faced criminal charges, and some served prison sentences.
Ultimately, the global financial industry moved away from Libor, officially phasing it out in January 2022 and replacing it with transaction-based benchmarks such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) in the U.S.
Despite these enforcement actions, Judge Buchwald’s decision shows that regulatory settlements do not automatically translate into successful private damages claims.
Impact on the Financial Sector
For the banking industry, this ruling represents a significant legal and reputational win. For more than a decade, the Libor litigation cast a shadow over global banks, raising questions about ethics, governance, and systemic risk.
With this dismissal, banks avoid what could have been billions of dollars in additional damages. The ruling also offers relief to shareholders and executives eager to put the Libor era behind them.
For plaintiffs — including cities and public institutions seeking compensation — the ruling closes a costly and time-consuming chapter. It may also discourage similar mass antitrust actions tied to benchmark manipulation, given the difficulty of meeting evidentiary standards.
Legal and Market Implications
Legal analysts say the decision reinforces the challenges of proving collusion under antitrust law. Even in a case with extensive communications between traders, courts still require direct evidence that proves coordinated behavior beyond independent decision-making.
The case also highlights the complex intersection of financial regulation and civil litigation. While enforcement agencies may act on patterns of misconduct and impose penalties, private plaintiffs must meet a higher burden of proof to recover damages.
Case Reference
The ruling was issued in In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-02262.
What’s Next
The plaintiffs may consider appealing the ruling, though legal experts note that Judge Buchwald’s exhaustive opinion leaves little room for reversal. In the meantime, the financial industry continues its transition toward more transparent, transaction-based benchmarks, designed to prevent manipulation and restore confidence in global rate-setting.
🔎 Interested in the legal side of finance and regulation? Explore top jobs for compliance attorneys, securities litigators, and financial regulatory specialists on LawCrossing — the premier job board for legal professionals.
