THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC) & OTHERS V THE PANEL DEFENDANTS (AS DEFINED)

by glynncoeu

Recently FDIC filed papers with the High Court in London following a decision by the US Court that it didn’t have jurisdiction over all the matters covered by FDIC’s claim. Extracting key features that are otherwise repeated for each Panel Defendant this paper summarises and comments on the issues raised in the original submission to the Southern District Court of New York.

My own comments are highlighted in white on a blue background.

Certain paragraphs featuring bold, italic and or upper case reflect my own view as to the importance of the relevant paragraphs.

For the full review access please copy and paste the following link:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkETRqe6izSQ2gm5Fuo38RK_qihQ

NATURE OF THE CASE

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) established under the Federal Deposit Insurance (“FDI”) Act, is empowered, inter alia, to act as receiver for some 38 failed insured depository institutions (the Closed Banks) that had entered into a variety of interest rate swaps (IRS) as the fixed rate payer with a number of major international financial institutions that were members of the LIBOR USD panel (the Panel Defendants) comprising:

Bank of America Corporation.

Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”)

Libor Ltd is also a Defendant in this Case.

Citigroup, Inc.

Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. (“Rabobank

Credit Suisse Group AG

Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”)

HSBC Holdings

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Lloyds Banking Group plc

Société Générale.

Norinchukin Bank (“Norinchukin”).

Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”)

Royal Bank of Scotland plc (“RBS

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. (“BTMU”)

WestLB AG acquired by Portigon AG in 2009

In addition FDIC has enjoined the BBA and its subsidiary BBA LIBOR Ltd to this action in the Southern District Court of New York. This Case arises as a result of the manipulation, between 2007 and 2011of LIBOR and specifically in this instance of the US Dollar LIBOR (USD LIBOR) of various tenors.

The Closed Banks reasonably expected that accurate representations of competitive market forces, and not fraudulent conduct or collusion among the Panel Bank Defendants, would determine USD LIBOR.

The alleged acts enumerated herein were committed by the above mentioned parties and or those of their subsidiaries listed in the Complaint. A number of other anonymous parties are believed to have been involved with the Defendants which parties will be named at such time as their putative involvement can be substantiated.

The Particulars of Claim (the Complaint) cover: