County of Riverside v. Bank of America Corporation et al.
|Court:||United States District Court of the Central District of California (consolidated/transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court - Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi R. Buchwald, for pre-trial purposes only|
|Judge:||Christina A. Snyder|
|Class Period:||1/1/2005 – 12/31/2010|
|Case Contacts:||David R. Stickney, Benjamin Galdston, Lucas E. Gilmore|
This action arises from a global scheme by the international banks that contribute to the setting of the London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”), a benchmark interest rate referenced in trillions of dollars in financial instruments and transactions worldwide, to manipulate and artificially suppress LIBOR for at least six years between 2005 and 2010 in order to reap enormous profits and to misrepresent their own financial condition.
Plaintiff County of Riverside (“Plaintiff” or “Riverside County”) brings this action on behalf of itself and a class of all other municipalities within states that provide an antitrust remedy for “indirect” harms that received interest or other return on any investment, transaction, or depository account at a rate expressly linked to USD LIBOR for which the rate or return was set or adjusted at any time between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010. The action asserts claims under various state antitrust laws, interference with economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
On January 18, 2013, Riverside County filed its Complaint in the United States District Court of the Central District of California. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants’ unlawful scheme to suppress the LIBOR rate – conduct that has been exposed through numerous governmental investigations and regulatory enforcement actions – caused their financial instruments from issuers and market participants other than Defendants to pay artificially lower interest payments and returns on their investments, transactions, and depositary accounts linked to the USD LIBOR. Evidence of misconduct by the Defendants includes admitted efforts both within and among certain banks to manipulate LIBOR during the Class Period. Thus far, at least three banks have entered into historic settlements totaling more than $2.5 billion to resolve charges of collusive manipulation.
Other Cases of Interest
- Intel Corporation
Northern District of California David R. Stickney, Richard D. Gluck, Lucas E. Gilmore
- Symantec Corporation
Northern District of California David R. Stickney, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Lucas E. Gilmore, Rebecca E. Boon
- Restoration Hardware, Inc.
Northern District of California David R. Stickney, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Brandon Marsh, Robert Trisotto
- Quality Systems, Inc.
Central District of California Gerald H. Silk, Avi Josefson, Benjamin Galdston
Delware Chancery Court Mark Lebovitch, Benjamin Galdston, John Vielandi, David MacIsaac
- EZCORP, Inc.
Southern District of New York David R. Stickney, Timothy A. DeLange, Richard D. Gluck, Brandon Marsh
- Cobalt International Energy, Inc.
Southern District of Texas Avi Josefson, David R. Stickney, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Brandon Marsh, Jacob Spaid
- Qualcomm, Inc.
Southern District of California David R. Stickney, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Jonathan D. Uslaner, David Kaplan, Richard D. Gluck, , Jacob Spaid
- Invacare Corporation
Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division David R. Stickney, Benjamin Galdston, David Kaplan, Lucas E. Gilmore