Section 1 claims dismissed in LIBOR, TIBOR class action
On March 28, 2014, Judge Daniels of the Southern District of New York dismissed antitrust and unjust enrichment claims against over 20 banks accused of manipulating prices in the Euroyen interbank lending market by submitting false rate quotes to Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rate-setting organizations. Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., No. 12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014). The plaintiff, a short purchaser of Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts, also brought claims under the Commodities Exchange Act, which the court allowed to go forward.
The court based its dismissal of the price-fixing claim on lack of antitrust standing and failure to allege a restraint of trade. The plaintiff lacked antitrust standing for two reasons: (1) failure to plead antitrust injury and (2) the indirect, remote and speculative nature of his alleged injury—while the alleged misconduct involved manipulating present-day interbank lending rates, the alleged injury was suffered in the futures market. Although the plaintiff alleged that prices were distorted, he failed to allege that the distortion resulted from a reduction in competition. The ruling was partially based on the unique nature of the rate-setting process, which is neither supposed to be competitive nor collaborative. Instead, “each bank was supposed to independently contribute its submission to be evaluated collectively with other bank submissions.”
JPMorgan To Pay Madoff Victims $218M After Judge’s OK
Law360, New York (April 18, 2014, 3:37 PM ET) — A New York federal judge on Thursday finalized a $218 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and victims of Bernard Madoff, ending a class action suit that accused the bank of turning a blind eye to the decadeslong Ponzi scheme.
U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon entered the final judgment and order dismissing with prejudice the claims brought by Paul Shapiro, Stephen Hill and Leyla Hill on behalf of themselves and other investors.
I am sharing this post that was passed along to me via email by a blogger named Jessica. Thanks Jessica:
On the heels of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) release of its employment numbers for the class of 2013, Noodle has launched an innovative, easy-to-use new tool to help prospective students find the right law school. Our unique algorithm provides superior guidance by considering the factors that are most important to both applicants and law schools in the admissions process. The ABA’s data shows that employment prospects are slightly better than last year for new JDs, but still have not recovered from a difficult few years. Here’s a look at the job market for new law school graduates.
Brought to you: Noodle
Walmart Worker: Why Did the Waltons Get $8 Billion in Subsidies While I Had to Pay Taxes?
April 15, 2014 |
While millions of working- and middle-class Americans pay taxes each year, the richest family in the world—the Waltons—received nearly $8 billion in tax breaks last year, according to a new report by Americans for Tax Fairness, a campaign fighting for progressive tax reform.
That’s why Walmart worker Richard Reynoso and his fellow co-workers decided to bring the $7.8 billion tax bill to Walmart Chairman Rob Walton’s doorstep on Tuesday. Reynoso traveled from his home in Southern California to Phoenix, Arizona to bring this unfairness to light.
“We’re just trying to get him to hear us as workers that that kind of money — it shouldn’t just all go to him,” Reynoso said. “He should spread the wealth… and give back to the workers who are struggling.”
The report stated that in 2013, Walmart received about $6.2 billion in federal taxpayer subsidies because its employee wages are so low. Many employees, in turn, are forced to rely on healthcare, food stamps and other taxpayer-funded programs. The corporation then further evaded $1 billion through tax breaks and loopholes. The Walton family, in addition, avoided about $607 million of taxes on their Walmart dividends.
The Toughest Cop on Wall Street You’ve Never Heard Of How Benjamin Lawsky’s making big banks pay
In early April, when The New York Times reported that the Justice Department would grant Credit Suisse a deferred prosecution agreement for actively aiding tax evasion, it seemed yet another bank would pay a paltry penalty for major misconduct. Credit Suisse would owe only a fine for helping rich Americans hide their wealth from taxes in Switzerland. And those wealthy clients would get off scot-free, with their Swiss bank accounts still secret.
But a funny thing happened on Credit Suisse’s way to legal impunity: a new inquiry from the relatively obscure New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). Under the direction of former federal prosecutor Benjamin Lawsky, DFS has reportedlyrequested documents from Credit Suisse and a Senate subcommittee investigation, seeking to learn whether Credit Suisse executives based in New York lied to state regulators about their role in creating offshore tax havens. In the current climate of financial regulation, where investigations rarely impact the individual employees who design and perpetrate misdeeds, this was a bold step—one that could force the Justice Department to toughen up. Imposing a less stringent penalty than a state regulator would humiliate the feds.