Remember this LIBOR class action case two years ago? From attorney John Walter Sharbrough law website:
Interest Rate Fixing
LIBOR Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) Litigation
John W. Sharbrough, III, filed the first action on behalf of homeowners against the world’s largest banks for manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). The LIBOR rate has been called the most important interest rate in the world. The LIBOR index is used to set the interest rates on almost all adjustable rate mortgages and many other loans.
The banks charged with illegal manipulations include the following:
Bank of America Corporation
Barclays Bank, PLC
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Chase Bank USA
Credit Suisse Group, AG
Deutsche Bank AG
Royal Bank of Canada
Royal Bank of Scotland
This case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint filed by Sharbrough alleges that the banks conspired to manipulate the LIBOR rates to increase the amounts paid by borrowers on their adjustable rate mortgages.
What is going on with the case? Here is the most recent information from the docket:
Adams et al
Bank of America Corp. et al
New York Southern District Court
Case No. 1:12-cv-07461
Judge Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald
Filed Oct. 4, 2012
|Filing Date||#||Docket Text|
|9/5/2014||56||ORDER. This Order addresses the Exchange-Based plaintiffs’ letter of August 13, 2014 (Dkt. No. 592) and defendants’ responsive letters of August 20, 2014 (Dkt. Nos. 609 and 611). Given the detailed nature of the parties’ submissions and the well-established law governing motions to amend and motions for reconsideration, we will treat the parties’ letters as motion papers. Accordingly, we invite plaintiffs to submit a letter reply by September 14, 2014. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 9/4/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al. Entry in all cases as per Chambers. (rjm) (Entered: 09/05/2014)|
|9/5/2014||55||ORDER. This Order addresses two letters submitted on August 20, 2014: (1) Susman Godfrey’s letter on behalf of the “class cases” seeking the creation of new interim classes, a stay of certain individual actions, and the addition of new parties to the OTC plaintiffs’ case (Dkt. No. 626); and (2) Dickstein Shapiro’s letter on behalf of the “Direct Action” plaintiffs requesting leave to amend their complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) (Dkt. No. 610). First, we grant plaintiffs leave to file motions to serve as interim lead counsel for the proposed classes of lenders, homeowners, and students. As the parties have proposed, those motions shall be filed by September 15, 2014, the opposition papers by October 3, 2014, and all replies by October 13, 2014. Following any ruling appointing interim counsel for any additional proposed classes, consolidated amended complaints are to be filed thirty (30) days thereafter. Second, the Court has no objection to maintaining the existing stay for the six cases that have so requested. However, for the four cases that raise claims in addition to Sherman Act claims, plaintiffs will continue to be bound by any broad-based, substantive rulings issued by this Court. Stated otherwise, any party subject to this voluntary stay will not be permitted to relitigate any issue resolved while the stay is in place. Third, we grant OTC plaintiffs leave to add the plaintiffs in SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust v. Bank of America Corp. et al., 13-cv-1456 and Highlander Realty, LLC et al. v. Citizens Bank of Mass. et al., 13-cv-2343 as named plaintiffs in the OTC action. Fourth and finally, we have no objection to allowing “Direct Action” plaintiffs to amend their complaints prior to defendants filing their next round of motions to dismiss. Given the existence of three hundred pages of prior opinions, three years of litigation, and the existence of defendants’ letters of August 13, 2014 previewing their anticipated motions to dismiss, we find that there is no need for pre-motion letters before defendants file their motions to dismiss. Therefore, we shall proceed on the following schedule: Direct Action plaintiffs shall file their amended pleadings by October 6, 2014; defendants’ motions to dismiss will be due on November 5, 2014, opposition papers must be filed by December 8, 2014, and reply briefs will be due on December 23, 2014. In order to move this litigation forward, we have decided not to await the filing of consolidated amended complaints by the new interim classes before briefing any motions directed to the amended “Direct Action” complaints. We are prepared to work with the parties to avoid duplication of effort should there be motions to dismiss that would also be applicable to any of the consolidated amended complaints filed by the new interim classes. (Amended Pleadings due by 10/6/2014. Motions due by 11/5/2014. Responses due by 12/8/2014. Replies due by 12/23/2014.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 9/4/2014) Filed In Assoc|