Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and Commodity Exchange Act claims against several banks alleged to have manipulated Sterling LIBOR. The appellate court held that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege actual injury or damages resulting from the multidirectional market manipulation scheme. Because the alleged conduct could have benefited or harmed traders depending on market fluctuations, the complaint lacked the specific factual allegations required to establish antitrust or CEA standing. The court therefore affirmed the judgment without addressing the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs have standing and have alleged a concrete antitrust injury sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Sherman Act.
- Whether the plaintiffs have alleged actual damages required for a claim under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Holdings
- The plaintiffs failed to allege an actual antitrust injury; therefore, the district court's dismissal of the antitrust claims is affirmed.
- The plaintiffs failed to allege actual damages; therefore, the district court's dismissal of the CEA claims is affirmed.
Key quotations
“Because we conclude that none of the Plaintiffs has alleged an antitrust or CEA injury, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court without reaching any other issue.” (at 10)
“We are free to affirm on any ground that finds support in the record, even if it was not the ground upon which the trial court relied.” (at 10)
Factual background
Plaintiffs—an investment fund, an individual trader, and a partnership—traded derivatives tied to Sterling LIBOR and alleged that a group of banks conspired to manipulate the benchmark, but they did not show that they suffered a concrete financial injury.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the antitrust and CEA claims for lack of standing, lack of capacity, and failure to plead specific intent. The plaintiffs appealed, and UBS cross‑appealed.