Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Freddie Mac denied partial judgment in LIBOR litigation, (Aug 17, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) was not entitled to partial judgment in multi-district litigation against several major banks over alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). In denying the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) motion, the court determined that granting partial judgment would not be efficient (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, August 13, 2015, Buchwald, N.).

The district court previously granted several other plaintiffs in Libor I, another case in this multi-district litigation, partial judgment as to their federal antitrust claims so that they could participate in the Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. In granting partial judgment, the court agreed that a consolidated appeal would be the most efficient method of resolving all of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. Freddie Mac and plaintiffs in three other cases, however, declined to seek partial judgment on their antitrust claims, and attempted to distinguish and overcome Libor I by presenting “new factual and legal arguments.” The district court ultimately rejected their arguments, based on the absence of both a plausible conspiracy pleading and antitrust injury.

The court concluded that it would not be efficient to enter partial judgment against Freddie Mac, noting that oral argument in Gelboim is likely to take place this fall. Specifically, the court determined that if it granted partial judgment, the appellate court would have to accept supplemental briefing in the present appeal or would have to accept separate briefing and argument on a tandem case, which could take much longer than the standard expedited appeals procedure calls for. “We do not believe that it is appropriate for us to so interfere with the Circuit’s calendar,” the court stated.

Moreover, the court noted that Freddie Mac made the strategic decision not to seek partial judgment along with the other plaintiffs. Freddie Mac must therefore now follow the usual course and wait for final judgment to appeal, the court concluded.

The case number is 1:11-md-02262-NRB.

Attorneys: Lisa Marie Kaas (Dickstein Shapiro LLP) for The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Francis Paul McConville (Pomerantz LLP) for The Berkshire Bank, Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, and Direcors Financial Group. Jonathan David Schiller (Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP) for Barclays Bank PLC. Jeff G. Hammel (Latham and Watkins) for British Bankers' Association. David Robert Gelfand (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP) for Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. Andrew Corydon Finch (Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP) for Deutsche Bank AG.

Companies: The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.; The Berkshire Bank; Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico; Direcors Financial Group; Bank of America Corp.; Barclays Bank PLC; British Bankers' Association; Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A.; Deutsche Bank AG

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews