Sullivan leads for Barclays on $450m fine for interest rate manipulation
Sullivan & Cromwell has taken the lead role for Barclays on its $450m (£290m) settlement over charges that it attempted to manipulate interest rates and made false reports to benefit its derivatives trading positions, reports The Blog of Legal Times. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) Criminal Division brought the charges against the bank, with $200m (£130m) of the penalty going to resolve the CFTC's civil case — the agency's biggest-ever fine — and $160m (£100m) to settle the DoJ fraud case.
June 28, 2012 at 05:39 AM
4 minute read
Sullivan & Cromwell has taken the lead role for Barclays on its $450m (£290m) settlement over charges that it attempted to manipulate interest rates and made false reports to benefit its derivatives trading positions, reports The Blog of Legal Times.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) Criminal Division brought the charges against the bank, with $200m (£130m) of the penalty going to resolve the CFTC's civil case – the agency's biggest-ever fine – and $160m (£100m) to settle the DoJ fraud case.
In addition, the bank will pay £59.5m to resolve charges brought by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) – the largest-ever fine handed down by the UK regulator.
Barclays was represented by a Sullivan team led by New York partners Steven Peikin, David Braff, Jeffrey Scott and special counsel Matthew Fitzwater.
The US firm's role comes after it was added to Barclays' general advisory panel last July alongside Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Shearman & Sterling, after a comprehensive panel review intended to increase value for money from the bank's regular advisers.
The charges revolve around Barclays' submissions to the London InterBank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor), which are benchmark interest rates used in financial markets around the world. The bank is one of the financial institutions that contribute information used in the calculation of the rates, which are meant to reflect each bank's assessment of the rates at which it could borrow unsecured interbank funds.
The rates "form the basis for hundreds of trillions of dollars of transactions and affect nearly every corner of the global economy," said David Meister, the CFTC's director of enforcement. "Banks that contribute information to those benchmarks must do so honestly. When a bank acts in its own self-interest by attempting to manipulate these rates for profit, or by submitting false reports that result from senior management orders to lower submissions to guard the bank's reputation, the integrity of benchmark interest rates is undermined."
According to the US DoJ, between 2005 and 2007, and at times through 2009, "certain Barclays traders requested that the Barclays Libor and Euribor submitters contribute rates that would benefit the financial positions held by those traders. The requests were made by traders in New York and London, via electronic messages, telephone conversations and in-person conversations."
The CFTC also alleged that from late August 2007 through early 2009, senior executives directed Barclays to routinely make "artificially low Libor submissions to protect Barclays' reputation from negative market and media perceptions concerning Barclays' financial condition."
In a statement, Tracey McDermott, the FSA's acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said: "Barclays' misconduct was serious, widespread and extended over a number of years. The integrity of benchmark reference rates such as Libor and Euribor is of fundamental importance to both UK and international financial markets. Firms making submissions must not use those submissions as tools to promote their own interests.
"The FSA continues to pursue a number of other significant cross-border investigations in this area and the action we have taken against Barclays should leave firms in no doubt about the serious consequences of this type of failure."
Barclays CEO Bob Diamond said that "[t]he events which gave rise to [these] resolutions relate to past actions which fell well short of the standards to which Barclays aspires in the conduct of its business."
In addition to the financial penalty, the CFTC order requires Barclays to cease and desist from further violations and take steps such as making the determinations of benchmark submissions transaction-focused and improve related internal controls.
The US DoJ has also agreed not to pursue a criminal prosecution against Barclays. In a news release, DOJ noted that Barclays was "the first bank to cooperate in a meaningful way." Other large banks are reportedly still under investigation for manipulation of benchmark interest rates.
The Blog of Legal Times is a US affiliate title of Legal Week.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClaus von Wobeser: Mexico's ‘Godfather of Arbitration’ Becomes Firm’s Honorary Chair
Slaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250