Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. (LIBOR), 823 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 2016) there have been additional antitrust cases filed in the Southern District of New York challenging alleged conspiracies to manipulate benchmark rates used in financial instruments and derivatives. Two examples where complaints were dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) motions are In re ICE LIBOR Antitrust Litigation ("ICE LIBOR"), No. 19 Civ. 439 (GBD), 2020 WL 1467354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020), and In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 412 F. Supp. 3d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("BBSW"), 343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) provides a contrary example where the court held the allegations sufficient to state an antitrust conspiracy claim.

While these recent rulings suggest a largely consistent approach for determining whether a benchmark conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws has been sufficiently alleged to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), they reached different results that appear to depend on the court's consideration of specific factual allegations of parallel conduct and other factors that, viewed in their totality, either supported or did not support a plausible inference of antitrust conspiracy. The Second Circuit may provide further clarity as it considers the plaintiffs' appeal in ICE LIBOR challenging the Southern District's dismissal.