United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case: 1:13-cv-05413 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/29/13 Page 1 of 188 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. _______________ v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., CLASS ACTION JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, MORGAN STANLEY BANK, N.A., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORP., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, BNP PARIBAS S.A., UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES LLC, WELLS FARGO BANK & CO., MARKIT GROUP LTD., AND INTERNATIONAL SWAPS & DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION, Defendants. Case: 1:13-cv-05413 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/29/13 Page 2 of 188 PageID #:2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................2 A. Concentration and Cooperation ...............................................................................2 B. Common Motive to Conspire...................................................................................3 C. High Degree of Inter-firm Communications and Ability to Detect Cheating ...................................................................................................................4 D. Highly Unusual Parallel Means of Implementing Conspiracy ................................4 E. Prior Antitrust History and Enhanced Common Motive .........................................5 F. Current Government Investigations .........................................................................6 G. The European Commission’s Complaint .................................................................6 H. Highly Unusual Parallel Acts to Exclude Competitors, Including Through Joint, Collusive Acts ................................................................................................6 I. Highly Unusual Parallel and Joint Boycott ..............................................................8 J. Meetings ...................................................................................................................9 K. Ability to Detect Cheating on the Agreement ..........................................................9 III. PARTIES ...........................................................................................................................10 A. Plaintiff ..................................................................................................................10 B. Defendants .............................................................................................................11 1. The Dealer Defendants ..............................................................................11 2. Other Defendants .......................................................................................16 IV. NON-PARTY CO-CONSPIRATOR .................................................................................17 V. AGENTS AND UNNAMED CO-CONSPIRATORS .......................................................17 VI. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................18 A. Credit Default Swaps and the Inception of Trading CDS......................................18 B. Defendants’ Creation of the CDS Market ..............................................................23 C. Operation of CDS Market ......................................................................................25 D. Transparency Enhancements in the CDS Market? ................................................28 1. Defendant ISDA’s Determination Committees .........................................30 2. Public Sources of CDS Market Data .........................................................33 E. Defendants Have Excluded Competitors ...............................................................34 F. The Formation of ICE and Related Transactions Involving the Dealer Defendants .............................................................................................................36 i Case: 1:13-cv-05413 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/29/13 Page 3 of 188 PageID #:3 1. Limiting Access to Standard Industry Licenses, Agreements and Data Provision ............................................................................................39 2. Limiting Access to Central Clearing..........................................................44 a. Background ....................................................................................44 b. Dealer Defendants assert control over clearing of CDS transactions through ICE................................................................47 c. To maintain unreasonable restraints, Dealer Defendants excluded central clearing and exchange trading in CDS ...............48 3. Imposing Prohibitive Capital Requirements ..............................................49 G. Regulatory Investigations ......................................................................................54 1. U.S. Department of Justice Investigation ..................................................54 2. European Union Investigations ..................................................................54 VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................................58 VIII. RELEVANT MARKET.....................................................................................................60 IX. THE DEALER DEFENDANTS’ MONOPOLY POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET ...........................................................................................................................60 X. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT AND COULD NOT DISCOVER ITS CLAIMS ........................61 XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .....................................................................................................62 XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................66 XIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .........................................................................................66 ii Case: 1:13-cv-05413 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/29/13 Page 4 of 188 PageID #:4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH (“Plaintiff” or “LBBW”) complains, upon knowledge as to itself and its own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. Between at least as early as 2006 and the present, Defendants Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Barclays Bank plc, Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, BNP Paribas S.A., UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Bank & Co., Markit Group Ltd., and International Swaps & Derivatives Association, have entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize their charges and revenues from purchasing, selling and making a market in credit default swaps (“CDS”) in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (the “Sherman Act”). Defendants also entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to monopolize and did monopolize the CDS market in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. 2. Pursuant to and as part of their unlawful agreement, Defendants have artificially inflated bid-ask spreads (¶ 12) and forced purchasers to pay, and sellers to receive, supra- competitive prices in their transactions with the Dealer Defendants, as defined below. I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 1 Case: 1:13-cv-05413 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/29/13 Page 5 of 188 PageID #:5 5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and (d). Defendants transacted business in this district, the claims arose in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this district. 6. Defendants, directly and indirectly, singly and in concert, made use of the means and instrumentalities of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or of the United States mails in connection with the unlawful acts and practices and courses of business alleged in this Complaint. The CDS trading alleged in this Complaint had a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce. II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS A. Concentration and Cooperation 7. From the mid-1990s until the present, the Dealer Defendants (¶¶ 43-55) created and cooperatively guided the development of the market for purchasing and selling CDS. See ¶¶ 77-87. This extensive cooperative working relationship created a foundation to facilitate anti- competitive communications and acts, thereby making such conduct, as alleged herein, more than plausible. 8. The Dealer