Finally, UBS notes , because the Court acknowledgedthe simple fact that UBS has a United States presence is insufficient to confer jurisdiction, unless plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case which the existence, causation or intention to manipulate Sterling LIBOR on the portion of UBS had its’nucleus’ or’focal point’ at the United States. Not one of UBS’s assumed points of”presence” in the United States are regarding the alleged conspiracy and are so irrelevant, the suspect bank says.
In its latest Court filings, UBS attempts to provide discussions why the Court has to reconsider its earlier ruling and that the New York Southern District Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the bank in this case.
As stated by the plaintiffs, the defendants sought”to generate illicit profits for themselves and their co-conspirators on their Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives positions.”
Moreover, according to UBS, even if the Stamford conduct had been speaking to Sterling LIBOR, it might still fail to help the plaintiff as it doesn’t have anything to do with a conspiracy. The assumed actions in Stamford called out from the plaintiff all concerned UBS’s unilateral conduct. By way of example, the segments of this CFTC Order at issue refer to UBS’s supposed homing motive to lower LIBOR admissions to”shield UBS’s reputation and to avoid what it perceived as unjust and inaccurate negative press speculation regarding UBS’s fundraising ability and creditworthiness.” This inner reputational motive, UBS stresses, is irrelevant to the alleged profit-based conspiracy that’s the cornerstone of the instantaneous case.
UBS notes which the plaintiff’s effort to establish authority over UBS is,”at bottom, an attempt to muddy the waters of UBS’s regulatory settlements”. Specifically, the defendant and the plaintiff clash over a part in the CFTC Order concerning the activities of a senior Group Treasury manager in Stamford, Connecticut. Here’s the text:
Let us remember that, in February 2016, the plaintiffs — FrontPoint, Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Richard Dennis filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint against a Range of defendant banks, including UBS AG.
UBS AG continues its struggle in a Libor manipulation suit filed at the New York Southern District Court. Less than a month later that the plaintiffs in the case attempted to convince the Court that it should not reconsider its prior judgment from the bank, UBS responded to the plaintiffs’ claims.
“On April 22, 2008, also a senior Group Treasury director (“Group Treasury Senior Manager”) at Stamford, Connecticut, decided UBS’s LIBOR submissions were “lagging that the panel as well as peer reviewed banks” and consequently made a decision to adjust UBS’s submissions up towards its CP/CD issuance degrees. The Group Treasury Senior Manager allegedly thought, erroneously, which LIBOR served as a “ad ” of the speed that UBS would pay for funds, rather than the rate at that UBS could borrow money from the London interbank market. Because of this, he was supposedly concerned that UBS’s LIBOR submissions were not aggressive and must more closely reflect the bank’s issuance prices for CP/CDs to entice prospective clients”.
UBS asserts that CFTC Order does not automatically prove that the Stamford manager directed the exploitation of Sterling LIBOR specifically. Since UBS has pointed outthe Stamford-related conduct cited in the relevant section of this CFTC Order associated with U.S. Dollar LIBOR, not Sterling.
The article UBS attempts to escape US jurisdiction in Sterling LIBOR manipulation case appeared initially on FinanceFeeds.