.
Feedback

San Mateo County Files Lawsuit Against Major Banks

The lawsuit alleges manipulation of bank-to-bank lending interest rates known as 'LIBOR.'

San Mateo County and several other public agencies across California including some in the east Bay Area, filed suit Wednesday in federal court claiming they were cheated out of income by banks that manipulated a global benchmark interest rate known as LIBOR.

All of the plaintiff public entities are represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and the defendants in each lawsuit are 20 current and former financial institutions that set LIBOR, including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Citigroup.

LIBOR, or the "London Interbank Offered Rate," is the world’s benchmark interest rate used for setting short-term interest rates on a wide range of financial instruments – from simple car loans to complex municipal derivative investments by public entities.  LIBOR-based investments are in the trillions of dollars every year.

LIBOR is set every day by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), based on an average of the interest rates that each LIBOR member bank reports it could borrow money from the other LIBOR member banks with.  LIBOR is accepted by the global financial system as the true cost of borrowing between financial institutions because it was believed to represent the true interest rate at which borrowers are able to borrow money.

In a statement sent out Wednesday evening, the County said the LIBOR member bank’s reported interbank borrowing rate is not based on an actual interest rate, but is a "self-certified" rate that a LIBOR member bank believes it might pay to borrow funds from a fellow member bank.

Until recently, a LIBOR member bank’s reported interbank borrowing rate was believed to be a reflection of its credit worthiness. If a bank could borrow money at a lower rate, it was believed to be more credit worthy. According to the lawsuits, "this self-certified market proved too tempting to the LIBOR member banks for manipulation."

In March of 2011, government regulators in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan announced they had launched investigations of LIBOR rate manipulation affecting global financial markets.  LIBOR member banks were under scrutiny for manipulating LIBOR upward to increase their own profits, and for manipulating LIBOR downward to report suppressed borrowing rates to create the illusion of financial strength. 

In July of 2012, Barclays admitted manipulating LIBOR with other member banks, and in December of 2012, UBS agreed to pay a penalty of more than $1.5 billion. 

At the same time, a former UBS trader and two brokers were arrested in London in connection with the investigation, and criminal charges were brought in New York Federal Court against two former UBS traders. 

As a result of the LIBOR manipulation, San Mateo County said it is suspected that many California public entities and other investors have received reduced interest payments on interest rate swaps, corporate bonds and other investments that were tied to LIBOR as a benchmark interest rate. 

John C. Beiers, County Counsel for San Mateo County, said in the statement Wednesday, "LIBOR was manipulated on a global scale, and it’s a sad fact that the rigging of LIBOR is just another outrageous example of how self-regulated financial markets take advantage of average hardworking people and Main Street public entities."

"As with previous improper financial manipulations and activities by large banks and financial institutions, when there is evidence that San Mateo County has been negatively impacted by such activities and manipulations, San Mateo County and its Board of Supervisors is quick, and usually one of the first, to seek recovery of the financial benefits that have been denied the citizens of the County," he continued. 

San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley said, "It’s the local taxpayers and those that need services such as healthcare that suffer when these global institutions think only about their bottom line, and nothing about who they might harm. We are going to aggressively pursue this lawsuit and others to ensure that these faceless and heartless institutions do not benefit at the expense of those in need."

 

Stay informed on the latest local news - follow Patch!

 

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.