JPMorgan’s $22M Swiss Franc Settlement Granted Initial Go-Ahead

Share This Post:

Last month, a federal judge in New York granted preliminary approval of a $22 million settlement agreement filed last month between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and a class of investors. The investors alleged that JPMorgan, and other banks, rigged the market for derivatives linked to the Swiss franc London Interbank Offered Rate. According to the complaint, the banks’ practices caused the plaintiffs to engage in derivatives transactions based on the benchmark rate at artificial prices, resulting in considerable financial losses. The plaintiffs believe that the settlement will bolster their litigation efforts against other similarly situated defendants.

Pending final approval, the settlement will involve JPMorgan providing a $22 million lump sum to be allocated amongst class members. They must also provide its disclosures to government officials, and make further financial information available for the plaintiffs to utilize against the remaining defendants – consisting primarily of European banks. The class includes U.S. investors who conducted transactions in Swiss franc derivatives over an 11-year term.

The settlement was preapproved while Judge Stein was simultaneously considering motions to dismiss submitted by the remaining defendants. UBS AG, Deutsche Bank AG, and other financial institutions claimed that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction, saying the case should be heard in Europe. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that the complaint is based on well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, namely, that the defendants purposely elected to enter the U.S. market where they subsequently participated in the fraudulent activity.

The judge clarified in his preliminary approval order that while the class had been established, a distribution plan for the $22 million has yet to be proposed.

The suit, which additionally implicates European-based hedge fund BlueCrest Capital Management LLP, alleges that the banks operated a syndicate to manipulate the spread between prices they offered to purchase and sell Swiss franc Libor-based derivatives. UBS, RBS, JPMorgan, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, all of which hold seats on the British Bankers Association Swiss franc Libor panel, also profited by collaborating in their efforts to fix the Swiss franc Libor, which was used to value, benchmark, and settle the same derivatives.

The case is Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. V. Credit Suisse Group AG et al., case number 1:15-cv-00871, in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York.

Questions about this article? Reach out to our team below.
RELATED
SEC rule changes affecting fund managers and investor eligibility

SEC Qualified Client Rule: What Fund Managers Need to Do Next

The SEC’s proposed increase to qualified client thresholds, raising the bar to $1.4 million in assets under management and $2.7 million in net worth, may look like a routine inflation adjustment. It isn’t. For fund managers, it’s a structural shift that directly narrows the pool of investors eligible for performance-based compensation, including carried interest, incentive allocations, and performance fees. Emerging managers, growth-stage sponsors, and funds reliant on high-net-worth individuals near the current threshold will feel the friction first, and those who wait to adapt will feel it most in their next raise.

risks of all-inclusive trust deeds in wrap mortgage transactions

The Hidden Risks of All-Inclusive Trust Deeds (AITDs) and Wrap Mortgages

All-Inclusive Trust Deeds (AITDs) and wraparound mortgages may seem like flexible alternatives to traditional financing, but they come with hidden risks that can cost both buyers and sellers dearly.
In an AITD, the buyer pays the seller, who remains liable for the underlying mortgage. This creates dangerous dependencies: sellers lose control over their credit, buyers risk losing the property even when payments are made on time, and both parties face potential foreclosure through due-on-sale clause enforcement.