Back to top

Image: Bigstock

BAC, JPM, MS, C, BCS & 5 Other Big Banks Win U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

Read MoreHide Full Article

Key Takeaways

  • A U.S. judge dismissed investor claims against 10 banks over corporate bond pricing.
  • Investors alleged odd-lot trades carried spreads up to 300% higher.
  • The court found no proof of collusion or market control by the banks.

A U.S. Judge has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against 10 large banks, namely Bank of America (BAC - Free Report) , JPMorgan (JPM - Free Report) , Morgan Stanley (MS - Free Report) , Citigroup (C - Free Report) , Barclays (BCS - Free Report) , Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, NatWest and Wells Fargo.
 
The lawsuit alleged that BAC, JPM, MS, C and BCS conspired with five other banks to manipulate corporate bond prices at the expense of retail investors.

Details of the Lawsuit

Investors alleged that Bank of America, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays, along with five other banks, earned billions of dollars by levying excessive charges on “odd-lot” trades since 2006.

Such trades are valued under $1 million or involve fewer than 1,000 bonds that are primarily corporate bonds. Investors accused the banks of wrongly charging 25% to 300% higher charges compared with larger “round-lot” trades to boost their profits, according to Reuters.

In October 2021, the case was originally dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman. However, after a few months, he revealed that his wife held Bank of America’s shares while the case was pending, claiming that it didn’t impair his judgment on the case. In July 2024, the federal government appealed to the Manhattan court, reviving the case, stating that Liman’s conflict could call his impartiality into question.

Valerie Caproni, U.S. District Judge in Manhattan, stated that investors failed to demonstrate that the banks conspired to operate the Bond Desk, Trading Edge and Trade Web platforms or to shut out alternative platforms that promoted fairer pricing.

She further noted that, though the institutions accounted for roughly 65% of underwriting and 90% of trading in corporate bonds, this did not establish control over secondary market pricing. She also didn’t find any evidence of illegal activity in the four years preceding the April 2020 filing, a gap that undermined the case under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Caproni’s dismissal was issued with prejudice, implying that the lawsuit cannot be filed again.

Published in