Laydon v. Mizuho Bank

2014 WL 1280464 (2014)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Laydon v. Mizuho Bank

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2014 WL 1280464 (2014)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

A putative class of investors (plaintiffs) suffered losses when they initiated short positions in Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts, meaning futures contracts tied to the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate, the daily interest rate used by banks when lending money to each other. The investors filed a lawsuit in federal district court against a group of banks and financial institutions (defendants) for allegedly manipulating the price of Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts through manipulating the Euroyen TIBOR rate as well as the Yen LIBOR, another interbank daily-interest-rate benchmark. The investors claimed that the banks manipulated the interest-rate benchmarks by submitting false information to the banking associations charged with calculating the rates. The banks moved to dismiss the complaint, raising four main arguments. First, the banks argued that the investors could not state a manipulation claim, because Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR were not commodities underlying a futures contract. Second, the banks argued that the investors failed to establish causation between the interest-rate-benchmark manipulation and the alleged manipulation of the futures contract prices. Third, the banks argued that the investors failed to plead intent to manipulate futures prices because the only specific-intent allegations related to Yen LIBOR. And fourth, the banks argued that the investors failed to state grounds for aiding and abetting or vicarious liability. In response, the investors argued that Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR were both commodities within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). As to causation, the investors presented economic analyses indicating that Yen LIBOR affected Euroyen TIBOR. As to intent, the investors claimed that they established scienter based on strong circumstantial evidence of financial motivations. And as to aiding and abetting, the investors presented evidence that the banks were in constant communication with each other and that each stood to benefit from the price manipulation.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Daniels, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership