美國(guó)聯(lián)邦存款保險(xiǎn)公司在倫敦起訴數(shù)家歐洲銀行

The US has taken the unusual step of suing European banks in a London court over the Libor-rigging scandal after parts of a similar New York lawsuit failed.

在一宗類(lèi)似訴訟在紐約受挫之后，美國(guó)官方采取不同尋常的動(dòng)作，在倫敦一家法院就倫敦銀行間同業(yè)拆借利率(Libor)操縱丑聞起訴歐洲的幾家銀行。

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is in charge of winding down failing banks, is suing Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Rabobank and UBS, as well as the British Bankers’ Association, the trade group that oversaw the Libor-setting process, for fraudulent misrepresentation. It claims the banks submitted artificially low estimates to the Libor rate-setting process between 2007 and 2009 — known as “lowballing” — making them seem more creditworthy than they really were.

負(fù)責(zé)清盤(pán)倒閉銀行的美國(guó)聯(lián)邦存款保險(xiǎn)公司(FDIC)，起訴巴克萊(Barclays)、德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)、勞埃德銀行集團(tuán)(Lloyds Banking Group)、蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)、瑞銀(UBS)以及負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)管Libor制定流程的英國(guó)銀行家協(xié)會(huì)(BBA)從事“欺詐性虛假陳述”。FDIC聲稱(chēng)，在2007年至2009年間，這些銀行在Libor制定過(guò)程中提交人為壓低的報(bào)價(jià)——被成為“低報(bào)”——使它們看起來(lái)比實(shí)際上更具資信可靠度。

The FDIC said in court documents filed at the High Court last month that it was suing on behalf of 39 failed US banks that relied on dollar-denominated Libor when they entered into derivative transactions or calculated interest, and that they “suffered loss as a result,” according to the documents seen by the Financial Times.

根據(jù)英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》看到的文件，F(xiàn)DIC在上月提交倫敦高等法院的法庭文件中表示，其代表美國(guó)39家倒閉銀行提起訴訟，這些銀行當(dāng)初在進(jìn)入衍生品交易或計(jì)算利率時(shí)依賴(lài)美元Libor，它們“因此蒙受了虧損”。

If lowballing had not occurred, the rate would have been set “at an honest, and higher, rate . . . and the closed banks would accordingly have realised higher prices and thus made greater returns” on a variety of Libor-linked loans and mortgages, as well as swaps, options and other agreements that incorporated Libor, the FDIC claims.

FDIC聲稱(chēng)，如果沒(méi)有低報(bào)，那么Libor將“被誠(chéng)實(shí)地設(shè)定在更高水平……那些倒閉的銀行將相應(yīng)獲得更高價(jià)格”，并在大量的Libor掛鉤貸款和抵押貸款，以及互換、期權(quán)和其他包含Libor的合約上“獲得更大回報(bào)”。

But it said it was not yet able to put a figure on the losses as it could not yet quantify the scale of the lowballing.

但FDIC表示，其還不能給出虧損數(shù)字，因?yàn)榈蛨?bào)的程度尚無(wú)法量化。

The London lawsuit comes after parts of a similar claim by the FDIC was thrown out of federal court in New York last year after a judge deemed the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.

在倫敦提起訴訟之前，F(xiàn)DIC去年在紐約聯(lián)邦法院提起的類(lèi)似訴訟被拒絕受理，因?yàn)橐幻ü俨枚?，法院?duì)該案沒(méi)有司法管轄權(quán)。

The lawsuit comes as the death knell has been sounded for what the BBA previously dubbed as the “world’s most important number”. The UK financial regulator said earlier this summer that Libor would be phased out and has called for alternatives to be in place by 2021.

在本案被提起之際，此前英國(guó)銀行家協(xié)會(huì)所稱(chēng)的“世界最重要數(shù)字”的喪鐘已敲響。英國(guó)金融監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)今年夏初表示，Libor將被逐漸廢除，并呼吁讓替代安排最遲在2021年到位。

Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, underpinned $360tn of debt worldwide — from complex derivatives to student loans. It was calculated daily by asking a panel of banks for their hypothetical borrowing costs and working out the average.

Libor支撐著全球360萬(wàn)億美元的債務(wù)——從復(fù)雜的衍生品到學(xué)生貸款。每天，一組銀行會(huì)給出它們對(duì)自己借款成本的推測(cè)值，由此計(jì)算出的平均數(shù)就得出Libor。

But the benchmark became better known for the manipulation scandal that erupted following the financial crisis.

但是，金融危機(jī)后爆出的操縱丑聞，已成了這一基準(zhǔn)利率更出名的方面。

Some of the world’s biggest banks — including those named in the FDIC’s lawsuit — paid as much as $9bn in fines to US and UK authorities over the scandal. Several former traders have gone to jail too, although some convictions have been since quashed and appeals are pending.

世界上一些大銀行——包括FDIC在訴訟中所列的那些銀行——因?yàn)椴倏v丑聞已向美英當(dāng)局支付了多達(dá)90億美元的罰款。多名前交易員也已鋃鐺入獄，盡管有些判決后來(lái)已被擱置，等待上訴。

So-called lowballing by Barclays is also the subject of a criminal investigation by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office.

巴克萊的所謂低報(bào)，也是英國(guó)嚴(yán)重欺詐辦公室(Serious Fraud Office)的刑事調(diào)查對(duì)象。

The FDIC often looks to recover losses through the courts. The banks closed by the FDIC and named in the lawsuit range from small community lenders to some of the largest casualties of the financial crisis such as IndyMac and Washington Mutual.

FDIC經(jīng)常尋求通過(guò)法庭追回?fù)p失。被FDIC關(guān)閉并在這起訴訟中列出的銀行，既有小型社區(qū)銀行，也有金融危機(jī)中的一些最大犧牲品，比如印地麥克銀行(IndyMac)和華盛頓互惠銀行(Washington Mutual)。

While there is no value stated for the English suit, the FDIC’s New York claim was seeking damages as high as $1bn.

盡管在英格蘭提起的訴訟未提及金額，但FDIC在紐約法院要求獲得的損害賠償金高達(dá)10億美元。

The Times first reported detailed allegations contained in the London lawsuit, initially filed in March.

《泰晤士報(bào)》(The Times)最早報(bào)道了倫敦訴訟案的詳細(xì)指控內(nèi)容。該案最初是在3月提起的。

Lloyds, which now owns Bank of Scotland, said in a statement: “We do not believe the claim has any merit and is being contested vigorously.”

目前為蘇格蘭銀行(Bank of Scotland)母公司的勞埃德銀行集團(tuán)在一份聲明中表示：“我行不認(rèn)為本案有任何依據(jù)，正在進(jìn)行有力抗辯。”

The other banks, the BBA and the FDIC declined to comment.

其他銀行、英國(guó)銀行家協(xié)會(huì)和FDIC都拒絕置評(píng)。