• Login
  • Register
  • PRO
    • PRO Compliance plan
    • PRO Compliance
    • PRO subscription plans
    • Curated articles
    • In-depth
    • Market intelligence
    • Practice guides
    • PRO Reports New
    • Lexology GTDT
    • Ask Lexy
  • PRO
  • Latest
  • GTDT
  • Research
  • Learn
  • Experts
  • Store
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Influencers
  • About
  • Explore
  • Legal Research
  • Primary SourcesBeta
  • PRO Compliance

Introducing PRO Compliance
The essential resource for in-house professionals

  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides
Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics New
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons Beta
  • Ideation

CLIENT INTELLIGENCE

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates New
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre New

COMPETITOR INTELLIGENCE

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates New

Lexology PRO

Power up your legal research with modern workflow tools, AI conceptual search and premium content sets that leverage Lexology's archive of 900,000+ articles contributed by the world's leading law firms. 

PRO Compliance plan
PRO subscription plans

Premium content

  • Curated articles
  • In-depth
  • Market intelligence
  • Practice guides
  • PRO Reports New

Analysis tools

  • Lexology GTDT
  • Ask Lexy
Explore all PRO content PRO Compliance
  • Find experts
  • About
  • Firms
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Managing Financial Product Data In Antitrust Cases

Edgeworth Economics

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

USA December 27 2019

In recent years, there have been several investigations by government agencies and follow-on civil litigations involving alleged price fixing and bid rigging of financial benchmarks. These include:

• foreign currency; • the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR); • US Dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association Fix (ISDAfix); • Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR); • Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Swap Offer Rate (SOR); • the Australian Bank Bill Sweep Rate (BBSW); and • Central and Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and African currencies (CEEMEA).

Like matters involving manufactured (i.e., physical or tangible) products, these cases include allegations of anticompetitive conduct, but the nature of the relevant financial products and the data required for economic analysis are different than those for tangible products. For example, an antitrust case may involve a manufactured product that was sold to a customer at a specific point in time at an allegedly supra-competitive price. However, when a financial instrument is the product at issue, the information required to assess antitrust issues for a two-sided transaction often relies on institutional details underlying the parties’ trades and positions over a period.

Best practices we described include: • identifying the data systems that potentially contain data requested in the discovery phase of the case; • considering the best way to extract the relevant data, including assessing whether a targeted approach may be more efficient and effective than a full data dump; • validating the extracted data to identify potential anomalies; and • assessing how to prepare the data for analysis, including identifying key elements in the data, determining the extent to which disparate datasets should be combined, and evaluating whether there is additional useful information that can be linked together. As we noted, following these best practices provides practitioners with reliable methods to retrieve data that can be reliably used to address relevant economic questions posed by counsel and experts. These best practices remain relevant for cases involving financial products. However, there are additional considerations for data used to support economic analyses of transactions involving financial products for class certification, liability, and damages analyses. For example, determination of the relevant parties, products, and transactions in electronic databases often requires a careful examination into how each entity identifies a transaction in the data, amendments to transaction(s) during the course of the contract, and the amount and timing of any payments made by the parties. While some transactions are processed and cleared in a straightforward manner, others can involve more complexity because of varied contractual terms and subsequent amendments made by the counterparties after the initial trade. The overlay of big data is another consideration that has implications on the collection, management, and analysis of financial transactions in litigation. In certain cases, banks and other parties are asked to produce data spanning several years, across multiple systems, and comprising billions of records. As a result, data may not be unified across a bank or across trading platforms. Mergers and acquisitions, system upgrades, procedural changes at trading desks, and new product offerings can create challenges in identifying and extracting relevant data for financial instruments. In this article, we address these additional considerations and discuss best practices for lawyers and experts for the efficient and effective collection and preparation of transactional data in antitrust cases involving financial instruments. Throughout the paper, we apply the concepts we discuss to the experience of hypothetical financial institutions, “Money Bank” and “Investment Bank,” which trade financial products. www.edgewortheconomics.com | 3 Managing Financial Product Data In Antitrust Cases I. Hypothetical Transaction Involving a Financial Instrument Consider, for example, a hypothetical “plain vanilla” interest rate swap transaction between Investment Bank, an interest rate swap dealer, and Money Bank, a bank seeking to hedge its interest rate risk. For this trade, the two parties agree to exchange interest payments, with one party’s payments based on a fixed interest rate while the other party’s payments based on a floating interest rate (LIBOR). As seen in Exhibit 1, the example shows the trades specify that: • Money Bank receives fixed rate payments of 5% every six months and pays to Investment Bank floating payments of 3-month Libor (e.g., 2.5955%) every three months. • Investment Bank pays fixed rate payments of 5% every six months and receives from Money Bank floating payments of 3-month Libor every three months. While this exhibit summarizes the high-level terms of the transaction, more information is required to calculate the payments each party receives. Specifically, there is detailed documentation on the date and time of the transaction, the length of the contract (i.e., its tenor), the settlement date, and many other details that are captured by the parties. These terms are typically summarized in a term sheet. An abridged version of the term sheet for the transaction between Money Bank and Investment Bank is in Exhibit 2, below. Exhibit 2 Exhibit 1 4 | www.edgewortheconomics.com Managing Financial Product Data In Antitrust Cases The term sheet captures important information from the transaction between Money Bank and Investment Bank when they agreed to the trade. This term sheet also conveys explicit information about this specific trade but does not provide complete information about the life cycle of the transaction. In fact, there may be several trades tied to one transaction; an initial trade under one set of terms and subsequent trades and amendments that alter those terms. II. Assessing Data: Manufactured Products Versus Financial Products For cases involving financial data, it can be complicated to assess antitrust impact and damages in the context of financial instruments because of the nature of pricing and the life cycle of the transaction. This is borne out when assessing the differences in data sources used to conduct an economic analysis of manufactured products and financial products, as shown in Exhibit 3, below. Recognizing the differences and similarities between transactional data for manufactured products and financial instruments provides context for understanding the distinct nature of the data to be collected.

Edgeworth Economics - Dr. George Korenko and Matthew Milner
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Banking
  • Competition & Antitrust
  • Derivatives
  • Edgeworth Economics

Tagged with

  • Libor
  • ISDA
  • Euribor

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Lamictal and the Myth of “Generic” “Pay-for-Delay” Cases *
  2. Economic Issues in Calculating Damages in COVID-19 Business Interruption Insurance Lawsuits *
  3. Companies Considering Layoffs Face Tradeoff Between Diversity and Experience *
  4. Deceptive for Whom? The Implications of Behavioral Economics Driven Consumer Financial Services Policy *
  5. The Rise of COVID-19 Price Gouging Class Actions and the Economics of Class Certification *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology
loading...

Related research hubs

  • Libor
  • ISDA
  • USA
  • Banking
  • Competition & Antitrust
How Yee Loh
In-house Counsel
Kuok Group
What our clients say

"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able to view the same law/cases from different perspectives; on the whole I would rate Lexology as a good service."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Law Business Research

© Copyright 2006 - 2021 Law Business Research