By Pam Martens: August 21, 2012
As we look back on the charred remains of Wall Street, it is becoming clear that the full story of its self implosion is based on more than just corruption and over-leveraging. A closer look shows that much of what Wall Street has peddled was based on artificial demand created by its own artifices.
The dot.com bubble could not have happened without the fake research reports Wall Street was pumping out daily, combined with forcing clients to buy at increasing prices (laddering) to get in on hot deals. The demand for auction rate securities collapsed once it became clear that Wall Street had been propping up that market. There was no demand for side-stepping the county registry of deeds with Wall Street’s MERS creation. That artifice was simply to streamline the peddling of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to investors who thought they were buying a AAA financial product. There would have been much less demand for that product had it been legitimately rated.
This brings us to what we are just now learning about the interest rate swaps that Wall Street sold to corporations, pension funds and municipalities across the U.S. and around the globe. As the lawsuits pile up, the swaps look more like a Wall Street invention to create a permanent income stream for their balance sheet and less like a legitimate demand from their customers.
There are only so many times you can burn your customer before you are out of business. Why can’t Wall Street understand this basic business principal? Below are the latest Libor related lawsuits piling up in just one U.S. District Court — the Southern District of New York. Read the lead case, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al
In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald Presiding
|
Related Cases |
Start Date |
|
|
FTC Capital GMBH et al v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
08/12/2011 |
|
|
Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/12/2011 |
|
|
City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/12/2011 |
|
|
Ravan Investments, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/12/2011 |
|
|
Laydon v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
08/18/2011 |
|
|
McCormick et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/18/2011 |
|
|
Hershey v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
08/18/2011 |
|
|
NATHANIAL HAYNES v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION et al |
08/29/2011 |
|
|
AVP Properties, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/25/2011 |
|
|
Atlantic Trading USA, LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. et al |
09/01/2011 |
|
|
303030 Trading, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
09/09/2011 |
|
|
Calle Gracey v. Bank of America Corp. et al |
08/31/2011 |
|
|
Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
09/16/2011 |
|
|
Charles Schwab Bank, N.A. et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
09/16/2011 |
|
|
Schwab Money Market Fund et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
09/16/2011 |
|
|
Metzler Investment GmbH v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
11/08/2011 |
|
|
City of New Britain Firefighters’ and Police Benefit Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
11/08/2011 |
|
|
Gelboim v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
03/20/2012 |
|
|
Community Bank & Trust v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
07/12/2012 |
|
|
The Berkshire Bank v. Bank of America Corporation et al |
08/10/2012 |
|
|
33-35 Green Pond Road Associates, LLC v. Bank Of America Corporation et al |
08/10/2012 |
|
|
Lieberman et al v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al |
08/14/2012 |
