HSBC and plaintiffs in FX benchmark rate fixing case clash over discovery - FinanceFeeds

HSBC and plaintiffs in FX benchmark rate fixing case clash over discovery

Maria Nikolova

HSBC Holdings refuses to provide information about its communications with the DOJ concerning the fine assessed in the 2018 deferred prosecution agreement.

The parties in the FX benchmark rate fixing case targeting some of the world’s biggest banks, such as JPMorgan, Citi, Barclays, UBS and HSBC, have once again clashed over discovery.

A letter, submitted at the New York Southern District Court on August 21, 2020, and seen by FinanceFeeds, reveals that one of the points of disagreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants is the information sought by the plaintiffs from HSBC.

Let’s recall that, in June this year, the Court allowed the plaintiffs (a putative class of consumers and end-user businesses alleging that they paid inflated foreign currency exchange rates caused by an alleged conspiracy among some of the world’s biggest banks to fix prices of FX benchmark rates) to serve interrogatories on HSBC regarding its deal with the Department of Justice from 2018.

In January 2018, UK-based HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and agreed to pay a $63.1 million criminal penalty and $38.4 million in disgorgement and restitution to resolve charges that it engaged in a scheme to defraud two bank clients through a multi-million dollar scheme commonly referred to as “front-running.”

According to HSBC’s admissions, on two separate occasions in 2010 and 2011, traders on its foreign exchange desk misused confidential information provided to them by clients that hired HSBC to execute multi-billion dollar foreign exchange transactions involving the British Pound Sterling. After executing confidentiality agreements with its clients that required the bank to keep the details of their planned transactions confidential, traders on HSBC’s foreign exchange desk transacted in the Pound Sterling for the traders and HSBC’s own benefit in their HSBC “proprietary” accounts.

HSBC traders then caused the large transactions to be executed in a manner designed to drive the price of the Pound Sterling in a direction that benefited HSBC, and harmed their clients. HSBC also made misrepresentations to one of the clients, Cairn Energy, to conceal the self-serving nature of its actions. In total, HSBC admitted to making profits of approximately $38.4 million on the first transaction in March 2010, and approximately $8 million on the Cairn Energy transaction in December 2011.

Now, the plaintiffs in the FX benchmark rate fixing case are displeased with HSBC’s response to their interrogatories regarding the 2018 DPA.

The plaintiffs say that HSBC interposed a general objection to all the interrogatories and did not make any substantive responses whatsoever.

HSBC objected and refused to provide responses on the grounds that the 2018 DPA was signed by HSBC Holdings plc – not a defendant in this case. Defendant construes the “defendants in the case” to be only HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. who are the named defendants in the complaint. HSBC Holdings plc. (the parent company of the two above) was originally named a defendant but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Since the 2018 DPA Agreement was signed by its parent company, HSBC HOLDINGS, PLC – HSBC now says it is insulated from responsibility to file meaningful responses. This position not only stands in direct derogation of this Court’s order, but is openly contrary to the stipulated recitations that Defendant agreed to in its 2018 DPA, the plaintiffs argue.

The defendants disagree with the plaintiffs. According to them, the plaintiffs’ requests for additional discovery from the HSBC defendants should be rejected.

According to the defendant banks, the plaintiffs are not entitled to information from the HSBC Defendants about their ultimate parent company HSBC Holdings plc’s communications with the DOJ concerning the fine assessed in the 2018 DPA because HSBC Holdings plc is not a defendant in this action, and the HSBC Defendants were not party to any of those communications.

“Plaintiffs may wish that the HSBC Defendants had communications with the DOJ regarding the calculation of the fine assessed against foreign parent company HSBC Holdings plc, but they did not”, the defendants say.

“The HSBC Defendants’ interrogatory responses are not somehow insufficient simply because plaintiffs had hoped for a different answer”, the defendant banks conclude.

The case continues at the New York Southern District Court.

Read this next

Inside View

Stable Scandinavia: Nordic currencies going for absolute gold. We get the inside view

Following a Bloomberg report that singled out Nordic currencies as ones to watch this year, FinanceFeeds took a look within.

Industry News

Bureaucratic FX industry stifler Gary Gensler tipped as Joe Biden’s new SEC chair

During his term, the CFTC created 68 new rules, orders and guidance’s and extended its regulatory reach to encompass not only exchange-traded derivatives but also the far larger OTC markets as well. Will he cosy up to ESMA?

Industry News

DriveWealth buys US floor trading firm

30% of the DriveWealth’s orders in Q4 2020 were placed outside of normal trading hours

Industry News

The Daily Telegraph calls time on Spread Betting and CFDs

Questor acknowledges that it has openly tipped the shares of CMC Markets in the past, but also that the shares have risen by 269% since then and that selling after such a run would be “prudent”

Inside View

SE Asia’s derivatives trading explosion should make all FX brokers look long and hard

SE Asia has been a region of importance for many years. FX brokers went in en masse, some got a bloody nose, some sold to Chinese firms. Meanwhile, exchange traded contracts for retail clients are at unprecedented highs and sustainable. Going on-exchange and multi-asset is the future for firms wanting to approach Asia.

Opinion

How can FX relationship managers and directors maintain relationships in a Corona world? – Op Ed

“The marketplace is cram packed with FX firms vying for business and the only difference is how their personnel approach and handle the clients” says Meir Velenski

Opinion

How to protect your corporate FX exposure from British pound volatility

The corporate foreign exchange impact from the UK’s divorce from the EU can be mitigated.

Industry News

Bank of Russia joins Global FX Code

We take a look at the ethos and origins of the Global FX Code, and how Russia’s FX brokers may well align with those of the West as a result of the Russian Central Bank’s position

Industry News

The UK chancellor plans a second “Big Bang” for London’s markets

Currently, the chancellor’s vision seems to be long on promise and short on substance