US judge's financial conflict leads to revived lawsuit against big banks
Adds details about lawsuit, Bank of America comment, paragraphs 1, 5, 13
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, July 2 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court threw out the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit accusing 10 large banks of overcharging investors by billions of dollars of corporate bonds, saying the trial judge should have been recused because his wife owned stock in one of the banks.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said that while U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman "almost certainly unknowingly" had a conflict of interest, his partiality could reasonably be questioned because his wife's ownership of Bank of America BAC.N stock created an "appearance of impropriety."
A spokesman for the Manhattan federal court, where Liman works, declined to comment.
Tuesday's unsigned decision came nearly three years after a Wall Street Journal investigation found that more than 130 federal judges had since 2010 violated federal law and judicial ethics by overseeing cases involving companies in which they or family members owned stock.
Bond investors accused Bank of America, Barclays BARC.L, Citigroup C.N, Credit Suisse UBSG.S, Deutsche Bank DBKGn.DE, Goldman Sachs GS.N, JPMorgan Chase JPM.N, Morgan Stanley MS.N, NatWest NWG.L and Wells Fargo WFC.N of overcharging them since 2006 on "odd-lot" trades, which are worth less than $1 million and comprise most corporate bond trades.
Liman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, was assigned the lawsuit in April 2020 and dismissed it with prejudice in October 2021, three months after his wife sold $15,000 of Bank of America stock.
In February 2022, a court clerk alerted parties to the conflict, writing of the judge that the "ownership of stock neither affected nor impacted his decisions."
It wasn't clear when Liman learned of the conflict, and the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni, while investors appealed the dismissal.
The banks said Liman's failure to uncover his conflict didn't require recusal or reviving the case.
But the appeals court found a "legitimate risk" that similar violations could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted in his 2021 annual report on the judiciary a need for judges to be vigilant about financial conflicts.
George Zelcs, a lawyer for the investors, said: "We look forward to litigating the case on the merits before Judge Caproni."
A spokesman for Bank of America declined to comment.
The case is Litovich v Bank of America Corp et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-2905.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
