By Dena Aubin
NEW YORK, March 28 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Manhattanhas ruled that a group of international banks must facecomplaints that they violated the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act bymanipulating yen-denominated interest rate benchmarks between2006 and 2010.
In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge George Danielsalso granted the banks' motion to dismiss related claims againstthem for antitrust violations and unjust enrichment.
The banks, which included Mizuho Bank Ltd, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Barclays Bank AG, UBS AG and Citigroup Inc, were sued in 2012 forallegedly manipulating rates that reflect interest on short-termloans denominated in Japanese yen.
The interest rate benchmarks, used for pricing a wide arrayof financial products, are set each day based on rates submittedby banks as the prevailing market rates or the rates at whichthey could borrow funds.
Lawyers for the banks could not immediately be reached forcomment.
The class action was filed on behalf of Jeffrey Laydon, aSanford, Florida man who said he suffered losses on futurescontracts that were manipulated by the banks.
According to the lawsuit, the banks deliberately andsystematically submitted false rates to the Japanese BankersAssociation and British Bankers Association, which set thebenchmark rates.
The rates involved were the Euroyen Tokyo Interbank OfferedRate (TIBOR), the London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen(Yen-LIBOR), and Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts.
More than a dozen banks and brokerage firms have beeninvestigated worldwide over alleged manipulation of Libor andrelated benchmarks.
A Japanese investment banking unit of UBS in September wasordered to pay a $100 million criminal fine after pleadingguilty to wire fraud for scheming to manipulate yen LIBOR tobenefit a senior trader's positions.
Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc havealso reached settlements with authorities.
In his ruling, Daniels rejected the banks' argument thatLaydon did not have standing to sue under the Commodity ExchangeAct. That act gives plaintiffs standing to sue for manipulationof a futures contract or the price of the commodity underlyingthe contract, Daniels said.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has repeatedlyfound that the Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR are each a"commodity" within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act,Daniels said.
However, Daniels agreed with the banks' argument that Laydondid not have standing to sue for antitrust violations. AlthoughLaydon alleged that he suffered net losses because of the banks'rate rigging, the lawsuit "does not allege facts thatcompetition was harmed in any way," Daniels said.
Daniels also said the unjust enrichment claims fail becauseLaydon failed to show any relationship between himself and thebanks or how the banks benefited at Laydon's expense.
The case is: Jeffrey Laydon et al v Mizuho Bank Ltd et al,U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No12-cv-3419 (Reporting By Dena Aubin; editing by Andrew Hay)