Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Saturday, July 14, 2012

How I Would Have Handled the Libor Scandal if I Were Barclays

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

A number of people have asked me for my views on the Libor scandal. If I were Barclays I would have taken the following strategy- the day the news came out of the Non-prosecution agreement, I would have said the following:

Barclays has entered into a NPA. The US DOJ entered into a NPA with us because of our “extraordinary cooperation.”

  1. Yes, we did some things that make us and the public feel uncomfortable. However, our compliance mechanisms are such that when we found out about this activity, we did the right thing - we reported our activities to the authorities and cooperated fully.
  2. A cartel by definition is a crime of more than one party. It requires collusive behavior. Consequently, we cannot talk about ongoing investigations into other companies but given that cartels require mutiple parties, we remind the public of this important fact.

This might have saved Diamond his job and the bank some reputational loss.

Note: I am not involved in the case although my co-author Rosa Abrantes-Metz (Global Economics Group and NYU Stern School of Business) wrote the famous paper that led to the investigations.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2012/07/how-i-would-have-handled-the-libor-scandal-if-i-were-barclays.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0177435b9672970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How I Would Have Handled the Libor Scandal if I Were Barclays:

Comments

but given that cartels require mutiple parties, we remind the public of this important fact.

Posted by: blog commenting | Jul 16, 2012 1:26:06 AM

A cartel by definition is a crime of more than one party.

Posted by: male abs | Jul 21, 2012 4:05:26 AM

Post a comment