Four suits, including three potential class-action suits and a suit by Schwab Bank, were filed against Bank of America and several other banks for alleged price fixing. The defendants, sixteen of the world’s largest banks (the Banks), were on a panel of banks that determined the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). The plaintiffs had all purchased financial instruments that carried a rate of return indexed to LIBOR. The plaintiffs contended that the Banks had colluded to lower LIBOR, causing plaintiffs to bear the cost of reduced returns on the financial instruments they had purchased.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s litigation on the ground that there was no antitrust injury to the complainants, therefore, they had no antitrust standing. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision and the appellate court reversed the decision. To prevent dismissal, the plaintiffs had to show that their claim was plausible. The appellate court deemed that even if the Banks could not directly control the market, their influence over the LIBOR rates could plausibly interfere with the freeness of the free market. As an additional point, the appellate court also ruled that it was plausible for the Banks to have engaged in a conspiracy to artificially lower LIBOR because there was a common motive to conspire in the form of increased profits. 

Based on the reasoning of the appellate court, would you say plausibility is a high or low threshold to pass? What kind of evidence do you think would be sufficient to show that the Banks were engaging in a conspiracy? What kind of evidence would be enough to show that depressing LIBOR could be considered price fixing?