All Persons, corporations and other legal entities that transacted in Eurodollar futures and/or options on Eurodollar futures on exchanges, including without limitation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants, their employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and alleged coconspirators; (ii) the Releasees (as defined in the Settlement Agreement); and (iii) any Class Member who files a timely and valid request for exclusion. Notwithstanding these exclusions, and solely for the purposes of the Settlement and the Settlement Class, Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the Settlement Class solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants. However, to the extent that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to be an affiliate or subsidiary thereof (i) managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the Class Period, that beneficial interest in the Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.

The Settlement covers Eurodollar futures and options on Eurodollar futures transacted on exchanges, such as the CME, during the period between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive.

The London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) is the reference point for determining interest rates for financial instruments worldwide. LIBOR rates are determined for several currencies, including the U.S. Dollar, for multiple borrowing periods ranging from overnight to one year. They are published each business day. U.S. Dollar LIBOR is the trimmed average of the rates at which an individual bank on the U.S. Dollar LIBOR panel could borrow funds, were it to do so by asking for and then accepting offers in the London inter-bank market in reasonable market size, just prior to 11:00 am London time. The Settlement only involves U.S. Dollar LIBOR.

Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, between January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the manipulation of Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives.

The Exchange-Based Plaintiffs (also referred to as “Plaintiffs”), who transacted in Eurodollar futures contracts and options on Eurodollar futures, sued various banks (and certain of their affiliates) (“Defendants”), claiming that the banks individually and collectively manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR to benefit their trading positions and engaged in the suppression of LIBOR. Plaintiffs alleged that the banks’ alleged conduct manipulated Eurodollar Futures prices to artificial levels between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive. As a result, Exchange-Based Plaintiffs claim that they traded Eurodollar futures contracts at artificial price levels, paying more and/or receiving less than they would have absent Defendants’ manipulation of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate. The alleged manipulation of Defendants’ LIBOR submissions caused the Settlement Class to pay higher supracompetitive prices or receive lower infracompetitive prices for Eurodollar futures contracts and options on Eurodollar futures during the Settlement Class Period. Exchange-Based Plaintiffs brought claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (“CEA”), against the Defendants seeking money damages. The Court has written at least seven published opinions addressing various legal matters raised by the parties in this lawsuit. Since the filing of the first civil LIBOR action on April 15, 2011, the Court has limited Plaintiffs’ claims in various ways, including by dismissing portions of Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims under the efficient enforcer standard, dismissing most foreign Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissing portions of Plaintiffs’ CEA claims as untimely, based on the Court’s findings that Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of the claims and that the two-year statute of limitations had expired on Plaintiffs’ CEA claims in so called “Periods 1 and 2” (August 2007 to April 14, 2009). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In its ruling, In re LIBOR-based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig. (“LIBOR VII”), 299 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), the Court denied class certification, rejected various econometric models and opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts as to liability and damages, and ruled that Plaintiffs had not fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal the denial of class certification under Federal Rule 23(f) was denied. Given the procedural history of this lawsuit, the Settlement described herein may offer the best, and perhaps last, chance for Settlement Class Members to obtain additional monetary recoveries.

The Court previously granted Final Approval for seven settlements in this Action, 1 which created an aggregate Settlement Fund of $187,000,000. On October 24, 2023, the Court authorized distribution of the aggregate Settlement Fund (ECF No. 3840) and the distribution process is ongoing. The additional and final Settlement of $3.45 million has been reached between Exchange-Based Plaintiffs and the Remaining Defendants Credit Suisse, Lloyds, NatWest, Portigon, RBC, Rabobank, Norinchukin, MUFG, and UBS, and that is why you are receiving this Notice. The Remaining Defendants deny all claims asserted against them and maintain they did nothing wrong.