Interest Rate Swaps

Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation alleges that major dealer banks coordinated to block the development of exchange-style trading platforms for interest rate swaps, preserving a more opaque, dealer-controlled over-the-counter market structure that allegedly kept transaction costs higher for buy-side market participants — asset managers, pension funds, and other institutional swap counterparties. Centralized in the Southern District of New York in 2016, the docket has narrowed to just 3 pending actions after roughly a decade of litigation.

For a funder, this is a highly specialized institutional-finance antitrust theory, and at this late stage the claim population is both small and concentrated among sophisticated financial institutions rather than a broad commercial purchaser class. That combination argues for bespoke, single-matter underwriting rather than any portfolio structure — there simply isn't the volume of similarly situated claimants to support a pooled facility, and each remaining claimant's swap-trading history and damages theory will need individualized diligence.

A financial institution or its counsel holding one of these remaining claims is a candidate for commercial litigation finance under Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance line, with underwriting focused on the specific claimant's trading volume and the current procedural posture of the specific pending action. There is no medical-lien dimension to this institutional commercial claim. A structure and litigation brief covering the docket's boycott theory and current posture is also available.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.