Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation Settlement
This settlement is closed to new claims — the deadline was June 16, 2025. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →
What happened
Defendants engaged in antitrust violations related to interest rate swaps. The defendants agreed to settle claims without admitting wrongdoing. This settlement includes multiple settlements, including one with Credit Suisse and a new settlement with other defendants.
Do you qualify?
Anyone who, directly or through an agent, entered into one or more U.S. IRS Transactions with any Defendant from January 1, 2008 through January 21, 2022 (for the Credit Suisse Settlement) or through June 10, 2024 (for the New Settlement).
How to file
Submit a completed Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator either online or by mail postmarked no later than June 16, 2025. The page indicates claim forms can be submitted online, though the direct link is not provided on this page.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More finance settlements
View all →Robinhood Order Flow Settlement
Robinhood allegedly routed customer market orders for equities in a manner that resulted in execution prices worse than the National Best Bid/Offer. Customers' buy orders were executed at prices higher than the best available offer, and sell orders were executed at prices lower than the best available bid. Robinhood denies all allegations of liability or wrongdoing.
Up to $17.60
80/20 ERISA Settlement
The 80/20 Employee Stock Ownership Plan was allegedly administered and terminated by the Defendants in violation of ERISA (the federal law regulating private retirement plans). The lawsuit also involved claims that certain other defendants knowingly participated in these ERISA violations. Defendants deny all claims and admit no fault or liability.
Surplus Proceeds Settlement
When 27 Michigan counties foreclosed on properties for tax nonpayment, they sold the properties at auction and kept the difference between the taxes owed and the sales proceeds. The lawsuit alleged that the counties violated property owners' rights by retaining these "surplus proceeds" without distributing them to the former owners.
Class members can generally recover 125 percent of their properties' surplus proceeds, minus any attorneys' fees and costs. This number is subject to certain potential adjustments.
Clackamas County Tax Foreclosure Settlement
Clackamas County allegedly failed to provide owners with proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales that exceeded unpaid taxes and fees, or retained foreclosed properties worth more than the tax debt without compensation. The county denies wrongdoing and has settled to avoid costly litigation and address liability from the Supreme Court's Tyler v. Hennepin County decision.
Settlement Payments of "surplus proceeds"