Damages sought for Libor fixing Libor litigation: London's business district is preparing for law suits against banks Investors including PGGM and AP7 - two of Europe's biggest pension funds - are examining how to pursue legal claims against banks accused of having manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate. Investors are increasingly optimistic about the likelihood of successful legal action after seeing regulators in the US and Europe hand out record fines for Libor manipulation to banks, including Barclays, UBS and RBS in the past 12 months. IN Regulation & Governance Tom Hibbert, a partner at law firm RPC, said he had received "lots of calls from big hedge funds and pension funds [that] think they have lost a lot of money" as a result of Libor manipulation. If investors are successful in forcing banks to unwind large positions that were negatively affected, the consensus is that the banks would be "severely damaged." Susannah Sheppard, a partner at law firm Sheppard Smith, said that she has been contacted by several investors eager to assess their legal options. "There is a lot of interest in figuring this out," she said. PGGM, the investment manager of Dutch pension fund PFZW, admitted to FTfm that it is "studying the [Libor] case" to decide whether to pursue legal action. "Whether we were hurt by this complex Libor case financially is difficult to assess and still not clear, and so we have not reached the point to be able to decide on possible legal action," a spokesperson for PGGM said. Swedish pension fund AP7 also confirmed that its lawyers are investigating whether Libor manipulation negatively affected its assets and if it should launch legal proceedings against the banks involved. To date the Financial Conduct Authority, the UK's financial watchdog, and US and Swiss authorities have fined UBS, Barclays and RBS more than $2.6bn collectively for Libor manipulation. Several other European banks, including HSBC, Société Générale and Deutsche Bank, are still under investigation. For many investors the decision to launch legal proceedings hinges on how the case of UK business Guardian Care Homes versus Barclays develops, according to Mr Hibbert. A trial to determine whether Barclays mis-sold the care home provider interest rate swaps pegged to Libor in 2007 and 2008 was expected to begin in October, but has been delayed until early 2014. The delay is to allow Barclays to appeal against the inclusion of an allegation of "false and fraudulent representation" relating to Libor manipulation, which was tacked on to GCH's initial mis-selling claim after the FCA fined the UK bank. The trial is viewed as an important test case for other potential Libor claimants. However, Mr Hibbert said big fund managers holding large positions stand a better chance at claiming that small changes to the Libor rate had a "significant financial impact" on their businesses than smaller claimants such as GCH. Sophisticated [investors] are biding their time to see whether there are more regulatory findings and to see whether these findings establish a clearer link between Libor manipulation and the losses suffered. Ms Sheppard added: "The facts will be different for different investors and the instruments they used and the way in which they were constructed is likely to have an impact [on their claim]." Investors also want to see the outcome of the European Commission's antitrust investigation into banks involved in setting the Libor benchmarks before taking legal action. The Commission is expected to publish some findings by the end of this year, which could result in fines of up to 30 per cent of total revenues for banks accused of manipulating yen, euro and Swiss franc rates. An independent derivatives adviser and Libor specialist, who did not want to be named, said the "big pension funds in the UK and Europe with large long-term liabilities will definitely look at [legal action over Libor]" if the European Commission finds the banks under investigation guilty of collusion.