NEW YORK, Sept 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday

dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing 10 large banks of

conspiring to rig corporate bond prices at the expense of

ordinary investors, after the original judge recused himself

because his wife owned stock in one of the banks.

Investors accused Bank of America ( BAC ), Barclays ( BCS )

, Citigroup ( C/PN ), Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank

, Goldman Sachs ( GS ), JPMorgan Chase ( JPM ), Morgan

Stanley ( MS ), NatWest ( NWG ) and Wells Fargo ( WFC ) of

overcharging them by billions of dollars since 2006 on "odd-lot"

trades.

Such trades involve fewer than 1,000 bonds or are worth less

than $1 million, and comprise most corporate bond trades.

Investors said the banks illegally charged spreads 25% to 300%

higher than on larger "round-lot" trades, inflating profits.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni in Manhattan said the

investors failed to prove the banks conspired to operate the

Bond Desk, Trading Edge and Trade Web platforms as a

"catch-and-kill" operation to thwart fair prices, while

boycotting rival platforms that promoted fair prices.

Though the banks controlled an estimated 65% of U.S.

underwriting and 90% of U.S. trading volume in corporate bonds,

"it does not follow that defendants have the power to control

pricing of the bonds in the secondary market," Caproni said.

The judge also found no overt acts by the banks to advance

the alleged conspiracy in the four years before the lawsuit was

filed in April 2020, dooming the Sherman Act case.

Lawyers for the investors did not immediately respond to

requests for comment. Caproni's dismissal is with prejudice,

meaning the case cannot be brought again.

The case was originally dismissed by U.S. District Judge

Lewis Liman in October 2021.

Four months later, Liman's clerk disclosed that the judge's

wife owned Bank of America ( BAC ) stock while the case was pending, but

it didn't affect the judge's decision making.

In July 2024, the federal appeals court in Manhattan revived

the case, saying Liman's conflict was "almost certainly"

unknowing but could call his impartiality into question.

Liman was not accused of wrongdoing.

The case is Litovich v Bank of America Corp ( BAC ) et al, U.S.

District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 20-03154.