The language is uncompromising and the analysis rough for the reputation of the Australian Financial Markets Association in a claim by a trio of US investment interests centred on alleged rigging of the bank bill swap rate.The foremost perpetrators and conspirators fostered their enterprise via the privileged and secretive councils of AFMA, if the narrative of the statement of claim bears any merit.If the presentation of events and intent shown by Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Frontpoint Financial Services and derivatives trader Richard Dennis is fair, a centrepiece of the Australian financial industry is on a reform path.The theme of the AFMA allegations is the Australian banks brazenly coordinated their BBSW rigging regime at industry association committee meetings.The claim collates details."The BBSW Committee is comprised of two representatives from each of the following AFMA committees: (1) NTI Committee; (2) Interest Rate Options Committee; and (3) Swaps Committee. "In addition, there is also one broker representative, two investment manager representatives, and one borrower representative on the committee. "Although the exact membership of the BBSW Committee is secret, ASIC revealed that it included several of defendants' traders directly involved in manipulating the BBSW during the class period."The claims lists three from ANZ, three from Westpac, and two from NAB.The banks "used their control over the AFMA rule making process to ensure that BBSW remained susceptible to manipulation," the plaintiffs contend."This manipulative conduct, together with UBS', RBS', and BNP Paribas' admitted false reporting of BBSW, fixed BBSW-based derivatives prices at artificial levels that financially benefited defendants at the expense of plaintiffs and the class."Reacting to the allegations, AFMA CEO David Lynch wrote to Banking Day: "AFMA has always been consistent and resolute in its endeavour to maintain an effective benchmark rate that is robust and has integrity.  "This approach is evident by the wide range of supporting actions AFMA took to enhance the benchmark as the underlying market evolved over the years.  These are a matter of public record.  "AFMA is not a party to the action and cannot comment on the particulars of matters relating to any court action."