Traders must communicate to trade. And to collude. The Manipulation Monitor covers the manipulation of the financial markets in violation of the antitrust laws.
It’s been more than a few months since the last post in this series, but that doesn’t mean that things have been quiet over in the Northern District of Illinois. To the contrary, this post is here to give you not, one, not two, but three key updates: the outcome of motion to dismiss 2.0; exactly what’s going on on the appeals front; and just who those Doe defendants might be. Continue reading The VIX Is Fixed?! Judge Shah Remains Unconvinced
In FujiFilm Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 15 CV 8307, decided under In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, 13 MD 2481, United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) by two foreign affiliates of other defendants, based on his finding that the foreign affiliates were alleged to have sufficient contacts with the United States relating to plaintiff’s claim. Continue reading Court Denies Motion to Dismiss on Jurisdictional Grounds in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
In our October 22, 2019, post, we alerted you to a letter to the court by the Plaintiffs in consolidated actions, now known as In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 18-cv-02830 (In re MGB), requesting 45 days to file an amended complaint. Continue reading Plaintiffs in Mexican Government Bond Antitrust Case Settle With Two Defendant Groups; Get Defendants’ Evidence and Cooperation
It’s been a while since we’ve checked in on the In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 16-cv-3711 (ER), and things have not been going smoothly for the plaintiffs. In early October, Judge Ramos granted a motion to dismiss certain foreign defendants from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. See In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 2019 WL 4917608 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 4, 2019). This update of the Manipulation Monitor summarizes the Judge’s opinion. Continue reading SSA Bond Litigation Update
On August 27, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Judge Katherine B. Forrest’s dismissal of three consolidated complaints appearing in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, 13 MD 2481. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 936 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2019), vacating and remanding In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-2481 (KBF), 2016 WL 5818585 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2016) (reported here on September 3, 2019). Continue reading Analysis of the Second Circuit’s Reversal of the Dismissal of Complaints in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
After such a long blogging hiatus, I am back and bursting with a multitude of manipulation-related updates. To keep this post under ten pages, today’s target will be Judge Shah’s decision on the first motion to dismiss in In re: Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index Manipulation Antitrust Litigation. And yes, I said the “first” motion to dismiss – the wheels of justice may turn slowly, but not quite so slowly as this blog has been. Luckily for our readers, this just means that there are fine grinds of not only an order, but an amended complaint and complete motion to dismiss briefing coming your way soon. Continue reading The VIX Is Fixed?! Judge Shah Says This Complaint Must Be Kicked.
In our October 4, 2019, post we noted several news reports on the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to inflate the price of Mexican government bonds. The original allegations of that suit are detailed in our post here.
Specifically, Judge Oetken’s September 30, 2019, decision (found here) found that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege facts that “plausibly suggest that the particular defendants named in this suit were part of . . . [the alleged] conspiracy.” In other words, the court found that the Complaint lacked individualized allegations as to each defendant, and instead treated all defendants as one by relying on impermissible “group pleading.” For example, the Court found that the participation by one of the defendant banks (left unnamed in the complaint) in the leniency program of Mexico’s antitrust regulator, the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (“COFECE”) and public reports that COFECE was investigating the banks as each insufficient to plausibly suggest wrongdoing by the particular defendants named in the complaint. Continue reading Plaintiffs in Mexican Bond Market Fixing Case Seek Time To Amend, Citing New Evidence
Reuters, Bloomberg, and Law360 are reporting that S.D.N.Y. Judge Paul Oetken has dismissed an anti-trust lawsuit alleging that 10 major banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, and Deutsche Bank, colluded to inflate the price of Mexican government bonds. The court found that the complaint lacked particularized allegations with regard to any of the defendants and instead relied on impermissible “group pleading.” The plaintiffs have 21 days to request leave to file an amended complaint. Continue reading Court Dismisses Mexican Bond Price Fixing Suit
The New York Times is reporting (via Reuters) that Judge Jed Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that an anti-trust action alleging price-fixing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds can proceed against Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. Judge Rakoff’s decision was based upon chat-room evidence of coordination he described as “direct” and “smoking gun.” Eleven other banks that were not implicated in the chats were dismissed, including TD Bank, Barclays, and Citigroup, but the plaintiffs have been given an opportunity to plead additional facts to bring them back into the action. Continue reading Fannie Mae Bond-Fixing Suit To Proceed Against Goldman Sachs And Others
Law360 (subscription required) and nasdaq.com are reporting that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Eastman Kodak, Fujifilm and other plaintiffs by reversing a lower court’s dismissal of antitrust claims they brought against Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other entities. The plaintiffs are manufacturers who allege that the price they paid for aluminium was inflated through manipulation of warehousing services and futures contracts. The action had been dismissed in 2016, when S.D.N.Y. Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that the plaintiffs lacked anti-trust standing. The Second Circuit’s opinion was written by Judge Pierre Leval. Continue reading Second Circuit Reinstates Aluminium Antitrust Lawsuit
