briefing in Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America et al., 17-cv-6221 (KPF) (SDNY). (And if you weren’t around, click this link for a catch-up!) Between ongoing discovery and sealed briefing, we haven’t had much to update recently. That changed last week with the filing of a motion to preliminarily approve a settlement agreement with the Credit Suisse Defendants. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown: Credit Suisse Settlement Update
This brief post will take a look at the highlights of those answers and defenses, and provide a quick rundown of the current Case Management Order (“CMO”), filed on November 15th in the stock loan market manipulation lawsuits. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown: Is the Answer a Lemon?
Counsel for Iowa Public must have gone home happy on September 27th, as the long-awaited motion to dismiss decision could hardly have played out more favorably for them. With the caveat that “it remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs’ factual allegations will be born out in discovery,” Judge Failla rejected each of Defendants five bases for dismissal and denied their 12(b)(6) motion. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown: Class NOT Dismissed
This post examines the Prime Broker Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss reply in the stock loan market manipulation actions. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown: Fourth Time’s (still not quite) the Final . . . and Time Will Tell if it’s the Charm
Welcome back, followers, friends and fellow antitrust fans, to this third installment of the Stock Loan Lowdown. This time around, we examine the full-blown fortress forged by our persistent plaintiffs in response to the defendants frighteningly (or frustratingly?) far-reaching motion to dismiss. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown: Third Time Through the Order
It’s time to dig in to the defenses put forward by the Prime Broker Defendants in their motion to dismiss papers, filed back in January 2018. Defendants’ arguments cover four main topics: first, Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a violation of the Sherman Act; second, Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing; third, Plaintiffs’ claims are time barred; and fourth, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown, Part Two: To Dismiss or Not to Dismiss?
This post will examine allegations in two pending actions: Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al., concerning manipulation of the stock loan market, and QS Holdco Inc. v. Bank Of America Corporation et al., regarding the boycott of a platform related to stock loan lending. Continue reading Stock Loan Lowdown