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. Previously, Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleged a conspiracy among several banks... Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Market Manipulation Lawsuits
Analysis of the Second Circuit’s Reversal of the Dismissal of Complaints in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
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... Read more »
Plaintiffs in Mexican Bond Market Fixing Case Seek Time To Amend, Citing New Evidence
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... Read more »
Jurisdictional Limitations Continue to Trouble SSA Antitrust Plaintiffs
When we last checked in on In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 16-cv-3711 (SDNY), we focused on Judge Ramos’ granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim because Plaintiffs failed to allege injury-in-fact sufficient to establish antitrust standing. Now, Plaintiffs have re-pled their claims and several Defendants... Read more »
The VIX is Fixed?! Plaintiffs Would Like Some Discovery Real Quick
With apologies for the substandard rhyming in this title, this is a quick post to update you on the current status of the VIX Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery. On Friday January 11th, a minute entry on the docket showed that Plaintiff’s motion was denied, without prejudice, with an order with further court dates to... Read more »
SSA Swindling? – Part III – Repleading After Dismissal – Is Plaintiffs’ Statistical Analysis Enough to Save Plaintiffs’ Claims?
This week, we return to In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-03711-ER (SDNY) (“In re SSA“), an action first introduced in our June 27, 2018, post, which gives a full account of the alleged collusion in the Consolidated Amended Complaint. In this post, we revisit Judge Ramos’ August 24, 2018, Opinion and Order granting... Read more »
“Fixing” with the Fix? – Part II – Are “Umbrella Purchasers” “Efficient Enforcers?”
This week we return to the world of precious metals to compare and contrast whether “umbrella purchaser” Plaintiffs (“Umbrella Plaintiffs”) were “efficient enforcers” for the purposes of anti-trust standing. The precious metals actions are respectively: In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, 1:14-md-02548-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) (“In re Gold”); In re: London Silver... Read more »
Alleged Manipulation of the Singapore Benchmark Rates
In this post, we cover the alleged facts and procedural history of FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, Ltd. et al v. Citibank, N.A. et al., 16-cv-05263 (SDNY) (“Frontpoint”), as detailed in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and an Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (the “Decision”) issued on... Read more »
SEF Scuttling? Alleged Manipulation of the Interest Rate Swap Market – Part II – Buy-Side Funds Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss Shelling, but Not Unscathed.
This week we cover the July 28, 2017, decision on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-md-02704 (SDNY) (“IRS Antitrust Litigation”), an action previously introduced in our August 6, 2018, post, where one can find a full account of the alleged collusion. The Court granted Defendants’... Read more »
Mexican Government Bond Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Part Two
In this post, we follow up on our October 2, 2018, post, which covered arguments made by the Defendants in In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 18-cv-02830 (In re MGB) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) concerning whether Plaintiffs made plausible allegations of an antitrust conspiracy and made adequate allegations... Read more »