Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/08/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: April 18, 2014

According to the law firm press release, The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme and wrongful course of business whereby the Exchange Defendants, together with a defendant class of the brokerage firms entrusted to fairly and honestly transact the purchase and sale of securities on behalf of their clients (the “Brokerage Firm Defendants”) and a defendant class of sophisticated high frequency trading firms (the “HFT Defendants”) engaged in conduct that was designed to and did manipulate the U.S. securities markets and the trading of equities on those markets, diverting billions of dollars annually from buyers and sellers of securities to the defendants, in violation of §§6, 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that contrary to the duties imposed upon them by law, SEC rules and their own regulations, the defendants participated in a scheme and wrongful course of business whereby certain market participants were provided with material, non-public information so that those market participants could use the informational advantage obtained to manipulate the U.S. securities market to the detriment of public investors. Notwithstanding their legal obligations and duties to provide for orderly and honest trading and to match the bids and orders placed on behalf of investors at the best available price, the Exchange Defendants and those defendants that controlled alternate trading venues demanded and received substantial kickback payments in exchange for providing the HFT Defendants access to material trading data via preferred access to exchange floors and/or through proprietary trading products. Likewise, in exchange for kickback payments, the Brokerage Firm Defendants provided access to their customers’ bids and offers, and directed their customers’ trades to stock exchanges and alternate trading venues that the Brokerage Firm Defendants knew had been rigged and were subject to informational asymmetries as a result of defendants’ scheme and wrongful course of business. Defendants’ predatory practices included the Brokerage Firm Defendants selling “special access” to material data, including orders made by the investing public so that the HFT Defendants could then trade against them using the informational asymmetries and other market manipulation. Defendants’ misconduct rigged the market and manipulated the prices at which shares were traded during the Class Period, causing substantial damage to public investors as a result thereof.

On July 2, 2014, an Order was issued consolidating the cases, appointing the Institutional Investors as lead Plaintiffs and their chosen counsel — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Motley Rice LLC, and Labaton Sucharow LLP — were appointed as lead counsel.

On September 2, 2014, a Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws was filed against the defendants.

On August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market:
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-02811
JUDGE: Hon. Wood
DATE FILED: 04/18/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/18/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/18/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-02811
JUDGE: Hon. Wood
DATE FILED: 09/02/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/18/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/02/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  3. Motley Rice LLC
    600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101, Motley Rice LLC, NY 10016
    (212) 577-0040 (212) 577-0054 ·
  4. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  5. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  6. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date