TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation ("TD Ameritrade" or the Company) is an American stockbroker that offers an electronic trading platform for trading financial assets. According to the Complaint, TD Ameritrade acts as a broker, engaged in routing its client’s orders to different venues to be executed.

It is alleged that rather than route its clients’ non-directed, non-marketable orders to the venue(s) which would provide the best execution, TD Ameritrade instead sent such orders to the venues which would provide the highest liquidity rebates, or payments made by the venues to TD Ameritrade relating to the number and size of orders that were routed. In other words, rather than route its clients’ orders to the venue(s) for optimal execution, TD Ameritrade instead sent such orders to the venues which would pay the Company for order flow. As a result of this self-interested order routing, TD Ameritrade failed to provide best execution for its clients, causing them material harm in the form of economic loss due to their orders going unfilled, underfilled, or filled at a suboptimal price.

On December 2, 2014, this case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. On the same date, the Court issued an Order appointing lead Plaintiffs and approving lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on April 14, 2015.

On March 23, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On September 14, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Class Certification. Defendants filed a Motion to Stay proceedings on September 28 and on October 1, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals regarding the Class Certification. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal on December 20. On January 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Stay. On February 5, the Court of Appeals granted Defendants' Motion to Stay.

On April 23, 2021, the Court of Appeals concluded that the proposed Class did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the cause to the District Court for further proceedings. Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion for Class Certification on July 1. On September 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting Lead Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification.

Defendants were granted permission to appeal the Class Certification Order on October 26, 2022. On September 3, 2024, the Court of Appeals concluded that the proposed class did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.