Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/01/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 15, 2014

According to the Complaint, TD Ameritrade acted 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, payments made by the venues to TD Ameritrade relating to the number and size of orders that were routed. Rather than route its clients’ non-directed, marketable orders to the venue(s) which would provide the best execution, TD Ameritrade instead sent such orders to the venues which would pay the Company for order flow, payments made by the venues to TD Ameritrade relating to the number and size of marketable orders that were routed. 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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMTD
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Nebraska
DOCKET #: 14-CV-05738
JUDGE: Hon. Michael A. Shipp
DATE FILED: 09/15/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Nebraska
DOCKET #: 14-CV-00396
JUDGE: Hon. Michael A. Shipp
DATE FILED: 04/14/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Koley Jessen P.C.
    1125 South 103rd Street . Suite 800, Koley Jessen P.C., NE
    402.390.9500 402.390.9005 · info@koleyjessen.com/
  2. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
    30 Broad Street, 15 1h Floor, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, NY 10004
    212.363.7500 212.363-7171 ·
  3. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date