Barclays faces another appeal in dark pool case

Maria Nikolova

Great Pacific Securities seeks to reverse earlier court orders in a case alleging Barclays misled and harmed customers by inducing them into trading in the LX exchange.

Investment banking and securities firm Great Pacific Securities is appealing an order by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a case against Barclays over harm done by the way the bank operated and marketed its “Liquidity Cross” dark pool (“LX”). Back in the fall of 2016, the District Court dismissed the Complaint by the plaintiffs, accusing Barclays Capital, Inc. and Barclays PLC (LON:BARC) of concealment, false advertising, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The Appellant, Great Pacific Securities, has now taken the case to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Earlier this week, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed its Opening Brief, which FinanceFeeds has seen. In the document, Great Pacific Securities seeks reversal of the District Court’s order of dismissal.

Plaintiff Great Pacific Securities was a customer of Barclays and submitted trades for execution in Barclays’ LX dark pool, which Barclays marketed as a safe haven for investors seeking to avoid price manipulation caused by predatory high frequency traders (HFTs). Barclays, however, is alleged to have concealed the true extent of aggressive HFT trading in LX, the significant limitations of its safeguards, and manipulations to its trading algorithms to favor LX.

At the heart of Barclays’ scheme was its attempt to convince investors that trading in LX was safe. The Plaintiff-Appellants refer to marketing materials disseminated to Plaintiff and the Class, which contained a number of “misrepresentations, omissions, and half-truths” regarding the extent of “aggressive” trading by HFT clients in LX. For instance, in marketing materials released in early 2013 and 2014, Barclays claimed that trading in LX was only “9% aggressive” and “6% aggressive,” respectively. However, these representations are dubbed as misleading because they concealed the fact that trading by “aggressive” HFTs constituted a significantly larger percentage of all trading in LX, higher than 30%.

Notably, Plaintiff insists that it is not challenging the existence of HFT activity in LX. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not contend it was unaware of any HFT activity in LX, but rather the extent of trading by aggressive HFTs.

Another example of concealment is that, beginning in October 2012, Barclays disseminated pitchbooks that omitted from the bubble chart the bubble representing Barclays’ largest aggressive trader (Tradebot). Regardless of this omission, the charts retained the February 2012 footnote, stating: “This chart represents the top 100 participants in LX (~86% of total order flow). The analysis spans more than 11.3 million trades.”

Also, Barclays is alleged to have actually encouraged aggressive HFTs to continue using its pool by “repeatedly disclosing information” to them to encourage them to increase their activity in LX, “including data that helped those firms maximize their aggressive trading strategies, such as the routing logic of Barclays’ order router, the percentage of Barclays’ internal order flow that was first directed into its own dark pool, and a breakdown of trades executed in the dark pool by participant type and ‘toxicity’ level.”

Barclays’ concealment “was harmful to Plaintiff [because] the predatory traders in LX obtained information from the requested trades that Barclays swept across LX and then traded ahead” of Plaintiff’s trades, harming Plaintiff. Plaintiff says it was harmed in its business because its customers “based the amount of trades given to Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s performance in executing such trades.” As the execution in LX was not as advertised by Barclays, Plaintiff was harmed because it received fewer trade orders from its customers.

Major points in the Appellant’s argumentation are the settlements that Barclays reached with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2016 over the operations of LX. In these settlements, Barclays admitted that, from December 2011 through June 2014, it misled its clients and violated securities laws. Barclays paid $70 million to settle the lawsuit filed by the NYAG and the investigation led by the SEC.

The Plaintiff notes that it had managed to sufficiently demonstrate how Barclays’ claims and marketing materials were misleading and how Barclays caused harm to the plaintiffs. The Appellant’s Brief concludes with a request for the the Court to reverse and remand the District Court’s order granting Barclays’ motion to dismiss.

The case is captioned Great Pacific Securities v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al (0:16-cv-56804).

Read this next

Metaverse Gaming NFT

DCentral Miami brings together all of Web3, NFT, DeFi, Metaverse

The world’s biggest Web3 meeting entitled DCENTRAL Miami is set to take place November 28-29, featuring a lineup of some of the biggest and most influential names in the blockchain space.

Digital Assets

Crypto ban expands across UK banks as Starling joins ‎crackdown

UK digital bank Starling has banned ‎all customer payments related to cryptocurrencies, another blow for the crypto traders ‎who recently saw a sizable number of banks deciding not to ‎finance the wobbly asset class.‎

Interviews

Markets Direct at FIA EXPO 2022: Traders know what they want from brokers

The FIA Expo 2022, one of the most prestigious events within the global derivatives trading industry, took place in Chicago on 14 & 15 November.

Interviews

FIA Expo 2022: TNS addresses public cloud limitations with hybrid infrastructure

November is the month of the FIA Expo, one of the largest futures and options conferences in the world, bringing together regulators, exchanges, software vendors, and brokers in one place: the Sheraton Grand Chicago Riverwalk. 

Retail FX

Italy’s regulator blacks out Finance CapitalFX, MFCapitalFX

Italy’s Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) has shut down new websites in an ongoing clampdown against firms it accuses of illegally promoting investment products in the country.

Retail FX

Suspected leader of Honk Kong ramp-and-dump scam appears in court

A leader of a sophisticated ramp-and-dump scheme made his first court appearance in a Hong Kong court today, charged with market manipulation and various criminal offences. The case stems from an earlier joint operation of Hong Kong’s financial watchdog, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), and the local police. 

Institutional FX

Cboe’s James Arrante discusses growing demand for fixed income, FX algo

We caught up with James Arrante, senior director of FX & US treasuries product and business management at Cboe Global Markets, to uncover emerging trends in the FX and fixed income markets and learn more about the bourse operator’s recent initiatives.

Retail FX

Eurotrader acquires UK broker Petra Asset Management

Eurotrader Group has formally entered into the UK market with the acquisition of FCA-regulated broker, previously named Petra Asset Management Ltd. The new entity operates under the brand name Eurotrade Capital Ltd.

Inside View, Retail FX

The Game of Chess Continues – OPEC, China and the Oil Market

Over the past decade, the US has been complaining about the amount of power which the BRIC group, and specifically China, has on the global economy. BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China; these were the world’s fastest growing economies. Only in the past 10 months, the US has turned their attention toward OPEC due to the prices of fuel. Nevertheless, China seems to have a strong influence even over the price of crude oil.

<