Barclays requests rehearing in “dark pool” case - FinanceFeeds

Barclays requests rehearing in “dark pool” case

Barclays is opposing a class certification decision saying it creates a dangerous precedent that may undermine the US capital markets.

Barclays PLC (LON:BARC), its United States subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc., as well as three (former) senior officers of those companies – Robert Diamond, Antony Jenkins, and William White, are seeking a rehearing of Courts’ decisions in a “dark pool” case.

  • What is the case about?

Plaintiffs are Joseph Waggoner, Mohit Sahni, and Barbara Strougo, who had purchased Barclays’ American Depository Shares (ADS).

On June 25, 2014, the New York Attorney General commenced an action alleging that Barclays was violating provisions of the New York Martin Act in operating its dark pool. The complaint alleged that many of Barclays’ representations about protections Barclays’ Liquidity Cross (LX) afforded its customers from high‐frequency traders were false and misleading. The next day, the price of Barclays’ ADS fell 7.38%. On the following day, news reports estimated that Barclays could face a fine of more than £300,000,000 as a result of the Attorney General’s action, and on June 30th its stock price dropped an additional 1.5%.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class action shortly thereafter. They alleged in a subsequent second amended complaint that Barclays had violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b‐5.4§ 10(b) by making false statements and omissions about LX and Liquidity Profiling. The Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays’ statements about LX and the Liquidity Profiling system were materially false and misleading by omission or otherwise because, contrary to its assertions, Barclays did not in fact protect clients from aggressive high frequency trading activity, did not restrict predatory traders’ access to other clients, and did not eliminate traders who continued to behave in a predatory manner.

The result of these fraudulent statements, the Plaintiffs asserted, was that the price of Barclays’ ADS had been maintained at an inflated level that reflected investor confidence in the integrity of the company until the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs then sought class certification for investors who purchased Barclays’ ADS between August 2, 2011, and June 25, 2014.

The New York Southern District Court granted the certification. Barclays sought to appeal that but the Panel affirmed the District Court’s decision. Barclays now requests a rehearing.

  • Why is Barclays displeased?

The problem lies in the need (or its lack thereof) for the plaintiffs to present any direct empirical evidence of “market efficiency” (i.e., that the price of the security reacted to material, new information) to build a case against a public company.

According to the defendants, the Court rulings create a “rubberstamp” for any plaintiff seeking class certification in a securities case against a large, publicly traded company: plaintiffs will almost automatically be able to invoke the Basic presumption and defendants will effectively be unable to rebut it.

The decision, according to Barclays, undermines the US capital markets by making every large, publicly traded company located or listed here subject to significant class action fraud suits even in the absence of any proof that any investor relied on any alleged misstatements.

The case is captioned Strougo v. Barclays PLC (0:16-cv-01912).

+ Read This Next

Industry News, Institutional FX, Week in Review

Barclays concentrating on last look execution as core business activity as war on retail banking customers continues

London used to be the banking capital of the world. Now it is the electronic trading and interbank dealing capital. With Barclays ditching a further 7000 traditional bank customers and shedding entire continental retail branch operations, a sole focus on interbank FX dealing on its BARX platform – along with last look execution – could dominate

Industry News, Institutional FX

The rise and rise of interbank FX giants: Barclays ditches entire Euro retail business while BARX platform dominates Tier 1 liquidity sector

Barclays has completed its absolute divestment from European branch banking, selling its remaining 74 branches in France to AnaCap Financial Partners. This means a complete concentration – and domination – in the interbank FX markets for Barclays BARX platform, as last look execution lives on and becomes even more of a core business activity

Industry News, Institutional FX

Undercapitalized Tier 1 banks which restrict credit to the FX industry are a law unto themselves, crackdown on CEO salaries begins

RBS and Barclays, two very large FX dealers, are undercapitalized according to the Bank of England. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the regulator put a stop to them holding prime of primes to task on capital requirements when they don’t adhere to their own stipulated capital bases, and instead of shaving the remuneration packages of CEOs, make them responsible for putting this right?