Parties in lawsuit against OANDA reach agreement in principle to settle
OANDA and its former customer Antonio Medina have agreed in principle to a settlement amount of $85,000, with a final agreement appearing close.
The office representing online trading company OANDA in a civil action brought by its former customer Antonio Medina has informed the New York Southern District Court of the progress made in the discussions between the parties.
A letter to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis dated October 4, 2017 says that the parties have continued to confer with respect to a settlement and have agreed in principle to a settlement amount of $85,000. Documents are presently being circulated among the parties with respect to coming to a final agreement.
As FinanceFeeds reported last week, OANDA initially offered Mr Medina $75,000 with the condition that:
- the action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and a related matter between the parties pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California be dismissed;
- the parties enter into a general release.
In response, Mr Medina provided a counteroffer of $85,000, which, apparently, OANDA has found acceptable.
The legal action, captioned Medina v. OANDA Corporation (1:17-cv-02316), accuses the defendants of: (1) breach of warranty; (2) false advertising; (3) breach of oral contract; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) fraud; and (7) infliction of emotional distress.
Mr Medina has argued that OANDA had charged him with fictitious interest for non-existing money and did not provide the competitive spreads that it promised, but instead expanded it beyond the competition’s.
Starting on or around August 2015, his complaint says, the Defendants have failed to provide competent service, failing to follow Mr Medina’s trade instructions. Plaintiff received either no response or unresponsive emails, when he attempted to contact the broker. Moreover, Defendants promised that OANDA’s exchange prices, quotes and spread were transparent and that they would provide historical data with at least one minute accuracy spanning many years back but allegedly failed to do so.
OANDA’s ex-CEO Ed Eger was removed from the defendants’ list in this case in late September. The reason for the Court Order was that when the case was pending in the Northern District of California, Judge Davila denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to join Ed Eger.