Firm Obtains Court Ruling Sustaining Client’s Antitrust Claims Against 11 Major Dealers in Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation

On November 20, 2018, Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Engelmayer sustained federal and New York antitrust claims brought by the Firm on behalf of trueEX, LLC against 11 of the largest dealers of interest rate swaps (“IRS”), including Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. In June 2018, trueEX had filed a lawsuit against the 11 dealer defendants, alleging that trueEX’s IRS trading platform was illegally boycotted by the 11 dealer defendants in order to limit competition in the IRS market, so that defendants could continue to charge customers more for their IRS transactions than they would be able to charge in a competitive environment. Shortly after its filing, the trueEX lawsuit was joined to the existing IRS multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Previously, in November 2015, the Class Action plaintiffs, represented by Quinn Emanuel and Cohen Milstein, filed their original complaint. In early 2016, the Firm filed complaints on behalf of Javelin Capital Markets LLC and Tera Group, Inc. (and its affiliates), two IRS trading platforms that allege that their platforms were illegally boycotted by the 11 dealer defendants. In July 2017, the Court denied in large part the motions to dismiss that were filed by defendants, and allowed the coordinated cases to proceed to discovery.

In seeking to dismiss trueEX’s complaint, the 11 dealer defendants contended that trueEX’s claims were weaker than Javelin’s and Tera’s claims for a number of reasons, and that it was “implausible” that the defendants’ antitrust conspiracy continued into 2017-18, as alleged by trueEX. On November 20, 2018, the Court rejected defendants’ arguments and instead held that trueEX had plausibly alleged an antitrust boycott conspiracy, declined to dismiss any of the 11 dealer defendants, and declined to rule on defendants’ claim that the statute of limitations barred at least some of trueEX’s claims.

A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.