Dark pool9 Jan 2018 17:43
US Court denies Barclays� request for rehearing in �dark pool� case
Barclays had sought to overturn a class certification decision which the bank saw as creating a dangerous precedent that may undermine the US capital markets.
In a brief Order issued on January 5, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition by 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, for a rehearing of the Court�s decisions in a �dark pool� case.
The one-page order, seen by FinanceFeeds, does not provide any explanation of the Court�s decision. It simply states that Barclays� petition for panel rehearing or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc, is denied.
The action, captioned Strougo v. Barclays PLC (0:16-cv-01912), was brought by Joseph Waggoner, Mohit Sahni, and Barbara Strougo, who had purchased Barclays� American Depository Shares (ADS).
According to the plaintiffs, 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 was filed on June 25, 2014. That lawsuit alleged that Barclays was violating provisions of the New York Martin Act in operating its dark pool. The launch of the lawsuit led to a steep drop in the price of Barclays� ADS.
The Plaintiffs had 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.
In its petition for rehearing, which was just denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Barclays says that 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 bank, the Court rulings create a A