NY Court approves another stay extension in FX benchmark rate fixing case

Sourced from: https://financefeeds.com/ny-court-approves-another-stay-extension-fx-benchmark-rate-fixing-case/

The article NY Court Requires a different remain extension in FX benchmark speed repairing case appeared initially on FinanceFeeds.

The plaintiffs in a Forex benchmark rate fixing suit targeting some of the world’s major banks had been dealt a bitter blow to Thursday, as Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the New York Southern District Court granted an additional expansion of the discovery remain in the situation.

The case has been brought by Go Everywhere, Inc., Valarie Jolly, Mad Travel, Inc., Lisa McCarthy, John Nypl, also William Rubinsohn. The plaintiffs represent a putative class of consumers and end-user companies who allege they paid inflated Forex rates brought on by an alleged conspiracy among the suspect banks to resolve prices of FX benchmark rates in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq..
The plaintiffs note that this is the piecemeal stay sought by the DOJ in this case. According to the plaintiffs, these remains make it very hard, if not impossible, so they can program, manage, schedule, or even educate their case against the defendants. As stated by the plaintiffs, the bias to them was manifest, and indeed used against them suggesting that the remains have delayed the prosecution of the case.
Within their reply filed on Wednesday, that the plaintiffs — buyers and also end-user businesses alleging they paid inflated Forex rates brought on by an alleged conspiracy among the defendant banks to resolve costs of FX benchmark prices, contended that the remain extension should not be granted.

  • United States v. Aiyer, 18-cr-333, is set for trial before Judge Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2019.
  • United States v. Johnson, 18-1503-cr, is on appeal to the Second Circuit. The case is fully briefed and has been argued on May 31, 2019.

The Judge, apparently, sided with the DOJ.
FinanceFeeds –
The Judge ordered that the testamentary discovery stay is extended through the end of the trial in United States v. Aiyer, No. 18 Cr. 333, now scheduled for October 21, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the Department of Justice is defined to file a letter apprising the Court on the condition of the trial in Aiyer.
Let us recall that, a couple of weeks before, the DOJ asked a three-month extension of the limited discovery remain of certain depositions and interviews in the issue. The Department said that the stay has been necessary given the upcoming trial and appeal at just two FX-related instances:

Plaintiffs in FX rate fixing case oppose DOJ’s request for yet another stay extension

Sourced from: https://financefeeds.com/plaintiffs-fx-rate-fixing-case-oppose-dojs-request-yet-another-stay-extension/

The plaintiffs,”because the victims of these confessed violators of the Antitrust Laws”, argue that the requested stay ought to be denied, and that they need to be permitted to take the depositions of the signatories of the Plea Agreements and the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and to violate their case in the standard course.
In their response filed on Wednesday, the plaintiffs – customers and end-user businesses alleging they paid Forex rates brought on by an alleged conspiracy among the suspect banks to fix prices of FX benchmark rates, assert the remain extension shouldn’t be allowed.

The post Plaintiffs in FX speed adjusting case oppose DOJ’s request for yet another stay extension appeared initially on FinanceFeeds.
The plaintiffs in a Forex benchmark rate adjusting lawsuit targeting a number of the US leading banks like Citi, HSBC and JPMorgan, have compared the latest request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to get a detection remain extension. The relevant motion was submitted on July 10, 2019, with all the New York Southern District Court.
Let’s remember that, less than a fortnight before, the DOJ asked a three-month expansion of the restricted discovery stay of particular depositions and interviews in the topic. The Department said that the stay has been necessary given the forthcoming trial and appeal to just two FX-related cases:

The plaintiffs ask that the Court order some time certain in which they may start to take depositions. It has been over three years since the plaintiffs in this event served their very initial Notices of Deposition. According to these, without this kind of Order, the DOJ will simply file each three-months.
Because of such piecemeal stays, the plaintiffs say, it’s been very difficult, if not impossible, to allow them to organize, manage, schedule, or prepare their case against the defendants. As stated by the plaintiffs, the prejudice to them has been manifest, and really used against them suggesting that the stays have postponed the prosecution of the situation.

  • United States v. Johnson, 18-1503-cr, is on appeal to the Second Circuit.
  • FinanceFeeds –

    The plaintiffs note that this is actually the tenth piecemeal remain sought from the DOJ in this circumstance.