Lovell Stewart has represented scores of members of various commodities and securities exchanges, and has extensive experience in prosecuting exchange related antitrust and manipulation claims. The Firm has repeatedly investigated and examined the role and effects of exchange rules upon commodity, security and other prices.
The Firm has prosecuted claims involving
- price fixing by Nasdaq Market Makers, In re Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 123 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.);
- price fixing by Initial Public Offering underwriters, In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.) (SAS);
- manipulation by exchange specialists of securities prices, In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-8264 (RWS); and
- price fixing of commodities for which the commodity exchange was allegedly responsible, and exchange rule’s prices impact on securities prices, Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 79 Civ. 1834 (S.D.N.Y.) (LFM).
The issue of whether commodity exchange rules impacted commodity prices combines both of the Firm’s two core strengths: commodity manipulation and exchange-related conduct. Last year, Lovell Stewart filed the first complaint in the United States alleging the inflation of specified aluminum prices by an allegedly unlawful agreement of the London Metal Exchange and various of its member or ownership firms including through their allegedly agreed upon anticompetitive implementation of exchange rules.
In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.) (SAS). The Firm has served as de facto co-lead counsel in these consolidated 308 class actions alleging fraud and manipulation under the federal securities laws; the settlement for $575,000,000 has been approved. See In re IPO Securities Litigation, 671 F.Supp.2d 467, fn 35 (S.D.N.Y. October 5, 2009) (approving settlement).
In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litig., MDL 12-2389 (S.D.N.Y). The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in this case alleging that NASDAQ allegedly failed to follow its rules and negligently failed to properly test and design its systems in connection with the Facebook IPO.
