About a week after Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DBSI) and Deutsche Bank AG (DBAG) sought to dismiss allegations about market manipulation, the plaintiffs have reiterated their claims. This becomes clear from a document filed in the Illinois Northern District Court on November 1, 2021.

Let’s recall that the plaintiffs in this case are Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Charles Herbert Proctor, III, Robert Charles Class A, L.P., Rock Capital Markets, LLC, Todd Rowan, and David Vecchione. They bring a consolidated class action Complaint for alleged manipulation in violation of the CEA, among other related claims. In bringing their claims, the plaintiffs rely on DBSI’s June 18, 2020 Offer of Settlement with the CFTC.

The CFTC Order describes two Tokyo-based traders affiliated with DBSI that allegedly engaged in a number of incidents of spoofing activity in UST/EDF transactions in violation of Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the CEA during calendar-year 2013.

In defending itself against the complaint, Deutsche Bank noted that “the plaintiffs here identify no trading-related losses they suffered from defendants’ alleged spoofing on any particular day. Rather, they plead that they likely lost money in at least one of their trades because they regularly traded Treasury and Eurodollar futures in 2013… These allegations raise legitimate concerns about whether any plaintiffs have alleged enough to demonstrate standing.”

In their response, the plaintiffs stress their allegations that they lost money because they traded Treasury and Eurodollar futures contracts (UST/ED futures) on the same exchanges (CBOT/CME) every day during 2013, while Deutsche allegedly spoofed these same futures contracts on the same exchanges on “multiple occasions” during that year. As a result, the plaintiffs allegedly traded in an artificial market caused by Deutsche’s manipulation, and, therefore, injury is presumed.

The plaintiffs claim that, based on the Complaint, the Court can safely conclude that the plaintiffs were injured by Deutsche Bank’s manipulation and that this Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) private action for manipulation would redress those injuries.

The plaintiffs note that they do allege that the defendants certainly did have a culture of manipulation. But the plaintiffs also allege that the defendants manipulated the precise instruments (UST/ED futures) that the plaintiffs traded, on the same exchanges, and on the same days that the plaintiffs traded them.

The plaintiffs conclude that, because they traded every day in the same products that the defendants manipulated, there can be no doubt that the plaintiffs have alleged that they were injured by transacting “during a bout of defendant’s alleged market manipulation.”