Disagreements remain in the case brought by former Citi FX trader Rohan Ramchandani and his ex-employer. This is indicated by a letter filed with the New York Southern District Court on May 26, 2021.

As of the date of the letter, there have been no settlement discussions between the parties, the letter, seen by FX News Group, says.

Ramchandani brought this action against Citibank, his former employer. The Complaint alleges one count of malicious prosecution stemming, among other things, from Citi’s disclosure of information about Ramchandani to, and other communications with, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in connection with an investigation into a purported criminal antitrust conspiracy arising out of Ramchandani’s role as trader in FX spot markets, and specifically the EUR/USD FX Spot market, on behalf of Citi.

As detailed in the Complaint, Ramchandani alleges, among other things, that

1. Citi made materially misleading statements regarding Ramchandani, and provided materially misleading accounts of Ramchandani’s conduct, to the DOJ, which played an actionable role in the commencement of the DOJ’s putative criminal case against Ramchandani;
2. Citi knew that the statements and accounts it provided were materially misleading and that Ramchandani had not engaged in criminal antitrust violations; and
3. Citi acted with malice, within the meaning of governing law. Including by falsely identifying Ramchandani (whom Citi knew was not culpable for a criminal antitrust violation) as the single purported wrongdoer within Citi, thereby, among other things, diverting attention from other actually culpable conduct within Citi.

The letter, filed with the Court on Wednesday, highlights the remaining disagreements between the parties.

Citi intends to fight the accusations against it. The bank argues that, to maintain the malicious prosecution claim against a civilian defendant, Ramchandani bears the burden to prove that: Citi overtook the volition of the DOJ such that Citi “in effect” initiated the prosecution against Ramchandani, the prosecution was without probable cause, and Citi acted with malice.

“The Complaint’s allegations (accepted as true at the pleading stage), were based on speculation and innuendo. The indisputable material facts, however, will foreclose each element of Ramchandani’s claim, and at the close of discovery, will compel the grant of summary judgment in Citi’s favor dismissing the Complaint”, Citi says.

Citi argues that it did not seek out the DOJ or initiate an action against Ramchandani. It cooperated fully and truthfully with the DOJ. Based largely upon Ramchandani’s conduct in the Chatrooms — which violated Citi policies as already determined — Citi accepted a guilty plea and paid over $2.4 billion in fines to various regulators. Ramchandani will not be able to prove that any action taken by Citi was out of malice, the bank concludes.

The lawsuit continues at the New York Southern District Court.