A lawsuit accusing Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc of spoofing the market for the U.S. Treasury futures products and Eurodollar futures products continues at the Illinois Northern District Court.

According to documents, filed by the bank on April 16, 2021, it is seeking to dismiss the complaint against it.

Let’s note that the list of plaintiffs in this case includes: Rock Capital Markets, LLC; Atlantic Trading USA, LLC; Charles Herbert Proctor, III; Robert Charles Class A, L.P.; Todd Rowan; David Vecchione. The plaintiffs have brought a class action on behalf of “all persons or entities that transacted in Treasury Futures and/or Eurodollar Futures or Options on Treasury and/or Eurodollar Futures traded on a domestic exchange during the period beginning at least as early as January 1, 2013 and ending no earlier than December 31, 2013.”

The plaintiffs claim the alleged spoofing gives rise to private causes of action for manipulation in violation of the CEA (First Claim for Relief), for employing a manipulative device in violation of the CEA; (Second Claim for Relief), for vicarious liability in violation of the CEA (Third Claim for Relief), and for unjust enrichment (Fourth Claim for Relief).

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint claims that Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc unlawfully “spoofed” U.S. Treasury futures products and Eurodollar futures products during calendar year 2013.

As FX News Group has reported earlier this year, Deutsche Bank made it clear it would oppose the complaint. The document filed with the Court on April 16, 2021, is in further support of the motion to dismiss submitted by the bank in January.

In the document filed on April 16^th, the bank argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege facts that satisfy any of the necessary elements of a claim for manipulation, that:

1. Defendants possessed the ability to influence prices of EDFs or Treasury Futures;

2. an artificial price existed;

3. Defendants’ misconduct caused the artificial price to exist; and

4. Defendants specifically intended to cause that artificial price.

For instance, Deutsche Bank notes that the plaintiffs do not plead facts of how market prices went up or down as a result of any alleged spoofed trades nor how any fluctuations in the market were “likely not due to chance in a competitive market.”

Even in instances where plaintiffs have alleged the existence of price fluctuations that were unusual for the market (which the plaintiffs do not), that is insufficient “without more” to support the allegation, Deutsche Bank says. Because the plaintiffs fail to plead the existence of artificial prices, the CEA claims must be dismissed, the defendants say.

Finally, Deutsche Bank says that the Complaint fails to plead the fundamental “net loss” required by the CEA. At most, according to the bank, the plaintiffs allege generally that some of them transacted in unspecified Treasuries and Eurodollars on most days in 2013. Plaintiffs do not identify specific transactions, the direction of manipulation, or whether they paid more or accepted less, as courts require.

That is why, the defendants request that the Court dismiss the plaintiffs’ Complaint with prejudice.