CFTC lawsuit against former HSBC exec set for protraction
The lawsuit brought by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) against former HSBC executive Christophe Rivoire, who stands accused of market manipulation, is set for further protraction.
The parties in this case have asked the Court to extend deadlines as they need additional time to complete witness depositions.
Under the current schedule, depositions of fact witnesses must be completed by September 30, 2021, and all fact discovery must be completed by October 30, 2021. While depositions in this matter are ongoing, the parties agree that it is necessary to extend the deadline for completing depositions of fact witnesses in order to accommodate various scheduling issues, including the need to engage in diplomatic process to compel the depositions of certain witnesses located outside the United States.
For instance, one witness who both parties seek to depose cannot be deposed until December, given the witness and counsel’s respective availabilities.
As such, the parties propose extending the close of fact discovery to January 31, 2022, with depositions allowed through that date. Consistent with the current Case Management Plan, the remainder of the discovery deadlines set forth in the Case Management Plan will be determined based on the new fact discovery deadline.
Let’s recall that the CFTC charged Christophe Rivoire with market manipulation and fraud, in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA” or the “Act”) and Rule 180.1 in relation to a 2012 interest rate swap transaction between HSBC and a Japanese bond issuer (the “2012 Transaction”).
In 2012, Mr Rivoire was the head of HSBC’s North American rates business. He was not directly involved in trading related to the problematic transaction, but the CFTC alleges that he instructed a junior trader to engage in market manipulation and fraud in relation to the transaction.
The CFTC and Mr Rivoire had clashed on the deposition manner. The CFTC argues that the depositions have to be remote, whereas the defendant says they have to be in-person, with any party wishing to participate remotely to be provided with such an option. Regarding the depositions, the Court has sided with the regulator.