Traders reiterate claims of anticompetitive agreement between Robinhood and Citadel
Traders insist that there was an anticompetitive agreement between Robinhood and Citadel that was related to the January 2021 short squeeze.
Traders insist that there was an anticompetitive agreement between Robinhood and Citadel that was related to the January 2021 short squeeze.
Robinhood Markets derived most of its revenues from PFOF, with Citadel Securities accounting for 22% of the total.
Robinhood and Citadel say the traders have alleged no new facts to make their antitrust claim plausible.
Robinhood and Citadel are accused of having hatched an anticompetitive scheme to restrict retail investors’ access to specific stocks.
Robinhood insists that the complaint alleging it was involved in market manipulation in January 2021 should be dismissed.
Traders in Florida sue Robinhood Financial over its payment for order flow arrangements with Citadel, Apex, Wolverine and Virtu.
The Court has found that traders embroiled in the January trading short squeeze have failed to plead conspiracy.
According to the traders, Citadel mischaracterizes the SEC’s Report and cherry picks portions that expand its arguments.
Citadel Securities, which is accused of participating in market conspiracy that led to the January short squeeze events, refers to SEC report.
Traders who brought a large “short squeeze” lawsuit claim the actual client of Robinhood is Citadel Securities.