Robinhood’s trading restrictions go beyond contractual discretion, traders say
Traders claim Robinhood chose to pull itself back from the brink by intentionally devastating the market for in-demand securities.
Traders claim Robinhood chose to pull itself back from the brink by intentionally devastating the market for in-demand securities.
Traders embroiled in a short squeeze lawsuit claim Apex’s imposition of unwarranted hours-long Purchase Shutdown is classic negligence.
According to the traders, Citadel mischaracterizes the SEC’s Report and cherry picks portions that expand its arguments.
Robinhood Markets Inc accrued legal and regulatory contingencies of $33.1 million at the end of Q3 2021.
Citadel Securities, which is accused of participating in market conspiracy that led to the January short squeeze events, refers to SEC report.
Robinhood, which is under fire for the trading restrictions imposed in January 2021, revives its motion to dismiss short squeeze lawsuit.
Apex Clearing claims that traders were not only were chasing a market bubble, but also helped create the bubble in meme stocks.
Citadel argues that the traders have utterly failed to plead a cognizable antitrust claim that can survive a motion to dismiss.
The Court has denied as moot Robinhood’s motion to dismiss allegations about illegal trading restrictions during the January short squeeze.
Traders who brought a large “short squeeze” lawsuit claim the actual client of Robinhood is Citadel Securities.