|
 Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the State Supreme Court in
Manhattan said it was premature to dismiss Schneiderman's claim
under the state's Martin Act, a powerful anti-fraud law.
"Traders are entitled to rely on material representations banks make
about their dark pools," the judge wrote. "If such representations
are untrue, the integrity of dark pools will be compromised and
investor confidence in them will be shaken."
But the judge said Schneiderman still must show enough specifics
about Barclays' dark pool to demonstrate the bank lied to clients
and investors.
Quoting from Schneiderman's complaint, Kornreich also said she would
not transform the case into a battle over the legality of high-speed
trading.
"Investors in the dark pool are highly sophisticated and, hence, no
liability will be found simply on the basis of meaningless words,
such as 'aggressive', 'predatory', and 'toxic'," she wrote. "This
court is not influenced, nor is it moved, by the NYAG's public
policy arguments."
Kornreich said she will rule later on whether Schneiderman raised a
valid Martin Act claim, and that Barclays' arguments that the law
should not apply were "not entirely unreasonable."
The judge also dismissed a claim that Schneiderman brought under a
separate state law.
Barclays had no immediate comment.
Liz DeBold, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman, said: "We are pleased
the court affirmed our ability to pursue a claim against Barclays."
Dark pools were designed to let people quietly trade shares before
investors in the broader market could learn about and bet against
their trades.
[to top of second column] |
But in his lawsuit, Schneiderman said Barclays falsely told clients
from 2012 to 2014 that its algorithms gave no advantage to
particular trading venues or client orders, despite having
reprogrammed those algorithms to favor its dark pool.
He also said Barclays falsely downplayed the percentage of dark pool
trading that was "aggressive," and that electronic trading chief
William White and head of product development David Johnsen directly
oversaw this activity.
Schneiderman's lawsuit is among the highest-profile cases as
regulators probe high-speed trading, which came under scrutiny in
Michael Lewis' bestseller "Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt."
The case is Schneiderman v. Barclays Capital Inc et al, New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451391/2014.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Meredith
Mazzilli and Chris Reese)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
