Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting augment that alleged \manipulation was so constant that plaintiffs adequately plead actual damages by alleging merely that they traded during the Class Period\ where allegations indicated that manipulation occurred less than 20% of the time over a four-year period
• finding CEA claims inadequate where plaintiffs made no “allegations that make plausible (1) that they transacted in ... futures contracts on days on which .., futures contract prices were artificial as a result of trader-based manipulation of LIBOR, or (2
• no standing where Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that they transacted on days on which prices were artificial or that the alleged artificiality was adverse to their positions
• no standing where Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that they transacted on days on which prices were artificial or that the alleged artificiality was adverse to their positions
• plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege economic injury where they failed to identify specific financial positions that lost value “despite the fact that plaintiffs indisputably have access to their own Eurodollar futures contract trading records”
• “[Plaintiffs have identified a market in which defendants are, in fact, competitors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).