United States Second Circuit

The district court's orders dismissing plaintiff-traders claim against defendants for aiding and abetting commodities manipulation in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), is affirmed, where: 1) the standard for aiding and abetting liability under the CEA is the same as for criminal aiding and abetting under federal criminal law; 2) allegations about the defendant's knowledge, intent, and actions should not be evaluated in isolation, but rather in light of the complaint as a whole; and 3) plaintiffs' amended complaint does not adequately state such a claim, because, as here, the provision of routine clearing services, when combined only with allegations that the clearing firm knew of trading activity that was highly suggestive but not dispositive of manipulation, is not enough to state a claim for aiding and abetting under Section 22 of the CEA.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/23/2013
• Published 09/23/2013

Judges

• LIVINGSTON

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel