Abstract:According to the plaintiffs, the truth about this financial relationship was revealed three years after it ended on February 6, 2017, when news broke that FXCM had settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA) regarding its relationship with Effex.

William Ahdout, Dror Niv, and FXCM Inc, formerly known as Global Brokerage Inc, have requested that the New York Southern District Court certify its decision refusing summary judgment on the question of “loss causation” for interlocutory appeal. The defendants filed the appropriate documentation on September 20, 2022.
Ahdout, Niv, and FXCM Inc are defendants in a securities class action alleging that FXCM made deceptive representations in public filings. The plaintiffs argue that FXCM deceived investors by failing to disclose a financial stake it owned in Effex, a market maker that “earned” the highest proportion of certain types of FXCM trading activity from 2010 to 2014.

According to the plaintiffs, the truth about this financial relationship was revealed three years after it ended on February 6, 2017, when news broke that FXCM had settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA) regarding its relationship with Effex.
FXCM Inc adds that the announcement came on the same day that FXCM disclosed harsh regulatory penalties, including a $7 million civil monetary penalty, and that it will cease offering Forex trading services in the United States. On the same day, FXCM revealed intentions to lay off 18% of its personnel.
Despite the fact that FXCM's financial connection with Effex ceased in 2014, the Plaintiffs argue that they were harmed by an inflated stock price before the announcement of such a relationship on February 7, 2017.
Plaintiffs' expert, Adam Werner, believes that “the alleged misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the values of the FXCM stock and FXCM Notes throughout the Class Period.” He estimates a price decrease of $3.39 per share for FXCM common stock and $16.31 per $100 of par for FXCM Notes on February 7, 2017, and then applies those cash amounts throughout the class period.
According to the defendants, Werner's analysis fails to distinguish between price declines caused by the disclosure of FXCM's former financial relationship with Effex (which may be recoverable under securities laws) and price declines caused by news of the severe regulatory penalties and the layoff of 18 percent of FXCM's workforce. Werner instead thinks that the regulatory and other repercussions of FXCM's financial connection with Effex were the “inextricable ramifications” of the remedial disclosure.

FXCM disputed the Plaintiffs' inability to separate the regulatory fines from the other facts published on February 7, 2017, at summary judgment. According to FXCM's briefing, a jury cannot tell from Werner's cumulative number how much of the damages “were caused by fraud”—for example, the failure to disclose a prior financial interest in Effex—and how much was caused by the other news announced on February 7, 2017—the payment of a $7 million civil monetary penalty, the closure of FXCM's US trading operations, and the layoff of 18 percent of its workforce.
On August 17, 2022, the Court weighed these issues but declined summary judgment. The Court agreed that the burden of proving loss causation is on the plaintiffs and that they must “prove that their loss was caused by the fraud and not by any intervening events.”
Furthermore, the Court recognized that “to the degree that Plaintiffs establish a materialization of risk' argument and define the risk as the danger of regulatory fines, this approach fails.” The Court emphasized that “the risk must be disguised by the misrepresentations and omissions charged,” and therefore regulatory fines were not, as a matter of law, a concealed risk under that view.
Nonetheless, the Court failed to apply this logic to the Plaintiffs' “corrective disclosure” approach, which was interpreted by this Court to “argue that loss causation might be demonstrated by the market response to the February 2017 statements exposing the alleged fraud.”
Plaintiffs “have the burden to disaggregate damages generated by revelations of the truth underlying the alleged misstatements from losses caused by non-fraud-related reasons,” the Court noted. However, it concluded that rather than deciding the subject as a matter of law, it would “leave a jury to decide whether or not [the regulatory fines] are confusing events that required to be disaggregated.”
According to the defendants, whether a plaintiff may collect damages resulting from regulatory fines imposed on the defendant as a consequence of the alleged securities fraud is a critical legal topic with major significance for this case and other securities lawsuits. And, notwithstanding the Court's decision, judges may disagree—indeed, may have disagreed—with the Court's response.
About FXCM
FXCM continues to be one of the most competitive options for traders, particularly those seeking algorithmic trading solutions. FXCM also provides MT4, NinjaTrader, and ZuluTrade in addition to its proprietary trading platform. Capitalise AI, its most recent innovation, enables traders to automate tactics in an easy-to-use, code-free environment. In addition, FXCM offers six specialty platforms for algorithmic traders and fully supports API trading. FXCM Plus offers excellent research to customers, while new traders benefit from great training resources. I investigated FXCM to see whether it lives up to its goal statement of putting clients first and traders first. Is FXCM committed to providing traders with favorable trading conditions?

Pros
Excellent choice of trading platforms with dedicated support for algorithmic trading
Deep liquidity, transparent order executions, and monthly slippage statistics
Low-cost commission-based cost structure with a volume-based rebate program
Quality research and education via FXCM Plus
Cons
Somewhat limited asset selection
About WikiFX
WikiFX is a platform for searching worldwide corporate financial information. Its primary duty is to provide the included foreign exchange trading organizations with basic information searching, regulatory license seeking, credit assessment, platform identification, and other services.

Over 39,000 brokers, both licensed and unregistered, are listed on the network. WikiFX's staff has been hard at work with 30 financial authorities from across the world to verify that the information supplied is factual and correct.
Stay tuned for more broker news.
Download the WikiFX App from the App Store or Google Play Store.


Failed to withdraw funds from the Eurotrader platform despite repeated requests? Do you fail to trade due to persistent login issues? Has the customer support service failed to resolve the issue? Did you also face wide spreads that led to a massive profit reduction? All these user allegations have become strong headlines on broker review platforms such as WikiFX. Through this Eurotrader review article, we have shared the user allegations along with a regulatory overview.

VITTAVERSE, a Seychelles-based forex broker, is constantly receiving negative comments from traders worldwide on issues concerning withdrawals. The list of complaints also includes the allegation of illegitimate profit deductions without any valid reason by the trading enterprise. Further allegations highlighted the reduction in the trading account balance of some. Considering the rising complaints, it was important for us to prepare an in-depth VITTAVERSE review article. This article contains a list of user allegations along with our opinion on the overall scenario, including the regulatory oversight for the broker.

Have you had a miserable trading experience with WHITEFOREX, a Saint Lucia-based trading enterprise? Did the forex broker make you wait for a long time to access withdrawals? Did it cancel your profits illegitimately? Was the WHITEFOREX customer support team incompetent in resolving your fund withdrawal queries? These issues are no longer with you alone. Many traders have taken strong exception to these while sharing the WHITEFOREX review. This article sheds light on user allegations. Keep reading!

Have you experienced Pocket Trade acting against you only when you made profits and not when you were in losses? Has the forex broker canceled your profits illegitimately? Did you witness a complete lack of communication from the Pocket Trade customer support team on issues concerning trading and withdrawals? Traders have reported many such issues online, with an obvious attempt to make the top broker official aware of alleged operational glitches. To make it comprehensive, we have examined these allegations while sharing our perspective in this Pocket Trade review article. Keep reading!