New York Court Grants Class Action Status to Currenex Plaintiffs
Posted by Colin Lambert. Last updated: June 16, 2026
The Southern District Court of New York has granted class action status to the plaintiffs in the case versus Currenex et al meaning the case can proceed on such a basis. While an attempt to pursue the action on a class basis due to unjust enrichment was refused by the court, the US District Judge Lewis Kaplan found that in other respects, it fulfilled the necessary requirements.
The case is against Currenex, Goldman Sachs, HC Technologies, State Street and five “John Doe” defendants, and surrounds claims that the trading platform had “secret rules” that favoured certain counterparties, who paid for the privilege of gaining preference on the trading stack, despite Currenex allegedly claiming it operated a strict FIFO (first-in-first-out) protocol. It is further alleged by the plantiffs that a Currenex executive granted HC Tech with administrative access to the platform that allowed it to see all participants’ orders on the FX Trades ECN, and that this too, was undisclosed.
The plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr Craig Pirrong, a US professor of economics, suggested in evidence that the alleged wrongdoing added between $1-1.35 billion in trading costs for the plaintiffs.
The decision for the judge was driven by the plaintiffs need to satisfy four criteria – that sufficient plaintiffs exist to make it more efficient to process as a class; that the plaintiffs have common claims (and there are questions of law of facts common to them); and that the representative parties will fairly protect the interests of the class.
In spite of the defendants’ arguments, the court found that all were satisfied, specifically that “it appears undisputed that there are hundreds [of putative class members]”; and that “the common contention or question here is plain to see”. The finding also states that contrary to the defendants’ “half-hearted assertion otherwise” the claims are typical of the wider class’ complaints, and that complaints of two representatives of the class, XTX Markets and DSquare adequately reflect the wider group.
The finding observes that the defendants “understandably want to stop this case where it stands, or, barring that, at least prevent it from becoming bigger”, adding, however, that court’s task is limited to determining whether common questions exist and predominate, “Plaintiffs have established they do,” it states.
The Full FX View
There are some in the industry who believe that because the events are historical, these proceedings are meaningless beyond discovering whether anyone owes someone money. They are wrong.
It is indeed relevant that the alleged conduct occurred under a different management regime, but that does not make it any less vital that we get to the bottom of what actually happened – if for no other reason than to highlight what cannot (or can) be done by a platform around its disclosures – and this case remains all about disclosures.
The plaintiffs believe they were genuinely harmed financially by the alleged structure imposed at Currenex, indeed I have spoken to three LPs who all expressed (with the benefit of hindsight I should stress) various degrees of surprise at how their yield on Currenex (or their win ratio) was so out of line with other venues. The court will decide whether that is the case or not at a later date (this hearing was exclusively about legalities around forming a class action).
Whatever the court decides, however, it would be good to have everyone in the industry understand that the vast majority do not like the idea of preferential treatment for certain LPs. By order type (firm over non-firm especially), absolutely, but by who is paying more bro, or special fees? That is trickier in the eyes of many.
Even more seriously, I cannot find anyone who thinks it is a good idea that a market participant has access to data that provides knowledge of other players’ actions, without that group knowing it. This has always been the most outrageous of the allegations to me – that someone would provide a login to allow administrative access to the trading stack as alleged, is reprehensible, to put it lightly.
Ultimately, if the court finds that nothing happened and the defendants can walk away, fine, that is due process, but the likelihood is it finds thus because it believes there was adequate disclosure – we should not believe as an industry that such alleged activity is acceptable.
If the case is found, we have some sort of legal finding that shows this behaviour to be unacceptable, if it is dismissed, I suggest the case becomes a key feedback point for the industry in next year’s review of the FX Global Code, because the alleged activity would not be fair, and as such should be highlighted in the Code to discourage anyone else from thinking they can do it.
