Barclays fails to win dismissal of NY 'dark pool' lawsuit is an article that I thought was interesting when it comes to business and law. It talks with reference to the two different sides and what they are trying to accomplish when it comes to the aspects of dark pools in stock markets. Stempel describes dark pools as a way of discretely trade shares, without all the investors being informed. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is bringing up a lawsuit against Barclays. Barclays is a bank that is enthusiastic on the subject of people going to them and making them their bank. Several of their values are respect, integrity and excellence. The lawsuit is taking place in New York, and on Friday the thirteenth, a New York judge, “rejected Barclays
…show more content…
13, 2015). The main issue at hand is the lying and deceit of the dark pools at Barclays because Kornreich is not disputing the lawfulness of high-speed trading, (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). Kornreich has still not ruled whether the validity of the arguments of the attorney general are legitimate or even Barclays’ against the lawsuit, but she will later on, (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). In fact, Kornreich decided to “[dismiss] a claim that Schneiderman brought under a separate state law,” (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). This could mean that the law was irrelevant, which is of course in favor of Barclays, as they are not being sued for two irregularities, but rather only one. Barclays has decided to stay quiet for the moment, as they are the ones being sued. It is only a matter of time until they do actually speak up. The decision to stay quiet is rational because it is harder to take back words, when they are published, actually quite impossible. If certain aspects are not discussed right away, the playing field could be left more open to different possibilities and
13, 2015). The main issue at hand is the lying and deceit of the dark pools at Barclays because Kornreich is not disputing the lawfulness of high-speed trading, (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). Kornreich has still not ruled whether the validity of the arguments of the attorney general are legitimate or even Barclays’ against the lawsuit, but she will later on, (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). In fact, Kornreich decided to “[dismiss] a claim that Schneiderman brought under a separate state law,” (Stempel, Feb. 13, 2015). This could mean that the law was irrelevant, which is of course in favor of Barclays, as they are not being sued for two irregularities, but rather only one. Barclays has decided to stay quiet for the moment, as they are the ones being sued. It is only a matter of time until they do actually speak up. The decision to stay quiet is rational because it is harder to take back words, when they are published, actually quite impossible. If certain aspects are not discussed right away, the playing field could be left more open to different possibilities and