Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 1 of 136
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
`
`IN RE:
`
`JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
`TRADING LITIGATION
`____________________________________/
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`ALL ANTITRUST ACTIONS
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`[REDACTED VERSION]
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 2 of 136
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... (cid:3425) 
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................... (cid:3429) 
`PARTIES ......................................................................................................................................... (cid:3430) 
`A.
`Plaintiff Angel Guzman ...................................................................................................... (cid:3430) 
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiff Burke Minahan ...................................................................................................... (cid:3431) 
`
`Plaintiff Christopher Miller ................................................................................................. (cid:3432) 
`
`Plaintiff Terell Sterling ........................................................................................................ (cid:3432) 
`
`Introducing Brokerage Defendants ..................................................................................... (cid:3433) 
`
`Self-Clearing Brokerage Defendants ................................................................................. (cid:3425)(cid:3425) 
`
`Market Maker Defendants ................................................................................................. (cid:3425)(cid:3427) 
`
`Clearing Defendants ........................................................................................................... (cid:3425)(cid:3427) 
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS ......................................................................................... (cid:3425)(cid:3428) 
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................... (cid:3425)(cid:3429) 
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .......................................................................................................... (cid:3425)(cid:3432) 
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ (cid:3425)(cid:3427)(cid:3425) 
`PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT ....................................................................................................... (cid:3425)(cid:3427)(cid:3427) 
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ........................................................................................................ (cid:3425)(cid:3427)(cid:3428) 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 3 of 136
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Angel Guzman, Burke Minahan, Christopher Miller, and Terell Sterling, on
`
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this Class Action Complaint against
`
`Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about individual investors (the “Retail Investors”) who invested their
`
`hard-earned money in the stock market and were stripped of their rights to control their own
`
`investments. Defendants and other market players hatched an anticompetitive scheme to restrict
`
`Retail Investors’ access to the stock market and prevent the market from operating freely and
`
`fairly. Defendants did so to protect each other, and to stop the hemorrhaging losses incurred by
`
`the Market Maker Defendants as a result of their accumulation of large short positions.
`
`2.
`
`Retail Investors are individual investors who make investments on their own
`
`behalf. Retail Investors purchase securities such as stocks, bonds, options, mutual funds, and
`
`exchange traded funds (ETFs). They execute their personal trades through websites, apps and
`
`trading platforms provided by brokerage firms or other investment service providers. Retail
`
`Investors tend to invest smaller amounts, as compared to institutional investors, and have little
`
`ability to influence market prices or market dynamics on their own.
`
`3.
`
`Historically, Retail Investors paid a fee or commission to their brokerages for
`
`executing personal trades. Today, most brokerages do not charge their investors a fee per
`
`transaction, rather, they earn revenue through rebates, kickbacks and other payments from
`
`market makers. These payments are collectively known as payment for order flow.
`
`4.
`
`When a Retail Investor places a trade through a brokerage such as Robinhood, the
`
`brokerage routes the order to a market maker for processing and execution. When a market
`
`maker executes an order, it makes a profit on the spread between the “bid” price, the price at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 4 of 136
`
`which a market maker is willing to buy a security, and the “ask” price, the price at which a
`
`market maker is willing to sell the security. While the market maker typically earns a modest
`
`amount on each share of an order it fulfills, by processing a vast number of orders, market
`
`makers can earn a substantial profit.
`
`5.
`
`For every order, there must be a buyer and a seller. Market makers, through a
`
`process called “internalization,” typically will take the other side of a transaction for orders
`
`routed to them. For example, if a buy order is routed to a market maker and there is no sell order
`
`available, market makers execute the order, either by selling a security in its inventory or by
`
`selling short.
`
`6.
`
`Leading up to January 27, 2021, based on their research and observations, the
`
`Retail Investors, through stock brokerages, including the Brokerage Defendants, invested in
`
`certain stocks—GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC), Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY),
`
`BlackBerry (BB), Express (EXPR), Koss (KOSS), Nokia (NOK), Tootsie Roll Industries (TR),
`
`and Trivago NV (TRVG) (the “Relevant Securities”)—that they believed would increase and
`
`serve as good investment opportunities.
`
`7.
`
`As more Retail Investors bought the Relevant Securities and these orders were
`
`routed to market makers, such as Citadel Securities LLC (“Citadel Securities”), the market
`
`makers acquired substantial short positions in the Relevant Securities, and were thus exposed to
`
`massive potential losses as the prices of the Relevant Securities increased.
`
`8.
`
`“Short” sellers borrow securities believing that that price of the securities will
`
`decrease. If the price of the security in fact drops, a short seller buys the security back at a lower
`
`price and returns it to the lender. The difference between the sell price and the buy price is the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 5 of 136
`
`profit. Short sellers essentially bet on a security’s failure or decline rather than its success or
`
`increase.
`
`9.
`
`Along with market makers such as Citadel Securities, several large hedge funds
`
`and investment firms, including Maplelane Capital, LLC, Melvin Capital Management LP, and
`
`others, established massive short positions in the Relevant Securities.
`
`10.
`
`In so doing, the hedge funds, market makers, and other unnamed co-conspirators
`
`made highly speculative bets. When the Relevant Securities increased in value, due in large part
`
`to Retail Investors purchasing the Relevant Securities, hedge funds were exposed to massive
`
`potential losses of several billion dollars.
`
`11.
`
`As more Retail Investors bought the Relevant Securities, those orders were routed
`
`to Citadel Securities through the Brokerage Defendants. Citadel Securities took the other side of
`
`the buy orders placed by the Retail Investors, i.e., Citadel Securities sold the Relevant Securities
`
`short in order to complete the routed retail investors’ orders. Citadel Securities, as it took the
`
`other side of more and more buy orders, acquired a substantial short position in the Relevant
`
`Securities, and was similarly exposed to massive potential losses.
`
`12.
`
`As Retail Investors and others continued to purchase the Relevant Securities, the
`
`hedge funds, Clearing Defendants, Citadel Securities and unnamed co-conspirators were caught
`
`in a classic “short squeeze.” A “short squeeze” occurs when a stock or other asset rises sharply in
`
`value, distressing short positions. Short selling investors are faced with a rapid increase in the
`
`shorted asset’s value, exposing the short seller to increased and theoretically limitless loss. As the
`
`price of the asset rises, short sellers face pressure to buy back stock to exit their short positions to
`
`mitigate their losses. In the absence of intervention, as short sellers exit their short positions to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 6 of 136
`
`buy back stocks to cover their shorts, their repurchase of stock further increases the price of the
`
`stock, compounding their losses.
`
`13.
`
`On January 27, 2021, Citadel Securities executed short trades in the Relevant
`
`Securities in the after-hours session to develop larger short positions in the Relevant Securities in
`
`anticipation of the Relevant Securities declining in price on January 28, 2021.
`
`14.
`
`The Brokerage Defendants, along with Citadel Securities and the Clearing
`
`Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) conspired to prevent the Retail Investors from
`
`purchasing shares of the Relevant Securities. On January 28, 2021, the Brokerage Defendants
`
`disabled all buy features for the Relevant Securities on their platforms thereby stripping the
`
`demand-side and halting the price appreciation in the Relevant Securities. Defendants’ action
`
`drove the stock prices down and forced Retail Investors to sell shares of their Relevant
`
`Securities. At the point in time where the Brokerage Defendants engaged in this conspiratorial
`
`effort to thwart buyers, the Relevant Securities had appreciated to unprecedented levels. Such
`
`highly appreciated stocks are generally sensitive to reversals in price and can make sharp price
`
`movements lower when a reversal occurs. Defendants were aware of this dynamic and the
`
`propensity of the Relevant Securities to drop substantially as a result of the Defendants’
`
`collective action to prevent customers from buying the Relevant Securities.
`
`15.
`
`In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Brokerage Defendants, operating trading
`
`platforms through websites and mobile applications—restricted Retail Investors from purchasing
`
`the Relevant Securities on their platforms and thereby halted the price appreciation in the
`
`Relevant Securities. This conduct predictably and foreseeably caused a loss of confidence in the
`
`Relevant Securities and an ensuing panic selloff by the Retail Investors. The Brokerage
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 7 of 136
`
`Defendants did this to ensure that the stock prices for the Relevant Securities did not appreciate
`
`further and would instead sharply decrease in furtherance of the conspiracy.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants and their co-conspirators forced Retail Investors to choose between
`
`selling the Relevant Securities at a lower price or holding their rapidly declining positions in the
`
`Relevant Securities. Defendants did so with the propose of driving down the prices of the
`
`Relevant Securities. By forcing the Retail Investors to sell their Relevant Securities at lower
`
`prices than they otherwise would have, Defendants artificially constricted the price appreciation
`
`of the Relevant Securities, and reduced the price of the Relevant Securities that Retail Investors
`
`either sold or held below the prices that they would have otherwise obtained in a competitive
`
`market free of collusion.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf as well on behalf of the members
`
`of the Class to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees arising from Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1, as well as any and all equitable relief afforded to them under the federal laws pleaded herein.
`
`18.
`
`This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
`
`the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
`
`19.
`
`This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)
`
`and 1367, in that this is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of
`
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which some members of the proposed Class
`
`are citizens of a state different from some Defendants.
`
`20.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and
`
`(d), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 8 of 136
`
`District, a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce was carried out in this
`
`District, and one or more of the Defendants reside in this District or are licensed to do business
`
`in this District. Each Defendant has transacted business, maintained substantial contacts, or
`
`committed overt acts in furtherance of the illegal scheme and conspiracy throughout the United
`
`States, including in this District. The conspiracy occurred in this judicial District. The conspiracy
`
`has been directed at, and has had the intended effect of, causing injury to persons residing in,
`
`located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`21.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because, each
`
`Defendant: (a) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this District; (b)
`
`transacted in substantial amounts of the Relevant Securities throughout the United States; (c) had
`
`substantial contacts with the United States, including this District; and/or (d) engaged in an
`
`antitrust conspiracy that was directed at and had a direct, foreseeable, and intended effect of
`
`causing injury to the business or property of persons residing in, located in, or doing business
`
`throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`22.
`
`The activities of the Defendants and all co-conspirators—whether unnamed or as
`
`of yet unknown—as described herein, were within the flow of, were intended to, and did have
`
`direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effects on the foreign and interstate commerce of
`
`the United States.
`
`A. Plaintiff Angel Guzman
`
`PARTIES
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Angel Guzman (“Guzman”) is a resident of the State of New York.
`
`Guzman purchased shares of BlackBerry Ltd., GameStop Corp., and Nokia Corp. on Robinhood
`
`and held said shares as of the close of market on January 27, 2021.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 9 of 136
`
`24.
`
`On January 28, 2021, Guzman was prohibited from purchasing the Relevant
`
`Securities on Robinhood due to the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein.
`
`25.
`
`Consequently, on January 28, 2021, in an effort to purchase the Relevant
`
`Securities, Guzman applied for an account with Charles Schwab (“Schwab”) because Schwab
`
`was not prohibiting its customers from purchasing the Relevant Securities. Yet, on January 28,
`
`2021, Guzman was unable to purchase any of the Relevant Securities on Schwab due to the
`
`amount of time required to open the account.
`
`26.
`
`From January 29, 2021 through February 4, 2021, Guzman was subject to the
`
`trading limitations Robinhood imposed on certain of the Relevant Securities.
`
`27.
`
`As a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, Guzman sold shares of
`
`BlackBerry Ltd., GameStop Corp., and Nokia Corp. on Robinhood during the Class Period.
`
`B. Plaintiff Burke Minahan
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Burke Minahan (“Minahan”) is a resident of the State of Minnesota.
`
`Minahan purchased shares of BlackBerry Ltd., GameStop Corp., and Nokia Corp. on Robinhood
`
`and held said shares as of the close of market on January 27, 2021.
`
`29.
`
`On January 28, 2021, Minahan was prohibited from purchasing the Relevant
`
`Securities on Robinhood as a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein.
`
`30.
`
`Consequently, on January 28, 2021, in an effort to purchase the Relevant
`
`Securities, Minahan applied for an account with Fidelity because Fidelity was not prohibiting its
`
`customers from purchasing the Relevant Securities. Minahan was subsequently able to purchase
`
`a share of GameStop Corp. on Fidelity that day.
`
`31.
`
`From January 29, 2021 through February 4, 2021, Minahan was subject to the
`
`trading limitations Robinhood imposed on certain of the Relevant Securities.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 10 of 136
`
`32.
`
`As a result of the anticompetitive conduct described herein, Minahan sold shares
`
`of BlackBerry Ltd., GameStop Corp. and Nokia Corp. on Robinhood during the Class Period.
`
`C. Plaintiff Christopher Miller
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Christopher Miller (“Miller”) is a resident of the State of Kansas. Miller
`
`purchased shares of GameStop Corp. on Robinhood and held said shares as of the close of
`
`market on January 27, 2021.
`
`34.
`
`On January 28, 2021, Miller was prohibited from purchasing the Relevant
`
`Securities on Robinhood due to the anticompetitive conduct described herein.
`
`35.
`
`Consequently, on January 28, 2021, in an effort to purchase the Relevant
`
`Securities, Miller applied to open accounts with Fidelity and TD Ameritrade (“TD”), because
`
`these firms were not prohibiting their customers from purchasing the Relevant Securities. Yet, on
`
`January 28, 2021, Miller was unable to purchase any of the Relevant Securities on Fidelity or TD
`
`due to the amount of time required to setup the accounts.
`
`36.
`
`From January 29, 2021 through February 4, 2021, Miller was subject to the
`
`trading limitations Robinhood imposed on certain of the Relevant Securities.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, Miller sold shares of
`
`GameStop on Robinhood during the Class Period.
`
`D. Plaintiff Terell Sterling
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Terell Sterling (“Sterling”) is a resident of the State of California.
`
`Sterling purchased shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., GameStop
`
`Corp. on Robinhood and held said shares as of the close of market on January 27, 2021.
`
`39.
`
`On January 28, 2021, Sterling was prohibited from purchasing the Relevant
`
`Securities on Robinhood due to the anticompetitive conduct described herein.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 11 of 136
`
`40.
`
`From January 29, 2021 through February 4, 2021, Sterling was subject to the
`
`trading limitations Robinhood imposed on certain of the Relevant Securities.
`
`41.
`
`As a further result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, Sterling sold
`
`shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., BlackBerry Ltd. and GameStop Corp. on
`
`Robinhood during the Class Period.
`
`E. Introducing Brokerage Defendants
`
`a. Defendant Ally Financial Inc.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant Ally Financial Inc. (“Ally”) is a Delaware corporation, with its
`
`headquarters located at Ally Detroit Center 500, Woodward Ave., Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.
`
`Ally provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets.
`
`During the relevant period, Ally restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability of investors to
`
`purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein, Apex Clearing Corporation
`
`served as Ally’s clearing firm.
`
`b. Defendant Alpaca Securities LLC
`
`43.
`
`Defendant Alpaca Securities LLC (“Alpaca”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company, with its headquarters at 20 N. San Mateo Drive Suite 10, San Mateo, California.
`
`Alpaca provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial
`
`assets. During the relevant period, Alpaca restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability of
`
`investors to purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein, Electronic
`
`Transaction Clearing served as Alpaca’s clearing firm.
`
`c. Defendant Dough
`
`44.
`
`Defendant Dough LLC (“Dough”) is a Delaware limited liability company and
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Tastytrade, Inc., with its headquarters located at 327 N. Aberdeen
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 12 of 136
`
`Street, Chicago, Illinois. Dough provides financial services including an electronic trading
`
`platform to trade financial assets. During the relevant period, Dough restricted and/or otherwise
`
`limited the ability of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated
`
`herein, Apex Clearing Corporation served as Dough’s clearing firm.
`
`d. Defendant Public.com
`
`45.
`
`Defendant Open To The Public Investing, Inc. (“Public.com”) is a New York
`
`corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Public Holdings Inc., headquartered at 1 State Street
`
`Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New York.
`
`46.
`
`Public.com provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to
`
`trade financial assets. During the relevant period, Public.com restricted and/or otherwise limited
`
`the ability of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein,
`
`Apex Clearing Corporation served as Public.com’s clearing firm.
`
`e. Defendant SoFi
`
`47.
`
`Defendant SoFi Securities LLC (“SoFi”) is a New York limited liability company
`
`headquartered at 234 1st Street, Building A, Suite 4700, San Francisco, California. SoFi provides
`
`financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets. During the
`
`relevant period, SoFi restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability of investors to purchase the
`
`Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein, Apex Clearing Corporation served as
`
`SoFi’s clearing firm.
`
`f. Defendant Stash
`
`48.
`
`Defendant Stash Financial, Inc. (“Stash”) is a Delaware corporation and owner of
`
`the application Stash, headquartered at 500 7th Avenue,18th Floor, New York, New York. Stash
`
`provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 13 of 136
`
`During the relevant period, Stash restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability of investors to
`
`purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein, Apex Clearing Corporation
`
`served as Stash’s clearing firm.
`
`g. Defendant Tastyworks
`
`49.
`
`Defendant Tastyworks, Inc. (“Tastyworks”) is a Delaware corporation and
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Tastytrade, Inc., headquartered at 1000 West Fulton Market Street,
`
`Suite 220, Chicago, Illinois.
`
`50.
`
`Tastyworks provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to
`
`trade financial assets. During the relevant period, Tastyworks restricted and/or otherwise limited
`
`the ability of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein,
`
`Apex Clearing Corporation served as Tastyworks clearing firm.
`
`h. Defendant Webull
`
`51.
`
`Defendant Webull Financial LLC (“Webull”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company headquartered at 44 Wall Street, Ste. 501, New York, New York. Webull provides
`
`financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets. During the
`
`relevant period, Webull restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability of investors to purchase the
`
`Relevant Securities. At all relevant times stated herein, Apex Clearing Corporation served as
`
`Webull’s clearing firm.
`
`F. Self-Clearing Brokerage Defendants
`
`a. Defendant E*Trade
`
`52.
`
`Defendant E*Trade Securities LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, with
`
`its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington, Texas.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 14 of 136
`
`company, with its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington, Texas.
`
`54.
`
`During the relevant period, E*Trade restricted and/or otherwise limited the ability
`
`of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities.
`
`55.
`
`At all relevant times stated herein, E*Trade acted as a self-clearing broker.
`
`b. Defendant Interactive Brokers
`
`56.
`
`Defendant Interactive Brokers LLC (“Interactive Brokers”) is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company headquartered at 1 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut. Interactive
`
`Brokers provides financial services including an electronic trading platform to trade financial
`
`assets. During the relevant period, Interactive Brokers restricted and/or otherwise limited the
`
`ability of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities.
`
`57.
`
`At all relevant times stated herein, Interactive Brokers acted as a self-clearing
`
`broker.
`
`c. Defendant Robinhood
`
`58.
`
`Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Defendant Robinhood Markets,
`
`Inc. is the corporate parent of and manages, controls and directs the affairs of Defendants
`
`Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. It is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc.
`
`60.
`
`Robinhood Financial LLC provides financial services including an electronic
`
`trading platform to trade financial assets.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 15 of 136
`
`with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary,
`
`Florida. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Financial LLC and
`
`Robinhood Markets, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “Robinhood.”
`
`63.
`
`During the relevant period, Robinhood restricted and/or otherwise limited the
`
`ability of investors to purchase the Relevant Securities.
`
`64.
`
`At all relevant times stated herein, Robinhood acted as a self-clearing broker.
`
`G. Market Maker Defendants
`
`a. Defendant Citadel Securities
`
`65.
`
`Defendant Citadel Securities LLC is a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
`
`66.
`
`Citadel Securities took short positions in the Relevant Securities. During the
`
`relevant period, Citadel Securities actively participated in the conspiracy and the wrongful acts
`
`alleged herein.
`
`H. Clearing Defendants
`
`a. Defendant Apex
`
`67.
`
`Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation (“Apex”) is a New York corporation
`
`headquartered at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300, Dallas, Texas.
`
`68.
`
`Apex Clearing Holdings LLC and PEAK(cid:3430) Investments LLC are the parent
`
`corporations of Apex.
`
`69.
`
`During the relevant period, Defendant Apex participated in the conspiracy and the
`
`wrongful acts alleged herein.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 16 of 136
`
`b. Defendant ETC
`
`70.
`
`Defendant Electronic Transaction Clearing, Inc. (“ETC”) is a Delaware
`
`Corporation located at 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1450, Los Angeles, California.
`
`71.
`
`Apex Clearing Holdings LLC and PEAK(cid:3430) Investments LLC are the parent
`
`corporations of ETC.
`
`72.
`
`During the relevant period, Defendant ETC participated in the conspiracy and the
`
`wrongful acts alleged herein.
`
`c. Defendant PEAK 6
`
`73.
`
`Defendant PEAK6 Investments LLC (“PEAK6”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company located at 141 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60640.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`During the relevant period, PEAK6 is the parent corporation of Apex and ETC.
`
`PEAK6 exercised direction and control over Defendants Apex and ETC during
`
`the Relevant Period.
`
`76.
`
`During the relevant period, Defendant PEAK6 participated in the conspiracy and
`
`the wrongful acts alleged herein.
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
`
`77.
`
`The anticompetitive and unlawful acts alleged against the Defendants in this class
`
`action complaint were authorized, ordered or performed by the Defendants’ respective officers,
`
`agents, employees, representatives, or shareholders while actively engaged in the management,
`
`direction, or control of the Defendants’ businesses or affairs. The respective Defendant parent
`
`entities identified herein exercise dominance and control over all of their respective Defendant
`
`subsidiary entities and those respective subsidiaries have a unity of purpose and interest with
`
`their respective parents.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 17 of 136
`
`78.
`
`To the extent any respective parent Defendant did not keep a tight rein on its
`
`respective subsidiary Defendant(s), it had the power to assert control over the subsidiary if the
`
`latter failed to act in the parent’s best interest. The respective parent Defendants and their
`
`respective subsidiaries, affiliates and agents thus operated as a single unified entity.
`
`79.
`
`The Defendants’ agents operated under the explicit and apparent authority of their
`
`principals.
`
`80.
`
`Various persons and/or firms not named as Defendants herein may have
`
`participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged herein and may have performed acts and
`
`made statements in furtherance thereof.
`
`81.
`
`Each Defendant acted as the principal, agent, or joint venture of, or for other
`
`Defendants with respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged herein.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for damages on behalf of themselves and all others
`
`similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Class:
`
`All persons or entities in the United States that held shares of stock or call options in
`GameStop Corp. (GME), AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC), Bed Bath &
`Beyond Inc. (BBBY), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), Express, Inc. (EXPR), Koss Corporation
`(KOSS), Nokia Corp. (NOK), Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR), or Trivago N.V. (TRVG)
`as of the close of market on January 27, 2021, and sold the above-listed securities from
`January 28, 2021 up to and including February 4, 2021 (the “Class Period”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 18 of 136
`
`83.
`
`This Class definition specifically excludes the following person or entities:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`any of the Defendants named herein;
`
`any of the Defendants’ co-conspirators;
`
`any of Defendants’ parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates;
`
`any of Defendants’ officers, directors, management, employees, or agents;
`
`all governmental entities; and
`
`the judges and chambers staff in this case, as well as any members of their
`
`immediate families.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of Class members, because such
`
`information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that,
`
`due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, there are millions of Class members
`
`geographically dispersed throughout the United States and elsewhere, such that joinder of all
`
`Class members in the prosecution of this action is impracticable.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of their fellow Class members because
`
`Plaintiffs and all Class members were damaged by the same wrongful conduct of Defendants as
`
`alleged herein, and the relief sought herein is common to all members of the Class.
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent