Losses due to negative crude prices. Who's responsible?

While i do agree with some points stated here i also want to remind that ibkr took a different way of handling it in the aftermath by compensating all below 0:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-broker-s-computers-and-inflicted-huge-losses

“It's a $113 million mistake on our part"

I don't know if AMP had the same issues (missed to update software and others), but if so, i would not rule out a result partly in favor of the plaintiffs, something along the ibkr compensation line.

I don't know how the amp losses are compounded, in ibkrs case they seem to have been doomed to lose/write off most of it anyway (think of the 9mm that one guy lost).
Maybe Amp has better hopes to recover some money.
 
The relevant questions are:
1. Did AMP correctly report P&L when prices went negative?
2. Did AMP allow clients to submit orders at negative prices?
3. Did AMP properly handle orders when prices went negative?

If the answer to any above or closely related question is no, then AMP may very well be liable for losses.

Taking ownership has nothing to do with it. The lawsuit is business. If there's a decent chance of significant money to win not outweighed by legal costs, risks, and the trouble, then the rational decision is to go for it.
 
That is the difference....

AMP does NOT have any in-house trading platforms. Only 3rd party platforms.

Before being made available to customers, All 3rd Party Platforms complete Conformance Testing with (CQG, Rithmic or Trading Technologies)

CQG, Rithmic and Trading Technologies are CME Certified Partners.

CQG – CME Certified:
https://www.cmegroup.com/partner-services/cqg-inc.html

Rithmic – CME Certified:
https://www.cmegroup.com/partner-services/rithmic-llc.html

Trading Technologies – CME Certified:
https://www.cmegroup.com/partner-services/trading-technologies.html

All AMP Customers are provided Login Credentials and Instructions included in their Initial Live Setup Email for direct access to CQG and Rithmic trading platforms for backup. These have full trading access.

If customers have any issues with any of the 3rd Party Platforms, they can log directly into CQG, Rithmic to manage their trades.

And we provide a 24 Hour Trade desk that our customers can contact us via Live Chat or Phone.

AMP did not do anything wrong.

This is not the type of relationship we have with our customers, but they are forcing us...so this will all be presented in court, if not dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Like I shared on another thread...

Unless you are an airline or Exxon Mobil, the judge may ask you (class action group) why were you in this commodity?? Same with USO...

Judge to class action..."When did you consult your specialized commodity attorney"??
 
Do not see how a self directed trading account could sue for not being informed of anything related to the contract itself. If it was related to an AMP action such as a margin change or liquidation, there at least would be a logical argument. But that is not the case. It is like JC Penny stockholders suing KPMG because JC Penny lost money.

A more rational argument would be that the exchange did not have adequate rules. That a trading halt would have prevented the hit.

However litigation isn't cheap and AMP will unfortunately get hit with the bill unless their business insurance covers it.
 
On a related note, the class-action lawsuit launched against TD Ameritrade for the similar reason as against AMP by the same lawyer is...guess what??

DISMISSED!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/sec...wsuit-over-negative-oil-futures-idUSL1N2IY3F4

Exactly as I predicted. I imagine this lawsuit against AMP would meet the same fate especially if they rule by precedence. TD Ameritrade's platform is in-house and the lawsuit against them is dismissed. AMP's platform is not even in-house, guess what's going to happen to the lawsuit against them?
 
BIG1RED9 said:
Do not see how a self directed trading account could sue for not being informed of anything related to the contract itself. If it was related to an AMP action such as a margin change or liquidation, there at least would be a logical argument. But that is not the case. It is like JC Penny stockholders suing KPMG because JC Penny lost money.

A more rational argument would be that the exchange did not have adequate rules. That a trading halt would have prevented the hit.

However litigation isn't cheap and AMP will unfortunately get hit with the bill unless their business insurance covers it.
More...

Or AMP can countersue for damages and legal costs that they had to incur to defend against this clearly frivolous lawsuit.
 
JSOP said:
Or AMP can countersue for damages and legal costs that they had to incur to defend against this clearly frivolous lawsuit.
More...

Hopefully that was done when they answered and it was clear that is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top