In re: Term Commodities Cotton Futures Litig., 12-cv-5126 (S.D.N.Y.)
In this class action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manipulated the prices of the May 2011 and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 Futures Contract in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. (“CEA”) and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §2 et seq. (“Sherman Act”).
The Class is defined as follows:
All persons, corporations and other legal entities that (a) purchased between March 30 and May 6, 2011 a May 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position in such contract, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (b) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the May 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between March 30 and May 6; or (c) purchased between June 7 and July 7, 2011, a July 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position therein, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (d) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the July 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between June 7 and July 7, 2011. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent or employee of any Defendant, and any co-conspirator.
On September 30, 2020, the Court (the Honorable Andrew L. Carter Jr.) denied Defendants motions for summary judgment.
On February 17, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for class certification. On July 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition that sought immediate review of the Honorable Andrew L. Carter Jr.’s decision.
On May 21, 2026, the Court asked the parties to be prepared to try this class action between November 16, 2026 and April 12, 2027. On August 27, 2026, the Honorable Andrew L. Carter Jr. denied Defendants’ motion for decertification and denied Defendants’ limited motion to compel arbitration (which involved, essentially, only two Class members).
On September 3, 2026, the Parties submitted a joint status report. Therein, Class Counsel contends that all recent subpoenas purported by Defendants to have been served on various Class Members are invalid and ineffective. This is because, among other reasons, they were served after the deadline for making service. They were served without providing proper pre-notice to Class Counsel, and they were served without providing any post-notice for Class Counsel until after the Court ordered deadline for conducting this discovery had passed. Class Counsel intend to seek relief from the Court, and Class Counsel’s understanding is that Defendants have agreed not to enforce these subpoenas pending a ruling by the Court.
The Firm is Lead Counsel for the Class. For further information please contact Chris McGrath (cmcgrath@lshllp.com).
