Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading
Following the publication of Michael Lewis’ new book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt (“Flash Boys”), plaintiffs’ lawyers and US government regulators have increasingly focused their attention on financial institutions participating in high-frequency trading (“HFT”). Less than three weeks after the release of Flash Boys, private plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against 27 financial services firms and 14 national securities exchanges (with additional defendants likely to be named later) alleging that the defendants’ HFT practices in the US equities markets violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a separate action against The CME Group, Inc. (“CME”) and The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago (“CBOT”) containing similar allegations in US derivatives markets. In addition, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) announced that they were actively investigating HFT practices. The New York State Attorney General is currently pursuing an initiative to crack down on what he referred to as ”unseemly practices” in the HFT business. Thus, it is clear that trading firms, brokers, and exchanges engaged in HFT activity are coming under increasing pressure in the US from private litigants, securities regulators and criminal law enforcement authorities. As HFT techniques are increasingly used in non-US markets, the strategies and tactics used by private litigants and regulators in the United States may soon be exported outside of the United States as well. Private Litigation On April 18, 2014, in City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al (“City of Providence”), 1 private plaintiffs sued 12 highfrequency proprietary trading firms, 14 national securities exchanges and 15 brokerage firms in a federal class action for purportedly violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to provide high-frequency proprietary trading firms with material nonpublic information that those firms used to manipulate the United States stock market. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants purported scheme violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs further claim that the brokerage and highfrequency proprietary trading firms violated Exchange Act Section 20A by engaging in insider trading, and that the exchanges violated Exchange Act Section 6(b) by deliberately failing to operate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and in a fair and equitable manner. Significantly, the plaintiffs seek certification not only of a plaintiff class but also a defendant class that they contend includes hundreds of financial firms not currently named in the action. Thus, it is likely that the plaintiffs will attempt to add additional defendants in the case.2 Mayer Brown | Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading The City of Providence case comes on the heels of a separate private class action filed one week earlier against CME and CBOT. 2 In that case, the plaintiffs allege that CBOT and CME charged high-frequency proprietary trading firms for the ability to obtain price and order information before all other market participants, and that they allowed the firms to trade using that purportedly nonpublic information. The plaintiffs further maintain that the defendants charged other market participants for “real time” market data without disclosing that the data had previously been provided to high-frequency proprietary trading firms. According to the plaintiffs, this alleged conduct violates Sections 1, 4, 6, and 9 of the Commodities Exchange Act. SEC, CFTC and FBI Government regulators are also scrutinizing HFT practices. On May 1, 2014, the SEC imposed penalties on The New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”) for a number of violations, including the manner in which it offered “co-location” services. 3 On April 29, 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified before Congress that the SEC has numerous ongoing investigations into practices by high-frequency traders and dark pools. 4 She also explained that high-frequency and algorithmic trading will be a focus of the SEC’s National Exam Program. 5 SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney further warned, in a separate speech to industry members, that, “the Enforcement Division has a number of ongoing investigations into HFT and automated trading to ferret out possible abuses such as market manipulation, spoofing and related issues.” 6 The acting chairman of the CFTC similarly indicated that the agency is reviewing HFT practices to see if they constitute “spoofing” or other manipulative conduct that could violate the Commodities Exchange Act or CFTC rules. 7 On April 4, 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed in Congressional testimony that the Department of Justice was also investigating whether HFT practices violate insider trading laws. 8 The Attorney General’s testimony came a few days after the Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI is investigating HFT related practices, including whether highfrequency proprietary trading firms are using nonpublic information to front run orders placed by other investors or are placing groups of orders and then cancelling them to create the false appearance of market activity. 9 State Regulators State attorneys general have also set their sights on HFT. Reuters reported on May 2, 2014, that the New York State Attorney General’s office is expected to issue subpoenas to exchanges and alternative trading platforms to gather data on the manner in which high-frequency proprietary trading firms obtain information. 10 This planned action is likely part of a larger investigation into HFT that the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, announced in March 2014. 11 In addition, the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sent a survey to 1070 investment advisers in the state, including advisers to hedge funds and private equity firms, asking for information about their HFT practices. 12 The survey includes questions about the use of co-location and direct data feed services. It also asks firms to briefly describe any HFT strategies they employ. Although federal and state authorities have been conducting inquiries into HFT for some time, the publication of Flash Boys, and its attendant publicity have significantly raised the stakes for government investigations. It may also encourage private plaintiffs to file additional actions against high-frequency proprietary trading firms, exchanges and brokerage firms. Market Manipulation Private plaintiffs and regulators will likely focus their attention on high-frequency proprietary trading firms pursuing strategies that resemble3 Mayer Brown | Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading traditionally prohibited forms of market manipulation such as spoofing, layering, marking the close and painting the tape. Spoofing and layering occurs “when a trader creates a false appearance of market activity by entering multiple non-bona fide orders on one side of the market, at generally increasing (or decreasing) prices, in order to move that stock’s price in a direction where the trader intends to induce others to buy (or sell) at a price altered by the non-bona fide orders.” 13 Marking the close is a strategy that “involves the placing and execution of orders shortly before the close of trading on any given day to artificially affect the closing price of a security.” 14 Painting the tape is the placing of “successive, small-amount buy orders in increasing prices to simulate increased demand.” 15 The SEC has long contended that these practices violate Exchange Act Sections 9(b) and 10(b) as well as Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. As recently as April 4, 2014, the SEC imposed an industry bar and monetary sanctions of $1.9 million on the owner of a trading firm for misconduct that included spoofing and layering. 16 “Quote stuffing” and “price fade” are additional HFT practices that may attract attention from regulators and plaintiffs lawyers. Quote stuffing is a strategy that “floods the market with huge numbers of orders and cancellations in rapid succession, … creating a large number of new best bids or offers, each potentially lasting mere microseconds.” 17 This tactic may be used to generate buying or selling interest in certain securities or compromise the trading decisions of other market participants by forcing them to process false order information. 18 Order fade— sometimes referred to as price fade—is a trading practice that involves the rapid cancellation of orders in response to other trades. 19 It results in “volume disappearing immediately after a trade on the same venue.” 20 High-frequency proprietary trading firms that engage in strategies similar to any of these practices may face examination, investigation and perhaps, enforcement action from regulators, in addition to private plaintiff actions. Insider Trading The plaintiffs in City of Providence allege that high-frequency proprietary trading firms engaged in insider trading by using material nonpublic information obtained through colocation and individual direct data feed arrangements with exchanges. Co-location is a service whereby a trading center “rents … space to market participants that enables them to place their servers in close physical proximity to a trading center’s matching engine. Co-location helps minimize … [latency times] between the matching engine of trading centers and the servers of market participants.” 21 Exchanges also sell data feeds that deliver order and trade information directly to individual customers. In addition, exchanges generally report their trades and best-priced orders to the consolidated tape which is widely available to the public. The individual data feeds contain the same information as the consolidated tape and may include additional information such as quotations at prices inferior to an exchange’s best-priced quotations. 22 Significantly, the SEC does not prohibit exchanges from offering co-location and direct data feed services. In fact, it allows and regulates those services. The SEC requires that exchanges offering co-location and direct data feeds do so on terms that are “fair and reasonable,” and not “unreasonably discriminatory.” 23 Exchanges offering co-location services must also have an SEC-approved exchange rule in place governing those services. 24 Moreover, Regulation NMS Rule 603(a) prohibits exchanges from independently transmitting their own data any sooner than they transmitted data to a processor for inclusion in the consolidated tape. 25 The SEC has expressly acknowledged that, under Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS, information in the individual data feeds of exchanges generally reaches market participants faster than the same4 Mayer Brown | Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading information in the consolidated tape because of the time required to consolidate data from multiple exchanges and distribute it to the public. 26 During recent Congressional testimony, Representative Garrett asked SEC Chair Mary Jo White, “Does the use of what you call an exchange data feed which is approved by the SEC, to make changes to your bids, does that … constitute insider trading.” 27 Chairman White responded, “If properly used, no.” 28 High-frequency proprietary trading firms facing allegations of insider trading may be able to use these facts to argue that market information obtained through co-location and direct data feed arrangements is public information . Exchanges must, however, be careful to comply with all applicable rules regarding co-location and direct data feeds. On May 1, 2014, the SEC brought an enforcement action against the NYSE for, among other things, offering co-location without any SEC approved exchange rule in place governing that service. 29 The SEC also brought an enforcement action against the NYSE in 2012 for violating Regulation NMS Rule 603 by providing information to individual data feeds before sending it to the processor for inclusion in the consolidated tape. 30 Order Flow Payments The City of Providence plaintiffs also claim that some brokerage firms failed to obtain best execution for their customer orders and otherwise engaged in securities fraud by routing customer orders to trading venues in exchange for allegedly undisclosed order flow payments. It is important to note, when evaluating this claim, that brokers are usually required to disclose order flow payments. Regulation NMS Rule 606 requires brokers to report quarterly on their order routing and to make those reports available to the public. The reports must include the venues where significant amounts of orders were executed, the broker’s relationship with each venue, and any compensation arrangements like payment for order flow or profit sharing. Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 also generally requires a broker to disclose on trade confirmations it provides to each customer whether it received payment for order flow with respect to US-exchange traded equities. These trade confirmations must also inform the customer that the broker will, upon written request, furnish the source and nature of that order flow compensation. It is critical for brokers to comply with all of these requirements to maximize their defense against claims like those in the City of Providence case and avoid regulatory enforcement action. Of course, brokerage firms must also comply with their duty of best execution. 31 Conclusion Federal and state law enforcement authorities are actively investigating HFT. Private plaintiffs have begun class action litigation against exchanges, brokerage firms and proprietary trading firms engaged in HFT. The private plaintiffs have also signaled their intent to bring HFT related claims against additional financial services firms not currently included in existing actions. Moreover, as HFT techniques are increasingly used in non-US markets, the strategies and tactics of private litigants and regulators in the US may soon be exported abroad. It is critically important in this environment for US equity and derivatives market participants to be mindful of their HFT practices. Highfrequency proprietary trading firms must continue to avoid trading strategies that resemble traditionally prohibited forms of market manipulation. Exchanges should continue to be conscientious about complying with all SEC rules governing co-location and data feed services. Brokerage firms should similarly continue to comply with all applicable regulations requiring disclosure of order flow payments and seeking best execution of5 Mayer Brown | Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading customer orders. All financial services firms that participate in HFT activity will also need experienced counsel to help them respond to increased regulatory inquires and potential private litigation arising from HFT. For more information about the topics raised in this Legal Update, please contact any of the following lawyers. Joseph De Simone +1 212 506 2559 email@example.com Jerome J. Roche +1 202 263 3773 firstname.lastname@example.org Matthew A. Rossi +1 202 263 3374 email@example.com Endnotes 1 City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al, 14-cv-2811 (S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2014) 2 See Braman et al. v. The CME Group, Inc. et al., 14-cv- 02646 (N.D. Ill. April 11, 2014). 3 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014). 4 April 29, 2014 Hearing of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, Oversight of the SEC’s Agenda, Operations, and FY 2015 Budget Request, available at http://financialservices. house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=377131 5 Id., http://www.sec.gov/News/Testimony/Detail/ Testimony/1370541674457. 6 Yin Wilczek, SEC Decision to Seek Admissions Unilateral, Not Open To Negotiation, Head Enforcer Says, Bloomberg BNA White Collar Crime Report, (April 30, 2014). 7 Douwe Miedema, U.S. Futures Regulator CFTC Probing Speed Traders, Reuters, (April 3, 2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/ushedgefunds-speed-trading-cftcidUSBREA321QU20140403. 8 Del Quentin Wilber, Keri Geiger, & Patricia Hurtado, Holder Vows High-Speed Trading Probe to Protect Markets, Bloomberg, (April 4, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-04/holdervows-high-speed-trading-probe-to-protect-markets.html. 9 Scott Patterson & Michael Rothfeld, FBI Investigates HighSpeed Trading, WSJ.com, Mar. 31, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702 304886904579473874181722310. 10 Karen Freifield & Nadia Damouni, Exclusive - New York Attorney General Eyes Exchanges in High Frequency Probe: Sources, Reuters.com, May 2, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/ushighfrequency-nyag-exclusive-idUSBREA4101120140502. 11 A.G. Schneiderman Calls For New Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Advantages Provided by Trading Venues To High Frequency Traders, New York State Attorney General Press Release, March 18, 2014, http://www.ag.ny.gov/ press-release/ag-schneiderman-calls-new-effortseliminate-unfair-advantages-provided-trading-venues. 12 Margaret Collins, Massachusetts Surveys Investment Firms on High-Frequency Trading, Bloomberg (April 2, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04- 02/massachusetts-surveys-investment-firms-on-highfrequency-trading.html; Matthew L. Brown, Galvin Joins the Herd, Presses Massachusetts Advisers on HighFrequency Trading, Boston Business Journal, (April 4, 2014), http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/ bottom_line/2014/04/galvin-joins-the-herd-pressesmassachusetts.html. 13 In the Matter of Biremis Corp. et al. Admin. Proceeding 3- 15136 (December 18, 2012) at 3. See also, In the Matter of Visionary Trading LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15823 (April 4, 2014) at 2, 6. 14 In the Matter of Eric David Wagner et al. Admin. Proceeding 3-14676 (July 2, 2012) at 4. 15 SEC v. Competitive Technologies, Inc., 2005 WL 1719725, *1 (D. Conn. July 21, 2005); In the Matter of John R. Glushko, Admin. Proceeding 3-12888 (March 5, 2008) at 2. 16 In the Matter of Visionary Trading LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15823 (April 4, 2014) at 2, 6. 17 Jonathan Tse, Xiang Lin, and Drew Vincent, Credit Suisse AES Analysis: High Frequency Trading – Measurement, Detection and Response, December 6, 2012, at 2, https://edge.credit-suisse.com/edge/Public/Bulletin/ Servefile.aspx?FileID=23285&m=923226224. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 4 20 Id. 21 SEC Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Exchange Act Release No. 61,358 (January 14, 2010) (the “SEC Concept Release”) at 58. 22 Id. at 22 - 25.6 Mayer Brown | Increased Public and Private Scrutiny of High-Frequency Trading 23 Exchange Act Sections 6(b)(4) and (5); Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS; SEC Concept Release at 26, 58. 24 SEC Concept Release at 58; In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014). 25 Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS; SEC Concept Release at 62. 26 SEC Concept Release at 62. 27 April 29, 2014 Hearing of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, Oversight of the SEC’s Agenda, Operations, and FY 2015 Budget Request, available at, http://financialservices. house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=377131. 28 Id. 29 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014). 30 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15023 (September 14, 2012). 31 Brokers are subject to a duty of best execution, which requires them to seek the best execution reasonably available for their customers’ orders. Best execution is not decided solely based on the best price. A broker seeking best execution must consider other factors in addition to price including, the speed of execution and the likelihood a trade will be executed. Moreover, a broker is not required to evaluate best execution on an order by order basis. To satisfy its duty of best execution, a broker evaluates orders it receives from all customers in the aggregate and periodically assesses which market venues offer the most favorable terms. See SEC Best Execution, http://www.sec.gov/answers/bestex.htm. Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization advising many of the world’s largest companies, including a significant portion of the Fortune 100, FTSE 100, DAX and Hang Seng Index companies and more than half of the world’s largest banks. Our legal services include banking and finance; corporate and securities; litigation and dispute resolution; antitrust and competition; US Supreme Court and appellate matters; employment and benefits; environmental; financial services regulatory & enforcement; government and global trade; intellectual property; real estate; tax; restructuring, bankruptcy and insolvency; and wealth management. Please visit our web site for comprehensive contact information for all Mayer Brown offices. www.mayerbrown.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Any advice expressed herein as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by Mayer Brown LLP to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under US tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then (i) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Mayer Brown LLP) of that transaction or matter, and (ii) such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions. This Mayer Brown publication provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein. © 2014 The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.