leexy
2021-11-19
Life
Robinhood, others win dismissal of meme stock 'short squeeze' lawsuit
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
1
2
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":876378256,"tweetId":"876378256","gmtCreate":1637278066077,"gmtModify":1637278066197,"author":{"id":3563930588845537,"idStr":"3563930588845537","authorId":3563930588845537,"authorIdStr":"3563930588845537","name":"leexy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/99683f45d54760b438ec2c1856261ad3","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":25,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Life</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Life</p></body></html>","text":"Life","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/876378256","repostId":2184891765,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2184891765","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1637276701,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2184891765?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-11-19 07:05","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Robinhood, others win dismissal of meme stock 'short squeeze' lawsuit","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2184891765","media":"Reuters","summary":"(Reuters) - A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Robinhood Markets Inc and other brokerages of ","content":"<p>(Reuters) - A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Robinhood Markets Inc and other brokerages of wrongly preventing retail investors from buying fast-rising \"meme stocks,\" triggering a sell-off.</p>\n<p>In a decision on Wednesday, Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the federal court in Miami found no proof of an illegal conspiracy to cut off social media-fueled trading of GameStop Corp, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc and six other stocks.</p>\n<p>Investors in the proposed class action said the brokerages and Citadel Securities LLC colluded to halt a \"short squeeze\" that was causing billions of dollars of losses for Citadel and hedge funds that were betting on falling stock prices.</p>\n<p>The investors said the late January trading curbs left them \"no option\" but to sell at plummeting prices.</p>\n<p>But Altonaga said in her 51-page decision that the investors fell \"far short\" of providing direct evidence of an antitrust conspiracy, despite emails among senior Robinhood and Citadel executives that lent \"some credence\" to their claims.</p>\n<p>\"(A)re a few vague and ambiguous emails between two firms in an otherwise lawful, ongoing business relationship enough to nudge plaintiffs' claims across the line from conceivable to plausible?\" Altonaga wrote. \"The court thinks not.\"</p>\n<p>Altonaga also dismissed related claims against E*Trade Financial Corp and four other defendants.</p>\n<p>Frank Schirripa, a lawyer for the investors, said on Thursday they were disappointed but expected to amend their complaint in the next few weeks.</p>\n<p>Robinhood said in a statement: \"This further confirms that the conspiracy theory of collusion has no basis in fact.\"</p>\n<p>Citadel said it was pleased with the decision. E*Trade declined to comment. A separate proposed class action accuses Robinhood of negligence.</p>\n<p>The meme stock frenzy has been fueled by investors using online forums such as Reddit and <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a>.</p>\n<p>Many traded from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic, through brokerages that had eliminated trading commissions.</p>\n<p>Last month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a report that markets essentially worked well during the volatility. The regulator did not suggest policy changes.</p>\n<p>The case is In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 21-md-02989.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Robinhood, others win dismissal of meme stock 'short squeeze' lawsuit</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nRobinhood, others win dismissal of meme stock 'short squeeze' lawsuit\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-11-19 07:05 GMT+8 <a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robinhood-others-win-dismissal-meme-192120340.html><strong>Reuters</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>(Reuters) - A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Robinhood Markets Inc and other brokerages of wrongly preventing retail investors from buying fast-rising \"meme stocks,\" triggering a sell-off.\nIn...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robinhood-others-win-dismissal-meme-192120340.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线","BBBY":"3B家居","BK4567":"ESG概念","BK4547":"WSB热门概念","BK4539":"次新股","GME":"游戏驿站","HOOD":"Robinhood"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robinhood-others-win-dismissal-meme-192120340.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2184891765","content_text":"(Reuters) - A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Robinhood Markets Inc and other brokerages of wrongly preventing retail investors from buying fast-rising \"meme stocks,\" triggering a sell-off.\nIn a decision on Wednesday, Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the federal court in Miami found no proof of an illegal conspiracy to cut off social media-fueled trading of GameStop Corp, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc and six other stocks.\nInvestors in the proposed class action said the brokerages and Citadel Securities LLC colluded to halt a \"short squeeze\" that was causing billions of dollars of losses for Citadel and hedge funds that were betting on falling stock prices.\nThe investors said the late January trading curbs left them \"no option\" but to sell at plummeting prices.\nBut Altonaga said in her 51-page decision that the investors fell \"far short\" of providing direct evidence of an antitrust conspiracy, despite emails among senior Robinhood and Citadel executives that lent \"some credence\" to their claims.\n\"(A)re a few vague and ambiguous emails between two firms in an otherwise lawful, ongoing business relationship enough to nudge plaintiffs' claims across the line from conceivable to plausible?\" Altonaga wrote. \"The court thinks not.\"\nAltonaga also dismissed related claims against E*Trade Financial Corp and four other defendants.\nFrank Schirripa, a lawyer for the investors, said on Thursday they were disappointed but expected to amend their complaint in the next few weeks.\nRobinhood said in a statement: \"This further confirms that the conspiracy theory of collusion has no basis in fact.\"\nCitadel said it was pleased with the decision. E*Trade declined to comment. A separate proposed class action accuses Robinhood of negligence.\nThe meme stock frenzy has been fueled by investors using online forums such as Reddit and Twitter.\nMany traded from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic, through brokerages that had eliminated trading commissions.\nLast month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a report that markets essentially worked well during the volatility. The regulator did not suggest policy changes.\nThe case is In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 21-md-02989.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":295,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/876378256"}
精彩评论