Exclusive: British Court Mostly Allows ThinkMarkets Counterclaims against IS Prime

A British court rejected in a second hearing the IS Prime’s
attempts to strike out the vast majority of ThinkMarkets’ counterclaims,
according to court documents exclusively seen by Finance Magnates.

One of the counterclaims noted that the Defendants ‘had
agreed to execute all trades in Applicable Products during the Applicable
Period exclusively with IS Prime.’ “A consequence of the Qualified Exclusivity
Agreement was that the Defendants were not (save in certain circumstances) free
to execute trades with third parties even where the third party was offering
better prices,” court documents said.

Moreover, in paragraph 70, the counterclaim reads: “The
Defendants are entitled to and seek rescission of trades in respect of which a
secret profit was paid or received. The Defendants are entitled to and seek an
account of all secret profits from IS Prime and ISFE 21. IS Prime and ISFE 21
are constructive trustees for these purposes and the Defendants seek recovery
of money held on trust, restitution, damages and/or an account of profits by
way of remedy.”

Paragraphs 66 to 70 of the Re-Amended Defence and
Counterclaim were struck out. However, Paragraph 71 was not struck out and nor
is summary judgment given on IS Prime’s pleaded response to that paragraph.

A ThinkMarkets spokesperson said: “ThinkMarkets welcomes
that IS Prime’s attempts to strike out the vast majority of its counterclaims
have been rejected, and is focussed on the next stage of the proceedings.”

Case Background

As reported by Finance Magnates, the claimant, IS Prime, alleged that from about September 18, 2018, in violation of a  Liquidity  Addendum signed between the companies after the  acquisition  of Think Liquidity by IS Risk Analytics, the defendants used a broker or brokers for business they were required to give exclusively to the claimant until January 17, 2020.

According to the claimant, it suffered approximately $15 million in losses and is seeking damages, an account, and an inquiry into the losses. The claims were almost entirely dismissed in a preliminary court decision earlier this year.

A British court rejected in a second hearing the IS Prime’s
attempts to strike out the vast majority of ThinkMarkets’ counterclaims,
according to court documents exclusively seen by Finance Magnates.

One of the counterclaims noted that the Defendants ‘had
agreed to execute all trades in Applicable Products during the Applicable
Period exclusively with IS Prime.’ “A consequence of the Qualified Exclusivity
Agreement was that the Defendants were not (save in certain circumstances) free
to execute trades with third parties even where the third party was offering
better prices,” court documents said.

Moreover, in paragraph 70, the counterclaim reads: “The
Defendants are entitled to and seek rescission of trades in respect of which a
secret profit was paid or received. The Defendants are entitled to and seek an
account of all secret profits from IS Prime and ISFE 21. IS Prime and ISFE 21
are constructive trustees for these purposes and the Defendants seek recovery
of money held on trust, restitution, damages and/or an account of profits by
way of remedy.”

Paragraphs 66 to 70 of the Re-Amended Defence and
Counterclaim were struck out. However, Paragraph 71 was not struck out and nor
is summary judgment given on IS Prime’s pleaded response to that paragraph.

A ThinkMarkets spokesperson said: “ThinkMarkets welcomes
that IS Prime’s attempts to strike out the vast majority of its counterclaims
have been rejected, and is focussed on the next stage of the proceedings.”

Case Background

As reported by Finance Magnates, the claimant, IS Prime, alleged that from about September 18, 2018, in violation of a  Liquidity  Addendum signed between the companies after the  acquisition  of Think Liquidity by IS Risk Analytics, the defendants used a broker or brokers for business they were required to give exclusively to the claimant until January 17, 2020.

According to the claimant, it suffered approximately $15 million in losses and is seeking damages, an account, and an inquiry into the losses. The claims were almost entirely dismissed in a preliminary court decision earlier this year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.