• "One of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms."

    American Lawyer

  • "Representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar."

    The National Law Journal

  • "Their effective and caring advocacy for clients has earned Lieff Cabraser its first-class reputation."

    The Daily Journal
  • NLJ Hot List icon
  • U.S. News Best Lawyers badge 2011-2012
  • Super Lawyers Nationwide

  • Lieff Cabraser: follow us on (social media links)

    Visit us on Facebook
    Follow us on Twitter
    View our YouTube channel
    Read our LinkedIn profile
    Read our Tumblr
    Visit us on Google+

Case Center

FOREX Litigation

  • Issue: False foreign exchange rates

International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund ("IUOE Local 39") v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, No. 11-3620-LB (N.D. Cal.).

Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, represents a proposed nationwide class of ERISA funds in an action against The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BNY Mellon") and its predecessors and subsidiaries, alleging that defendants charged class members fictitious foreign currency exchange ("FX") rates in connection with the purchase and sale of foreign securities.

The complaint charges that for the past decade, defendants consistently incorporated hidden and excessive mark-ups or mark-downs relative to the actual FX rates applicable at the times of the trades conducted for defendants' custodial FX clients. Defendants allegedly kept for themselves, as an unlawful profit, the difference between the false and actual price for each FX transaction. Plaintiffs seek relief under California law for a class of California-based ERISA funds, and under New York law for those ERISA funds for whom FX trades were conducted through BNY Mellon's New York FX trading desk.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corp., et al., Case No. 11cv10230 (MLW) (D. Mass.).

Lieff Cabraser is co-counsel for a proposed nationwide class of institutional clients of State Street, including public pension funds, who allege that defendants charged class members fictitious FX rates in connection with the purchase and sale of foreign securities.

The complaint charges that for the past decade, defendants consistently incorporated hidden and excessive mark-ups or mark-downs relative to the actual FX rates applicable at the times of the trades conducted for defendants' custodial FX clients. Defendants allegedly kept for themselves, as an unlawful profit, the difference between the false and actual price for each FX transaction. Plaintiffs seek recovery under Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Law and common law tort and contract theories.