Edmar Financial Company, LLC v. Currenex, Inc.
1:21-cv-06598
S.D.N.Y.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are class representatives alleging Currenex, Inc. secretly gave a subset of traders unfair trade execution priority, despite publicly claiming a neutral, first-in, first-out tie-breaking system on its foreign exchange platform.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add DSquare Trading Ltd. as a new class representative to address a newly identified gap in class coverage.
- The relevant gap only became clear after Currenex disclosed in November 2024 that the preferential priority settings challenged in the case ceased prior to 2015, and after review of additional data provided in December 2024.
- Plaintiffs’ original and amended complaints had set the class period as beginning January 1, 2005, but named plaintiffs were not trading on the platform until at least 2010.
- Defendants opposed amendment, asserting Plaintiffs should have known about the class representative gap earlier.
- The Court's deadline for adding new parties had passed in March 2024, requiring Plaintiffs to show diligence and good cause for their late amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause to amend after deadline | New facts revealed a class rep gap only after recent disclosures | Gap was or should have been known earlier | Good cause shown; plaintiffs were diligent |
| Delay as grounds to deny amendment | No undue delay, acted when new facts revealed | Delay is prejudicial to defendants | Delay alone not sufficient; no prejudice found |
| Prejudice to defendants | No new claims or parties, minimal prejudice | New discovery burdens, critical missing documents | Prejudice not sufficient to deny amendment |
| Adequacy of class representation | Need DSquare to ensure full class representation | Initial plaintiffs inadequate for full class period | Adding new class rep is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) ("Good cause" for amending scheduling orders is based on diligence of the moving party)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (Factors to consider under Rule 16(b) for amendment post-scheduling order)
- Pasternack v. Shrader, 863 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2017) (Delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend absent prejudice or bad faith)