Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade signs

Regulation and Compliance > Litigation

Antitrust Suit Challenging Schwab-TD Ameritrade Deal Can Proceed, Judge Rules

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • Plaintiffs claim the deal lessened competition, harming investors.
  • Schwab plans to aggressively seek dismissal, calling the case meritless.

An antitrust lawsuit seeking to unravel the Charles Schwab-TD Ameritrade merger may proceed following a recent federal court ruling.

The retail investor plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against Schwab contend the 2020 deal substantially lessened competition, harming brokerage clients. Schwab had asked the court to dismiss the case.

Schwab’s TD Ameritrade acquisition formed “unprecedented market concentration,” giving the combined companies about half of all retail order flow payments, the plaintiffs claim in the suit. They seek monetary damages and an order divesting Schwab of TD Ameritrade assets or otherwise separating their business lines.

“When considering a motion to dismiss … the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant wrote on Feb. 24, denying Schwab’s motion to dismiss the case.

The court found Schwab’s arguments for dismissal “are unavailing at this stage of the litigation, and it finds that plaintiffs have stated plausible claims for relief” adequate to defeat the dismissal motion.

Among other points, Mazzant said plaintiffs’ contentions the deal had concentrated market competition are sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs, who allege they now pay higher transaction costs for their trades and suffer from diminished consumer choices in the wake of the merger, also have pleaded an antitrust injury sufficient for the case to proceed, he ruled.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that anticompetitive results flow from the Charles Schwab-TD Ameritrade merger,” Mazzant wrote in his opinion and order. 

The judge also called it premature, given the case’s early stage, for Schwab to seek to bar the plaintiffs’ divestiture claim on the basis that they had waited too long to file the case.

While Schwab claimed the plaintiffs had failed to define a relevant product market in the lawsuit, the court at this stage must accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and therefore found they had sufficiently alleged such a market, the judge wrote. 

The plaintiffs define that market as the Retail Order Flow Market, in which retail brokerages aggregate and sell trades by retail investors to market makers, which execute the trades and pay the brokerages for the order flow, the judge noted. Brokerages rely on this model rather than charging clients traditional commissions, returning some order flow payment to customers as discounts, he noted.

Schwab issued a brief statement on the case:

“Allegations are not facts. We look forward to demonstrating the value and appropriateness of our approach in court. Any suggestion that the combination of these two client-centric firms has led to less favorable outcomes is simply not true. We will continue to aggressively seek the dismissal of this meritless case.” 

The case is Jonathan Corrente et al. v. The Charles Schwab Corp.

(Image: Shutterstock)


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.