If you have been following the financial news about GameStop lately, you may notice that a Robinhood user filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. As a free-trading platform, Robinhood uses the slogan of “Investing for Everyone” and attracts 13 million customers to trade stocks, options, and cryptocurrency. However, Robinhood restricted its users to trade several stocks like GameStop last week, which was quoted by CNBC as “a move that ignited a revolt from the small investors.”
We’d like to discuss the details of this lawsuit. Do you agree Robinhood’s move is a violation of its own terms and a betrayal of its own tenet?
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed the stock “GME” from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise, thereby depriving retail investors of the ability to invest in the open market and manipulating the open-market.
What is market manipulation?
According to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Market manipulation is when someone artificially affects the supply or demand for a security. It means that if you intentionally affect the prices of the securities and interfere with the free force of supply and demand, you could be liable under the circumstances. After small investors' short-squeeze of GameStop caused the stock price to shoot up by 1,700%, Robinhood restricted its users from buying more stocks from their platform and only allowed them to sell their shares.
The unpredictable move immediately blocked retailer investors from purchasing and led to a panic among its users. A lot of users sold their shares in a short period of time, which caused a significant drop in the price of this stock. Financial institutions that meant to “short” the stock thus benefited from Robinhood’s action.
From a user's point, Robinhood’s abrupt restriction of trade unfairly interfered with the rights of retail investors. Robinhood’s failure to timely inform its users of the changes resulted in huge losses. Moreover, the platform did not provide the services necessary to carry out a trade. By targeting transactions of a few selected stocks, one could argue that Robinhood purposely manipulated the prices of stocks. The prohibition betrayed its own tenet of “democratizing finance for all.” On the contrary, what Robinhood did impaired the users’ ability to win the historic battle with sophisticated wall street investors.
Full right to decide what to do with the securities Trading Robinhood promptly responded that they have to follow financial requirements like SEC net capital obligation and clearinghouse deposits. The restrictions they made were meant to “protect investors and the market”. The most powerful legal ground Robinhood provided is based on the principle of “freedom of contract.” Freedom of contract is a right to determine the provisions of a contract without unreasonable legal restrictions.
As Robinhood states in their Consumer Agreement that they can block or restrict trades at their discretion:
“I understand that Robinhood may, in its discretion, prohibit or restrict the trading of securities, or the substitution of securities, in any of My Accounts… I understand that Robinhood may at any time, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Me: (i) prohibit or restrict My access to the use of the App or the Website or related services and My ability to trade, (ii) refuse to accept any of My transactions, (iii) refuse to execute any of My transactions, or (iv) terminate My Account. The closing of My Account will not affect the rights or obligations of either party incurred prior to the date My Account is closed.” cited from Robinhood’s consumer contract, clause 16: Restrictions on Trading.
Even though one could argue that these terms do not provide Robinhood the right to pick and choose which securities to prevent the users to trade from, and it’s rare for a broker to halt users’ transactions, these terms can be argued to, on the surface, preserving the right to provide flexibility in dealing with abnormal situations.
What's your opinion?
Gloria is the founder of Sleegal.ai, seasoned lawyer, business person and entrepreneur, determined to bring legal help to you at an affordable cost efficiently.
Gloria is the founder of Sleegal.ai, seasoned lawyer, business person and entrepreneur, determined to bring legal help to you at an affordable cost efficiently.
Drop us a note. We will get back to you within 1 business day.
Back in the day, ERP implementations used to be a nightmare for many companies. We've all heard of horror stories where millions of dollars were spent on planning and implementation, only to be told that the whole thing was a failure. But why is this still happening? With our extensive experience in ERP, we have identified the four main challenges that companies face when selecting and implementing an ERP solution. We are working to create a new generation of ERP systems that are easy to implement, intuitive to use, and adaptable to each organization's unique needs. Stay tuned for our new product roadmap!
Read more
A long time ago, we’ve written about the best and worst use of AI when it comes to lawyers. If some of you recall, our original “Sleegal AI” is a ChatGPT style chatbot to help people find lawyers. Before we know it, AI Generated Content (“AIGC”) has become the hottest topic in 2023. With this in mind and deriving from our understanding of AI, legal tech and self-driving cars, what is ChatGPT good and bad at?
Read more
When we talk to our potential customers in the field, especially the relatively new startups who are going through hypergrowth, we notice that there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion about needing a procurement team at all. We have seen hyper-growth companies with a few thousand employees, some of which may even produce and sell hardware, who don’t have a procurement function at all. This is mind-boggling and very dangerous. Here are the common fallacies about whether and why a company needs procurement and our responses to them.
Read more%20(1).png)
In the past we have written extensively about why metrics matter for procurement leaders and why having a system to keep track of them is of essential importance. Today, I’d like to discuss one metric that procurement managers often overlook. Even in cases when they do realize the importance of this metric, it’s one of the metrics that’s more opaque and harder to keep track of. However, this metric is extremely important to keep track of. Keeping this metric under control and strict scrutiny will go a long way to not only cut cost, but increase bottom line. Here is why and how.
Read more.png)
We have written extensively about why there should be a “Chief Procurement Officer” position and why such leaders should have a seat at the C-suite table, rather than reporting to the CFO or an engineering officer. But how? Like most things in this life, it won’t get handed on a silver platter. I have many fellow procurement leaders who are struggling to receive acknowledgment and achieve a voice. Here are some suggestions.
Read more
User experience designers tend to overthink and complicate things when it comes to product design. Our UX Design team collaborated to provide their top suggestions for enhancing efficiency and improving the user experience by avoiding these common missteps.
Read more.png){kind=logo}
Copyright © 2022 Trusli - All Rights Reserved