FOLLOW US

In a courtroom drama nearly a decade in the making, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC have been awarded a $35.5 million legal fee payday for their fierce pursuit of a market-rigging lawsuit that clawed $71 million in settlements from some of the globe’s most powerful banks—even as the case fell short of full class action certification.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken handed down the award on Thursday, lauding the legal teams for their “skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy” in navigating a legal labyrinth that began with antitrust claims filed in 2015 and eventually ballooned into multidistrict litigation.

The War Over Wall Street’s Shadow Market

The suit targeted top-tier financial giants—Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Credit Suisse, among others—accusing them of conspiring to choke out competition in the interest rate swaps market. At the heart of the conspiracy: a claim that the banks colluded to prevent the emergence of all-to-all public trading platforms, which would have allowed investors to bypass the traditional dealer-driven system.

In this “over-the-counter” model, trades are executed via direct, one-on-one negotiations with banks—opaque by design and rich with opportunity for control, the plaintiffs alleged. According to filings, the banks worked behind the scenes to block these transparent platforms, thereby maintaining their dominance and limiting pricing advantages that would’ve benefited investors.

Settlement, But Not a Class Victory

Despite amassing $71 million in combined settlements—including $46 million in 2023 from multiple defendants and an earlier $25 million deal with Credit Suisse in 2022—the plaintiffs failed to clear a crucial hurdle: class certification.

In December 2023, Judge Oetken ruled that the investors had not demonstrated the ability to prove their antitrust claims with common evidence, a key requirement for proceeding as a class.

“Plaintiffs have failed to persuasively rebut defendants' strong showing that there were numerous at- or below-zero trades during the class period,” Judge Oetken wrote.

The banks argued that many trades were executed at spreads of zero or below, making them immune to any price manipulation. Such trades, they contended, would not be possible in anonymous trading environments, weakening the core of the plaintiffs’ conspiracy theory.

Why the $35.5M Fee Still Matters

In their April motion for attorneys’ fees, Cohen Milstein and Quinn Emanuel insisted that the $35.5 million reward represented just a fraction of the resources poured into the prolonged legal battle.

“While the court eventually found the case could not proceed as a class action, that does not mean the need to incentivize the enforcement of our nation's laws went away,” the motion asserted.

Judge Oetken appeared to agree, recognizing the sheer scale and risk involved in the litigation, especially given that the class route ultimately failed. The fee award stands as a testament to the value of private enforcement in antitrust cases, even without class status.

Legal Titans in the Ring

The plaintiff team included heavyweights from:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

• Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

• Susman Godfrey LLP

• Jacobs Burns Orlove & Hernandez

• Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP

Defending the banks were legal powerhouses like:

• Shearman & Sterling LLP

• Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP

• Latham & Watkins LLP

• Covington & Burling LLP

• Goodwin Procter LLP

• Jones Day

• Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP

• Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

• Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, among others.

The Road Ahead: Antitrust, Transparency, and Accountability

Although the plaintiffs’ dream of certifying a class evaporated, the litigation still inflicted a costly blow on Wall Street’s opaque trading practices, sending a signal that collusion—whether proven across the board or settled in the shadows—carries a price.

The $35.5 million fee award to Urquhart and Cohen Milstein may mark the end of this legal saga, but for market reform advocates, it’s also a milestone in the ongoing struggle for transparency in financial markets.