The New York Southern District Court issued an order that requires XTX executives to sit on deposits in lawsuit on the alleged illegal practices of FX auctions in Currenex.
On August 4, 2025, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed a mandate that forces Alexander Gerko, Founder and co-CON-SHOO of XTX and Zarthustra Amrolia, a former co-EMO and today’s XTX president, to sit for deposits.
The complaint supports a long -term plan to evolve which amount with auction for currency transactions (“FX”). Currenex, which exploits a FX trading platform in conjunction with the parent company Street Bank, allegedly agreed to give a narrow subset of the participants unjustified advantages of bidding – the benefits that the plaintiffs and members of the class were not informed either.
The head among them was a secret rule for breaking “Tie” bids: in the case of a tie, Currenex was operating with secret deals with some privileged customers, arguing that their bids would always be declared the winner.
Currenex is also alleged to have provided these same privileges to its own parent company, State Street Bank, which functioned as one of the largest liquidity providers on the platform.
The complaint also claims that Currenex gave at least one HC tech management access to the entire platform, allowing HC Tech to see all orders placed on the platform-which was not reasonably expected and this was directly opposed to industry standards. This was achieved at a point by an executive API Currenex / State Street Bank and the HC Tech User / Password credentials.
The plaintiffs argue that this case concerns the illegality of the platform operators who apply practices that were (a) extremely material, (b) adverse with the interests of most users, (c) shocking departures from the rules of industry and (d) were never disclosed.
The plaintiff Edmar Financial Company, LLC It is a limited liability company for Virginia that operated during the relative period as an external liability company in Naples in Florida. During the relative period, Edmar entered FX Spot transactions and placed many orders both in the marketplace (also known as the price recipient) and on the sale side (also known as a price manufacturer or a liquidity provider) via the Currenex platform located in New York.
The plaintiff Irish Blue & Gold, Inc. (“IBG”) It is a Bahamas company with its main position in Nassau, the Bahamas. During the relative period, Irish Blue & Gold, Inc. It entered FX Spot transactions and gave many orders to both the market side and the sale via the Currenex platform located in New York.
XTX Markets Limited It is a private Limited company registered in England and Wales with its main position in London, England. During the relative period, XTX entered FX Spot transactions and set many orders both on the market and on the sales side via the New York Currenex platform.
Dsquare Trading Limited It is a private Limited company registered in England and Wales with its main position in London, England. During the relative period, DSQUARE entered FX Spot transactions and gave many orders to both the market and the sale side via the New York Currenex platform.
The accused Currenex, Inc. It is a company organized and exists in accordance with Delaware’s laws with its main business in New York, New York. Current, Currenex, Inc. It is a subsidiary of State Street Bank. Currenex, Inc., along with State Street Global and their Joint Banking Bank, operate and manage the Currenex platform.
Defendant State Street Global Markets International Limited It is a company that organized and exists in accordance with the laws of England, with the main business in London. Currently, State Street Global is also a subsidiary of State Street Bank. State Street Global, along with Currenex, Inc. and their joint parent state Street Bank, operate and manage the Currenex platform.
Company State Street Bank and trust company It is a company organized and exists in accordance with the laws of the Massachusetts Commonwealth with its main business in Boston, Massachusetts. State Street Bank is also Currenex’s parent company, Inc. and State Street Global.
Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co. Llc It is a company organized and exists in accordance with the laws of the New York State with its main business in New York, New York. Goldman Sachs was one of the liquidity providers who entered into a secret deal with Currenex to secure priority trading rights on the platform. During the relative period, Goldman Sachs entered FX Spot trading with class members, including the plaintiff, via the Currenex platform in New York.
Hc Technologies defendant, LLC (F/K/A Henning-Carey Proprietary Trading, LLC) It is a limited liability company that has organized and exists in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois with the main place of its work in Chicago, Illinois. HC Tech is an algorithmic and privately owned trading company. HC Tech was one of the liquidity providers who entered into a secret deal with Currenex to secure priority trading rights on the platform. During the relative period, HC Tech entered FX spot transactions with class members, including the plaintiff, via the Currenex platform in New York.
When issuing the order on Gerko and Amrolia’s deposits, the judge stated the plaintiff’s argument that the top doctrine protects Gerko and Amrolia from rejection.
Due to the probability of business disorder and the potential of the misunderstanding, the Courts are taking a particular examination of demands for the abolition of high level of corporate and government officials, who are sometimes referred to as “top witnesses”. However, senior executives are not exempt from deposition and because the authorities associated with the summit are intense with the widespread discovery, it is important to justify a witness to only testimony under urgent conditions.
A mandate that prohibits a party from receiving deposition is the most excellent relief and is the party that seeks such a mandate that bears the weight to prove that the proposed abrasion has nothing to contribute. Consequently, the Courts ruled out the depositions of senior executives of senior executives where deposits were apparently sought for the purpose of harassment and where the proposed seductions knew little or nothing about the subject of action.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Gerko and Amrolia had nothing to contribute. Given the volume and substance of the interactions each with Currenex staff about the use of the platform, they are sufficiently likely to have knowledge of the subjects that are appropriately discovered. Both are far from the original witness, who sits from the main events of the difference.
In contrast to the plaintiff’s proposal, the defendants are not obliged to prove that Gerko and Amrolia were aware of the alleged secret priority rules in order to remove them. The plaintiffs did not prove the urgent circumstances required for the discrepancies requested.
Consequently, the defendants’ proposal to force Gerko and Amrolia’s deposits were granted.
The deposits of Gerko and Amrolia must be completed by the end of the discovery of the event on September 19, 2025.