That’s right, the ruling in the Herrington case on simply a motion to dismiss doesn’t set precedent, which usually occurs with decisions at the appellate court level, not at district courts.
Could Herrington influence the judge in the Citadel case, it’s possibility, but I doubt it. Especially given that that judge already has made her decision to hear oral arguments; meaning Judge Schofield believes the filing for the MTD has piqued her interest, so she wants to hear more and ask questions with regards to the plaintiff’s opposition.
If you read the defendant’s opposition, they make some interesting arguments. I expect the MTD will be denied simply because the plaintiff also has a persuasive set of facts that warrants moving toward discovery. But Citadel’s attorneys do lay out the foundation of their arguments for a potential future trial, which as I had expected would be along the lines of more technical aspects for how HFT works and the order flow and inefficiency of the OTC platform, compared to the Harrington case that involves spoofing on a Nasdaq traded stock.
All n’ all, this will get settled. But when and whether it’s really meaningful to shareholders in terms of timing are the big questions.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
