Skip to main content

The logo of Glencore is seen in front of the company's headquarters in the Swiss town of Zug.

ARND WIEGMANN/REUTERS

Commodity trading giant Louis Dreyfus Commodities BV has been sued by a former senior trader at rival Glencore, alleging that Dreyfus illegally cornered the cotton market last year as prices tumbled from record highs.

In one of the biggest commodity market-manipulation lawsuits in more than a decade, the trader, Mark Allen, contended that Louis Dreyfus, its Allenberg Cotton and Term Commodities units and several individuals violated antitrust law by artificially inflating prices of IntercontinentalExchange cotton futures contracts expiring in May 2011 and July 2011.

Manipulation lawsuits are extremely rare among traders and infrequent even from regulators, as they tend to be very difficult to prove.

Story continues below advertisement

The drama in the cotton market last year drew the attention of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is under pressure to crack down on market malfeasance.

Allen said in the suit that he lost more than $57,000 by paying artificially high prices to liquidate positions related to the May 2011 and July 2011 contracts. He was head of cotton trading at Glencore before being fired last year.

Dreyfus, one of the world's biggest cotton traders, had no immediate comment. Glencore, which is not mentioned in the suit, brought by Allen on a class-action basis, declined to comment.

"Defendants' price control over the May 2011 contract and the July 2011 contract reflects monopoly power and collusion," the lawsuit states.

Much of the background of the case is public knowledge. In mid-2011, Dreyfus or one of its affiliated companies held long positions in ICE futures contracts until they expired, forcing short traders to make physical delivery of large amounts of cotton.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to sell off that futures position despite the fact that similar quality of cotton was trading at lower prices in the physical market.

"If defendants were acting economically, they would have purchased the lower price cotton in the cash market and sold their higher priced futures contracts on the ICE," it says.

Story continues below advertisement

Allen's lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of investors with positions in the cotton futures contracts. It seeks triple and other damages. It was filed Friday afternoon in the U.S. district court in Manhattan.

The lawsuit came after a published report that the CFTC had opened an investigation into volatile trading and large contract deliveries that roiled the cotton market in 2011.

According to the Financial Times, the CFTC enforcement division interviewed traders about the large volume of cotton bales delivered against ICE's benchmark futures contract.

Market-manipulation cases tend to be difficult to prove. Typically, plaintiffs must show that the alleged manipulator intended to create a "false" price for a commodity, and that the result was indeed a price that can be proven to have "artificially" deviated from the market.

The case has echoes of a suit filed in 2000 by independent U.S. oil refiner Tosco against London-based trading firm Arcadia and others, accusing them of inflating the price of Europe's Brent crude. That suit was settled out of court.

The case is Allen v. Term Commodities Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-05126.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter