May 21, 2021 - A second amended complaint was filed.

March 24, 2021 - An amended complaint was filed.

October 24, 2020 - An investor in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020.

On November 6, 2018, the Department of Justice announced that a former JPMorgan precious metals trader pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and spoofing conspiracy.

On August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice announced that another JPMorgan employee pled guilty to spoofing charges, and had done so with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors.

On September 23, 2020, it was reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co was nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges. According to sources, the settlement was to be for nearly $1 billion, a record.

On September 29, 2020, the CFTC formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million to settle the spoofing and manipulation charges. According to the order, JPMorgan Chase & Co allegedly failed to monitor its employees and ignored multiple red flags. JPMorgan Chase & Co also allegedly provided the CFTC with misleading information. Shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) declined from $105.21 per share in early September 2020 to $91.38 per share on September 24, 2020.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) common shares between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.

More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by “spoofing,” or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand, that the Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the misconduct, that the Company’s earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny, that the Company provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the investigation into the misconduct, that resolution of the governmental investigation into the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine, and that as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.