A British court has ruled in the ongoing drama that is the IS Prime / ThinkMarkets case. The court rejected in a second hearing IS Prime’s attempts to strike out part of ThinkMarkets’ counterclaims, according to court documents exclusively seen by Finance Magnates.

One of the counterclaims noted that the Defendants ‘had agreed to execute all trades in Applicable Products during the Applicable Period exclusively with IS Prime’.

“A consequence of the Qualified Exclusivity Agreement was that the Defendants were not (save in certain circumstances) free to execute trades with third parties even where the third party was offering better prices,” court documents said.

Moreover, in paragraph 70, the counterclaim reads: “The Defendants are entitled to and seek rescission of trades in respect of which a secret profit was paid or received. The Defendants are entitled to and seek an account of all secret profits from IS Prime and ISFE 21. IS Prime and ISFE 21 are constructive trustees for these purposes, and the Defendants seek recovery of money held on trust, restitution, damages and/or an account of profits by way of remedy.”

Paragraphs 66 to 70 of the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim were struck out. However, Paragraph 71 was not struck out and nor is the summary judgment given on IS Prime’s pleaded response to that paragraph.

A ThinkMarkets' spokesperson said: “ThinkMarkets welcomes that IS Prime’s attempts to strike out the vast majority of its counterclaims have been rejected, and is focussed on the next stage of the proceedings.”

However, A spokesperson from IS Prime said,

“We are aware that there is much media interest and speculation about this case. Until now, we have tried to keep a dignified silence. However, in light of statements in the media which are not an accurate representation of the latest ruling, we are taking the opportunity to share our views.

In this ruling, IS Prime won on four out of the five issues in the application. Think have had multiple causes of action summarily dismissed, with the Judge finding that they were variously “unrealistic”, “not accord[ing] with reality” and “an artificial construct” not based on “any credible interpretation of the facts”. Their most natural claim (for alleged “A Book” loss) has been thrown out entirely, and that which remains is now in reduced form and has been heavily criticised by the Court as “suffer[ing] from a lack of detail, obscurity and potential inconsistency.” These comments are entirely consistent with IS Prime’s view and we welcome the fact that Think must at last address the obvious problems with its case.

As a result of this, this ruling is a strong and significant result for IS Prime. The Judge’s decision is a clear vindication of IS Prime’s position that Think’s defence of these proceedings, and the claims and allegations which it has made in them, are without basis.”

Case Background

As reported by Finance Magnates, the claimant, IS Prime alleged that from about September 18, 2018, in violation of the  Liquidity  that Addendum signed between the companies after the  acquisition  of Think Liquidity by IS Risk Analytics, the defendants used a broker or brokers for business they were required to give exclusively to the claimant until January 17, 2020.

According to the claimant, it suffered approximately $15 million in losses and is seeking damages, an account, and an inquiry into the losses. The claims were almost entirely dismissed in a preliminary court decision earlier this year.

"In this ruling, IS Prime won on four out of the five issues in the application. Think have had multiple causes of action summarily dismissed, with the Judge finding that they were variously “unrealistic”, “not accord[ing] with reality” and “an artificial construct” not based on “any credible interpretation of the facts”. Their most natural claim (for alleged “A Book” loss) has been thrown out entirely, and that which remains is now in reduced form and has been heavily criticised by the Court as “suffer[ing] from a lack of detail, obscurity and potential inconsistency.” These comments are entirely consistent with IS Prime’s view and we welcome the fact that Think must at last address the obvious problems with its case," an IS Prime spokesperson told Finance Magnates.

"As a result of this, this ruling is a strong and significant result for IS Prime. The Judge’s decision is a clear vindication of IS Prime’s position that Think’s defence of these proceedings, and the claims and allegations which it has made in them, are without basis."

A British court has ruled in the ongoing drama that is the IS Prime / ThinkMarkets case. The court rejected in a second hearing IS Prime’s attempts to strike out part of ThinkMarkets’ counterclaims, according to court documents exclusively seen by Finance Magnates.

One of the counterclaims noted that the Defendants ‘had agreed to execute all trades in Applicable Products during the Applicable Period exclusively with IS Prime’.

“A consequence of the Qualified Exclusivity Agreement was that the Defendants were not (save in certain circumstances) free to execute trades with third parties even where the third party was offering better prices,” court documents said.

Moreover, in paragraph 70, the counterclaim reads: “The Defendants are entitled to and seek rescission of trades in respect of which a secret profit was paid or received. The Defendants are entitled to and seek an account of all secret profits from IS Prime and ISFE 21. IS Prime and ISFE 21 are constructive trustees for these purposes, and the Defendants seek recovery of money held on trust, restitution, damages and/or an account of profits by way of remedy.”

Paragraphs 66 to 70 of the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim were struck out. However, Paragraph 71 was not struck out and nor is the summary judgment given on IS Prime’s pleaded response to that paragraph.

A ThinkMarkets' spokesperson said: “ThinkMarkets welcomes that IS Prime’s attempts to strike out the vast majority of its counterclaims have been rejected, and is focussed on the next stage of the proceedings.”

However, A spokesperson from IS Prime said,

“We are aware that there is much media interest and speculation about this case. Until now, we have tried to keep a dignified silence. However, in light of statements in the media which are not an accurate representation of the latest ruling, we are taking the opportunity to share our views.

In this ruling, IS Prime won on four out of the five issues in the application. Think have had multiple causes of action summarily dismissed, with the Judge finding that they were variously “unrealistic”, “not accord[ing] with reality” and “an artificial construct” not based on “any credible interpretation of the facts”. Their most natural claim (for alleged “A Book” loss) has been thrown out entirely, and that which remains is now in reduced form and has been heavily criticised by the Court as “suffer[ing] from a lack of detail, obscurity and potential inconsistency.” These comments are entirely consistent with IS Prime’s view and we welcome the fact that Think must at last address the obvious problems with its case.

As a result of this, this ruling is a strong and significant result for IS Prime. The Judge’s decision is a clear vindication of IS Prime’s position that Think’s defence of these proceedings, and the claims and allegations which it has made in them, are without basis.”

Case Background

As reported by Finance Magnates, the claimant, IS Prime alleged that from about September 18, 2018, in violation of the  Liquidity  that Addendum signed between the companies after the  acquisition  of Think Liquidity by IS Risk Analytics, the defendants used a broker or brokers for business they were required to give exclusively to the claimant until January 17, 2020.

According to the claimant, it suffered approximately $15 million in losses and is seeking damages, an account, and an inquiry into the losses. The claims were almost entirely dismissed in a preliminary court decision earlier this year.

"In this ruling, IS Prime won on four out of the five issues in the application. Think have had multiple causes of action summarily dismissed, with the Judge finding that they were variously “unrealistic”, “not accord[ing] with reality” and “an artificial construct” not based on “any credible interpretation of the facts”. Their most natural claim (for alleged “A Book” loss) has been thrown out entirely, and that which remains is now in reduced form and has been heavily criticised by the Court as “suffer[ing] from a lack of detail, obscurity and potential inconsistency.” These comments are entirely consistent with IS Prime’s view and we welcome the fact that Think must at last address the obvious problems with its case," an IS Prime spokesperson told Finance Magnates.

"As a result of this, this ruling is a strong and significant result for IS Prime. The Judge’s decision is a clear vindication of IS Prime’s position that Think’s defence of these proceedings, and the claims and allegations which it has made in them, are without basis."