Anyone who works at a financial institution implicated in the 2014 Forex manipulation scandal and has a 401(k) through the company.
What's Going On?
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether lawsuits can be filed on behalf of employees who worked at financial institutions that were found to be manipulating foreign exchange rates. It is believed these employees may have lost money in their 401(k) plans as a result of the Forex scandal.
What You Can Do
Fill out the form on this page to get in touch. One of the attorneys we work with may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and why you may have lost money as a result of the Forex manipulation.
What's the Catch?
There is no catch. We have reason to believe some companies aren't living up to their fiduciary duties when it comes to managing retirement funds and we're trying to get people connected to attorneys for more help in protecting their 401(k)s.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org want to hear from anyone who works at a financial institution that was implicated in the 2014 Forex manipulation scandal. These banks include the following:
Bank of America
Royal Bank of Scotland
It is believed that employees of these banks may have lost money in their 401(k) plans because of the banks’ manipulation of foreign exchange rates. Attorneys suspect that these employees may have been charged excessive, unauthorized and undisclosed markups in connection with foreign exchange transactions involving the plans’ investments in foreign securities. It is suspected that by rigging the exchange rates, the banks were able to take higher fees and essentially stole money from their employees’ 401(k) plans.
How Did This Happen?
Attorneys believe that these excessive markups were charged in connection with the retirement plans’ purchase or sale of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). In many cases, the investment companies priced ADR foreign exchange transactions, including receipt of dividends, for retirement plans at a price that was less favorable – or more expensive – to the retirement plans than the price that was then available. It is believed that the companies or their affiliates then pocketed the difference.