Hedge Funds and Antitrust Compliance: Antitrust Division Investigates Hedge Funds Shorting Euro
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.05.10
When is sharing of investment strategies collusion? This question seems to be at the center of an inquiry by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in connection with investment strategies shorting the value of the Euro. Recent press reports indicate that the Department of Justice has sent requests to several hedge funds in connection with their trades relating to the Euro. These requests were sent the same day the Wall Street Journal reported that portfolio managers of several large hedge funds attended an exclusive "idea dinner," where they predicted that the Euro's value - which already fell from $1.51 in December to $1.35 in late February - will likely reach parity with the dollar. The dinner was one of several informal dinners that New York-based research and brokerage firm Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co. holds from time to time to allow managers to network and discuss trading ideas. While the Euro was only one among more than 20 topics reportedly discussed at the dinner, news of the meeting, including reports that a portfolio manager encouraged other traders to join his firm in shorting the Euro, drew immediate attention from regulators.
While shorting strategies have long raised SEC regulatory scrutiny, this inquiry demonstrates that the Department of Justice will also look closely at potential anticompetitive behavior in the financial services industry. Over the past few years, the SEC and the Antitrust Division have worked closely on an investigation of potential bid-rigging in the municipal bond industry. While compliance programs at financial services firms and investment advisors are generally focused on SEC and SRO regulation, this new development highlights the role of preventative antitrust compliance as the Obama administration has vowed to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?

