Hedge Funds Drop £600 Million Lawsuits Against LME Over Nickel Crisis

The London Metal Exchange Nickel Crisis: Hedge Funds Drop Lawsuits After Lengthy Legal Battle

The London Metal Exchange (LME) has emerged victorious from a protracted legal battle with some of the world's most prominent hedge funds. After years of litigation stemming from the exchange's unprecedented intervention in the nickel market during March 2022, the funds have officially discontinued their claims worth approximately $600 million.

What Happened in the LME Nickel Crisis That Led to Lawsuits?

The Unprecedented Market Disruption of March 2022

In March 2022, the global nickel market experienced extreme volatility that would go down in trading history. Nickel prices doubled in just 24 hours, creating what market analysts described as a "perfect storm" of market conditions. The price surge was primarily driven by a massive short squeeze, exacerbated by supply concerns following Russia's invasion of Ukraine – a critical development considering Russia's position as a major global nickel producer.

The situation quickly spiraled out of control, forcing the LME to make an extraordinary decision: canceling approximately $12 billion in completed trades. This unprecedented move effectively rolled back the market to pre-surge levels, erasing what would have been substantial profits for traders holding long positions.

"We faced potential multiple defaults and a genuine risk of what could only be described as a death spiral across the metals trading ecosystem," explained the LME in subsequent regulatory filings. "The integrity of the entire market was at stake."

The decision immediately sparked controversy among market participants, particularly hedge funds that had positioned themselves to benefit from the price increase. What began as market turmoil quickly evolved into a fundamental debate about exchange powers, market integrity, and the limits of intervention.

The Scale of the Financial Impact

The financial repercussions of the LME's intervention were immense. Nearly $600 million in legal claims were ultimately filed against the exchange, with Elliott Investment Management leading the charge with a claim of approximately $456 million. Other prominent financial institutions including AQR Capital Management, DRW Commodities LLC, Pala Investments Ltd., and Jane Street joined the legal battle, collectively seeking over $100 million beyond Elliott's headline case.

For perspective, the $12 billion in canceled trades represented one of the largest market interventions in modern commodity trading history, far exceeding similar actions taken during previous market disruptions like the 2010 Flash Crash or the 2020 oil price collapse.

The controversy extended beyond direct market participants, raising fundamental questions about market governance and the balance between stability and predictability in global financial systems.

Which Hedge Funds Sued the LME and Why?

Profile of the Major Financial Players Involved

Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund known for its aggressive legal strategies, spearheaded the legal challenge with its $456 million claim – representing the lion's share of the total litigation value. Founded by billionaire Paul Singer, Elliott has a reputation for pursuing complex litigation against both corporations and sovereign entities.

AQR Capital Management, a quantitative investment firm managing over $100 billion in assets, joined the legal fight alongside specialized commodities trader DRW Commodities, mining-focused Pala Investments, and high-frequency trading firm Jane Street. These diverse market participants, despite their different trading strategies and market positions, united in their opposition to the LME's actions.

Each fund had positioned itself to benefit from the nickel price surge, either through direct long positions or complex derivative strategies that would have yielded significant profits had the trades been allowed to stand.

The Legal Arguments Against the Exchange

The hedge funds' legal challenge centered on several core arguments that struck at fundamental principles of financial market operations:

1. Exceeding authority: The funds contended that the LME had overstepped its regulatory powers by retroactively canceling trades that had already been executed and confirmed.

2. Market integrity concerns: They argued that the exchange's intervention undermined a basic principle of financial markets – that completed transactions should be final and binding.

3. Selective protection: Some claimants suggested the LME's actions disproportionately protected certain market participants (particularly those with short positions) at the expense of others.

4. Procedural failures: The lawsuits claimed the exchange failed to follow proper procedures in making such a consequential decision.

The legal challenges raised profound questions about the limits of exchange authority during market crises and the balance between market stability and contractual certainty – issues with implications far beyond the immediate nickel trading controversy.

Why Did the Hedge Funds Ultimately Drop Their Lawsuits?

The Critical Court Decisions That Changed Everything

The legal tide began to turn against the hedge funds in early 2024 when the UK's Supreme Court refused Elliott Investment Management permission to appeal lower court rulings that had favored the LME. This decisive legal setback effectively established a precedent that undermined the similar claims brought by the other funds.

The lower courts had determined that the LME acted within its discretionary powers when it canceled the nickel trades, accepting the exchange's argument that its actions were necessary to protect market stability. The courts placed significant weight on the exchange's assessment that allowing the trades to stand could have triggered cascading defaults throughout the metals industry.

This judicial endorsement of exchange authority in crisis situations set a powerful precedent in financial market regulation, effectively establishing that in certain extreme circumstances, exchanges can legitimately prioritize overall market volatility hedging over individual transaction finality.

Financial Implications of the Failed Legal Challenges

Following the Supreme Court's refusal to hear Elliott's appeal, the remaining hedge funds recognized their diminishing chances of success and began discontinuing their claims. According to the LME's annual report filed in February 2025, Elliott and Jane Street made interim payments exceeding £4 million ($5.2 million) to cover the exchange's legal costs.

These payments highlight an often-overlooked aspect of failed litigation – the requirement to compensate the prevailing party for legal expenses under the UK legal system. Beyond these direct costs, the funds also absorbed substantial internal legal expenses and opportunity costs during the multi-year litigation process.

Industry analysts estimate the total costs of the failed legal campaign, including legal fees, opportunity costs, and reputational impacts, likely exceeded $20 million across all participating funds – a significant expense with no compensating recovery.

How Has the LME Been Held Accountable Despite Winning in Court?

The FCA's £9.2 Million Fine and Regulatory Findings

Despite prevailing in court, the LME did not escape all consequences for its handling of the nickel crisis. In March 2024, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed a £9.2 million ($11.9 million) fine on the exchange – not for the decision to cancel trades, but for having inadequate systems and controls to manage such a crisis effectively.

The FCA's investigation identified several specific failings in the LME's risk management framework:

• Insufficient market monitoring capabilities to detect the building short squeeze
• Inadequate circuit breaker mechanisms that could have halted trading earlier
• Lack of clear protocols for emergency market interventions
• Insufficient testing of crisis response procedures

"While we accept the LME's judgment that intervention was necessary, proper systems might have prevented the crisis from reaching the point where such drastic action became the only option," the FCA noted in its final notice.

Changes Implemented at the LME Following the Crisis

In response to both the crisis itself and the subsequent regulatory action, the LME has implemented significant operational reforms:

• Introduction of 15% daily price limits across all metal contracts
• Enhanced market surveillance technology to detect anomalous trading patterns
• More rigorous position reporting requirements for market participants
• Improved transparency in decision-making during market disruptions
• Revised governance structures with enhanced risk committee oversight

These reforms represent the most substantial overhaul of the LME's risk management framework in decades, addressing vulnerabilities exposed during the 2022 crisis while attempting to rebuild market confidence in the exchange's operations.

How Has the LME Recovered From the Nickel Crisis?

The Exchange's Remarkable Financial Turnaround

Perhaps most surprisingly, the LME has demonstrated remarkable financial resilience following the hedge funds drop lawsuits against LME over nickel crisis. According to its annual report filed in February 2025:

• Trading volumes increased by 18% in 2024, reaching the fourth-highest level in the exchange's history
• Combined pre-tax profits for the LME and LME Clear rose to $193 million
• This represents a 68% increase from the previous year's financial performance

This recovery reflects several factors, including improved market conditions in metals trading generally, but also suggests that market participants have maintained confidence in the exchange despite the controversy. The LME's continued dominance in global metals price discovery has remained largely intact.

"The exchange has proven more resilient than many analysts predicted immediately following the crisis," noted a Bloomberg News commodities analyst in May 2025. "While some trading activity shifted to alternative venues in the immediate aftermath, the LME's liquidity advantages have ultimately kept most participants in its ecosystem."

Market Confidence and Participation Trends

Beyond the headline financial figures, several qualitative indicators suggest recovered market confidence:

• Major industrial metals consumers have continued using LME contracts for hedging
• Institutional participation in nickel trading has returned to pre-crisis levels
• Liquidity metrics across key contracts have steadily improved since mid-2023
• New participants have entered the market, offsetting those who reduced exposure

This recovery demonstrates the remarkable durability of established market infrastructure, even following significant controversies. The combination of legal vindication and operational reforms appears to have satisfied most market participants that the exchange remains a viable trading venue.

What Are the Broader Implications for Commodity Markets?

Precedent-Setting Aspects of the Legal Resolution

The resolution of these lawsuits establishes important precedents for global commodity markets:

1. Enhanced exchange authority: Courts have affirmed exchanges' broad discretion to intervene in extreme market conditions when systemic stability is threatened.

2. Clearer risk parameters: Market participants now have greater clarity that completed trades can, in extraordinary circumstances, be canceled – a risk factor that sophisticated traders must incorporate into their strategies.

3. Regulatory expectations: The FCA's action established that exchanges must maintain robust crisis prevention systems, not merely crisis response capabilities.

4. Legal challenge limitations: The courts' consistent rulings in favor of the LME suggest a high legal bar for challenging exchange actions taken during market emergencies.

These precedents will likely influence both exchange governance and trading strategies across commodity markets globally, as participants recalibrate their understanding of market rules and intervention possibilities.

Lessons for Other Global Commodity Exchanges

Other major commodity exchanges have closely observed the LME saga, extracting several key lessons:

• The importance of early intervention mechanisms like robust circuit breakers
• The need for clear communication protocols during market disruptions
• The value of scenario planning for extreme market movements
• The critical balance between decisive action and proper preparation

Exchanges including the CME Group, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), and Shanghai Futures Exchange have reportedly reviewed their own crisis response frameworks in light of the LME case, implementing enhancements to avoid similar situations.

"The LME crisis has become a case study in exchange risk management," observed a senior executive at a major Asian commodity exchange. "No one wants to face the choice between canceling trades and risking market collapse."

The situation has also highlighted the fragility of supply chains in specific metal sectors, particularly those dependent on magmatic nickel deposits that are concentrated in geopolitically sensitive regions.

FAQ: Key Questions About the LME Nickel Crisis

What exactly caused nickel prices to spike so dramatically in 2022?

The unprecedented nickel price surge resulted from a confluence of factors:

• A significant short position held by a major Chinese nickel producer
• Supply concerns following Russia's invasion of Ukraine (Russia provides 17% of high-grade nickel)
• Low LME warehouse stocks creating favorable conditions for a squeeze
• Amplification through algorithmic trading responses to volatility
• Limited circuit breakers in the LME's trading system at that time

These factors combined to create what market analysts termed a "perfect storm" that drove prices to unsustainable levels in an extremely compressed timeframe.

Could traders have anticipated the LME's intervention?

While the LME's rulebook did provide for emergency powers, the scale of the intervention surprised most market participants. Specific factors that made anticipation difficult included:

• No precedent for cancellation of trades at this scale in the LME's recent history
• Limited public communication about the severity of the developing crisis
• The extremely rapid escalation of market disruption
• Ambiguity in how the exchange would balance different market participants' interests

Most market observers agree that while sophisticated traders might have recognized the risk of some intervention, the specific form and extent of the LME's actions would have been difficult to predict with confidence.

How might this case influence future trading strategies?

The resolution of these lawsuits will likely influence trading strategies in several ways:

• Enhanced risk modeling: Sophisticated traders will incorporate exchange intervention risk more explicitly in their models
• Position sizing adjustments: Some funds may limit maximum exposure in any single commodity market
• Hedging approaches: Multi-venue hedging strategies may become more common to diversify exchange risk
• Crisis indicators: Greater attention to early warning signs of potential market disruptions
• Contractual provisions: Development of specific provisions addressing exchange intervention in certain OTC contracts

These adjustments reflect a market coming to terms with clarified boundaries of exchange authority and intervention potential during extreme conditions. Furthermore, the entire episode has highlighted the importance of understanding bull vs bear perspectives when positioning in volatile commodity markets.

What safeguards now exist to prevent similar market disruptions?

The LME and other exchanges have implemented several safeguards:

• Price limits: Daily price movement caps that trigger temporary trading halts
• Enhanced position monitoring: More granular reporting requirements for large positions
• Cross-market surveillance: Better coordination between related trading venues
• Improved communication protocols: Clearer procedures for market notifications during disruptions
• Stress testing: More rigorous scenario planning for extreme market events

While these measures reduce the likelihood of a similar crisis, market participants recognize that no regulatory framework can entirely eliminate the possibility of extreme volatility in commodity markets, particularly during geopolitical disruptions affecting supply chains. In fact, with ongoing global tariff impacts and continued mining industry evolution, new forms of market stress may emerge that require different interventions.

Ready to Get Ahead of the Next Major Market Disruption?

Gain the market-leading edge by receiving instant alerts on significant ASX mineral discoveries with Discovery Alert's proprietary Discovery IQ model, helping you capitalise on trading opportunities before the broader market. Explore how major discoveries can generate substantial returns by visiting our dedicated discoveries page and start your 30-day free trial today.