## Facts

- Minpeco, S.A., a Peruvian state-owned metals trading company, held substantial short positions in silver futures during the 1979–1980 surge and collapse in silver prices.
- Minpeco alleged that the Hunt brothers and affiliated investors accumulated massive long positions in physical silver and silver futures to corner or squeeze the market and push prices to artificial levels.
- Minpeco claimed it suffered significant losses as prices rose and later collapsed following market and margin changes in early 1980.
- Minpeco sued alleged manipulators and multiple brokerage/financial defendants, asserting that brokers were not passive intermediaries but knowingly assisted the scheme.
- The alleged broker assistance included (1) facilitating trading patterns Minpeco characterized as irrational absent manipulation, (2) providing extraordinary financing and credit to sustain concentrated positions, and (3) helping conceal beneficial ownership or control from regulators and exchanges.
- Minpeco relied largely on circumstantial evidence, including parallel trading behavior, extensive communications among alleged participants, large and unusual lending arrangements, and conduct asserted to be against individual economic self-interest absent a coordinated plan.
- Defendants contended their conduct reflected ordinary brokerage and lending practices, argued they were mere executors of client orders, and denied knowing participation in any unlawful agreement.
- At the summary judgment stage, various defendants moved to dismiss claims on the ground that the record could not support a finding of conspiracy or knowing assistance as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidentiary record permitted a reasonable jury to find that defendants participated in a conspiracy to manipulate silver and silver-futures prices.
2. Whether circumstantial evidence—parallel conduct, communications, unusual financing, and alleged regulatory concealment—could support an inference of knowing and intentional participation by brokerage/financial intermediaries rather than lawful parallel behavior and ordinary credit practices.
3. Whether, applying the summary judgment standard favoring the non-movant, genuine disputes of material fact required trial rather than judgment as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer a conspiracy to manipulate silver prices and knowing participation or substantial assistance by certain broker defendants.
- The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained and that competing inferences and credibility questions had to be resolved by a jury.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor; courts may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing inferences.
- A conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence; the non-movant need only show a genuine dispute of material fact, not prove the conspiracy conclusively at the summary judgment stage.
- Inferences of agreement and participation may arise from evidence such as parallel conduct, concentrated and coordinated trading patterns, unusual financing that sustains high-risk positions, alleged concealment from regulators, and actions plausibly inconsistent with unilateral economic self-interest.
- Brokerage and lending institutions are not automatically liable for a client’s market misconduct, but they may face liability where evidence supports findings of knowledge and intentional participation or substantial assistance beyond routine order execution and ordinary credit extension.
- Complexity of economic evidence and competing expert interpretations generally supports jury resolution when the record allows reasonable lawful and unlawful interpretations.

## Conclusion

The court denied summary judgment because Minpeco’s circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole and construed in its favor, could permit a reasonable jury to find a coordinated silver-market manipulation scheme and knowing broker involvement, making trial necessary to resolve disputed facts and inferences.


Minpeco, S.A. v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 673 F. Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)