Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • DERIVATIVES—D.D.C.: CME sues CFTC for allowing Kalshi to list perpetual contracts as futures
    • COMMODITY FUTURES—Ill. Cir.: Court upholds jury verdict in CME’s favor
    • FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES—Commissioner Uyeda discusses trends in the evolution of European capital markets
    • FINRA NEWS AND SPEECHES—FINRA expels member firm and bars two cofounders
    • VITAL BRIEFING—U.S. trade office zeroes in on forced labor import practices
    • WORTH NOTING—Other litigation, regulatory activity and industry news
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Securities Regulation Daily Wrap Up, COMMODITY FUTURES—Ill. Cir.: Court upholds jury verdict in CME’s favor, (Jun 18, 2026)

    Organizations Mentioned:Board of Trade of the City of Chicago | Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. | CME Group | CME Group Inc | Chicago Board of Trade | EnCana Holdings Finance Corp. | Falcon Global Capital, LP | Goldman Sachs Vintage Fund III Offshore, LP | Wilson Lee Engineering Co., Inc.

    By Anne Sherry, J.D.

    The jury could reasonably find that CBOT’s and CME’s charters did not grant access to a “trading floor” or “facility.”

    The state court in Cook County upheld a jury verdict in favor of CME Group and the Chicago ...

    By Anne Sherry, J.D.

    The jury could reasonably find that CBOT’s and CME’s charters did not grant access to a “trading floor” or “facility.”

    The state court in Cook County upheld a jury verdict in favor of CME Group and the Chicago Board of Trade. The plaintiffs failed to meet their steep burden to secure a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The jury had been properly instructed on the doctrine of contra proferentem, and it performed its duty to weigh the evidence (Langer v. CME Group Inc., No. 2014 CH 00829 (Ill. Cir. June 15, 2026)).

    In moving for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which presents a question of law, the plaintiffs asserted the doctrine that contract ambiguities should be resolved against the drafter. But the court reasoned that the jury had been instructed on this doctrine and that it is the jury’s job to resolve evidentiary conflicts and weigh the witnesses’ credibility and testimony.

    A motion for JNOV “is not merely a vehicle for a party to request another chance to overrule an unfavorable decision,” the court admonished.

    The plaintiffs likewise were not entitled to a new trial. That standard is that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, not just that the evidence was conflicting or that the jury could have found differently. Alternatively, a new trial is appropriate where an error occurred that prejudiced a party or affected the trial’s outcome.

    In this case, the judge acted within his discretion when ruling on evidentiary matters that led to a jury finding that the CME site where trades are executed was not a “facility” under the CBOT charter or a “trading floor” under the CME charter. And any purported errors were not sufficiently prejudicial and did not affect the outcome of the case.

    The case is No. 2014 CH 00829.

    Judge: Swedlow, S.

    Companies: CME Group Inc; Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.

    LitigationEnforcement: CommodityFutures IllinoisNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use