CClaimWatch
Claims closedfinance

Batchelar v. Interactive Brokers Margin Account Liquidation Settlement

Last verified July 13, 2026Source: claimdepotHow ClaimWatch verifies cases

This settlement is closed to new claims. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →

What happened

Interactive Brokers allegedly negligently designed, coded, tested, maintained, and used automated liquidation algorithm software that liquidated customers' margin accounts, causing unintended losses. The defendants deny the allegations and maintain the software was properly designed and used.

Do you qualify?

Anyone who had a margin account with Interactive Brokers, LLC that was liquidated in whole or part using the automated liquidation algorithm software between December 18, 2013, and July 14, 2025.

How to file

Class members identified in Interactive Brokers' records will automatically receive a cash payment if they do nothing. Those who received a shorter form notice should read the settlement website for complete information. The claim deadline is not yet specified on the page.

Common questions

Is the Batchelar v. Interactive Brokers Margin Account Liquidation Settlement notice real, or a scam?
Claims are filed at interactivebrokerssettlement.com. Filing a class action claim is always free — no legitimate settlement charges you to claim, and no administrator will ask for payment, a gift card, or your full Social Security number by email or text. If a notice asks for any of those, it is not from the administrator. When in doubt, ignore the link you were sent and go to the official settlement website directly.
When will payments from the Batchelar v. Interactive Brokers Margin Account Liquidation Settlement be sent?
Class action payouts typically take 12 to 24 months after the claim deadline, and longer if the settlement is appealed. The final approval hearing for this case is set for June 17, 2026; no payments can be issued before a settlement receives final approval.

Who's involved

Plaintiffs

  • Interactive Brokers, LLC(Counter Claimant)

Defendants

  • Thomas A. Frank
  • Interactive Brokers Group, Inc
  • Robert Scott Batchelar(Counter Defendant)

Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.

New to class actions?

This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.

More finance settlements

View all →
September 17, 2026finance

Patton v Trinity Settlement

Trinity Operating (USG) LLC allegedly failed to pay statutory interest on late payments for oil and gas production proceeds from Oklahoma wells under the PRSA (Property Rights Security Act). The defendant denies all wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation.

To be determined under the Allocation Methodology based on individual circumstances.

November 5, 2026No proof neededconsumer products

Schnucks Markets Rewards Points Sales Tax Settlement

Schnucks Markets allegedly charged customers sales tax on the full price of purchases before applying loyalty rewards points discounts, instead of calculating tax on the discounted price after points were redeemed. The lawsuit claimed Schnucks illegally collected excess sales tax and failed to properly inform customers about this practice.

Up to $7

November 24, 2026finance

Brimmer v. City of Overland Special Deterrent Fees Settlement

The City of Overland charged individuals Special Deterrent Fees. The court has approved a settlement requiring the city to refund these fees to eligible class members.

Up to $80

December 21, 2026consumer products

Kroger Rx Savings Club Settlement

Kroger allegedly failed to consider its Rx Savings Club or Health Savings Club prices when determining "usual and customary" (U&C) prices submitted for insurance claims. Plaintiffs contend Kroger should have used its lower Savings Club prices when calculating U&C prices, resulting in customers paying higher insurance copays. Kroger denies wrongdoing and maintains it correctly reported retail prices as U&C prices. The court has not decided the merits.

Payments calculated based on the amount a claimant paid for prescription drugs from Kroger where prescription insurance benefits were used.