OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege a conspiracy to fix the price of physical gold and gold-denominated financial instruments from 2004 to 2012. Until November 2014, the price of physical gold was set twice daily through a private auction involving some of the largest bullion banks in London. Plaintiffs allege that the afternoon “Gold Fixing” — also known as the “PM Fixing” — was a cover for a price-fixing conspiracy among the entity charged with operating the Gold Fixing, defendant London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. (“LGMF”), and the participant banks: The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”), Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”), Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”), HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”), and Société Générale SA (“SocGen”) (collectively, the “Fixing Banks”).1 Plaintiffs have also named as a defendant UBS AG and its affiliates (together “UBS”). Although UBS was not a member of the Gold Fixing at any point during the alleged class period, Plaintiffs contend UBS conspired with the Fixing Banks to suppress the price of gold as determined by the PM Fixing.Plaintiffs are individuals and entities that sold physical gold, gold futures traded on the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (“COMEX”) market, shares in gold exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”),2 or options on gold ETFs during the Class Period. Seeking to recover alleged losses suffered as a result of Defendants’ alleged manipulation and suppression of the price of gold through the gold “fixing” process, Plaintiffs bring putative class action claims for (1) unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 et seq.; (2) market manipulation in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and CFTC Rule 180.2; (3) employment of a manipulative or deceptive device and false reporting in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and CFTC Rule 180.1; (4) principal-agent liability under the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq.; (5) aiding and abetting manipulation in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq.; and (6) unjust enrichment.Before the Court is UBS’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 266) (the “TAC”). In brief, UBS contends that its participation in a scheme to suppress the PM Fixing is implausible. According to UBS, the Fixing Banks, with their ready-made forum for collusion and substantial market power, had no reason to involve UBS in their alleged conspiracy. UBS also moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over a Swiss entity, UBS AG. For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees that’s Plaintiffs’ allegations against UBS are implausible. The motion to dismiss is granted.BACKGROUNDThe Court assumes familiarity with the prior proceedings in this case and the Court’s prior opinion in In re Commodity Exch., Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litig., 213 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Gold I”) and the Court’s memorandum order granting leave to amend, Dkt. 258 (“Gold II”). In recent years, the Gold Fix auction (which originated in 1919) has been conducted during a conference call among representatives of the five Fixing Banks. TAC
87-92. No third parties participated in the call, making it an almost perfect forum for collusion among competitors. The market-clearing price in the auction (the “Fix Price”) was published as a benchmark price for physical gold. TAC
