This Article first provides a comprehensive analysis of conspiracy allegations in over-the-counter markets, focusing on the stock loan market as an exemplar.

Multiple conspiracy claims, implicating antitrust law, have been brought regarding over the counter markets since the financial crisis of 2008. The biggest banks in the country have been the center of novel complaints, new regulations, and innovative legislation in the recent years. But, despite regulation and legislation, Sherman Act litigation alleging conspiracy has endured as plaintiffs claim that big banks are conspiring to fix markets when, in fact, they are exercising economies of scale to provide unique, tailored products to sophisticated consumers who seek an edge in the market. This Article uses Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America, a recently filed complaint in the Southern District of New York, as an analytical tool to demonstrate why arguments regarding antitrust conspiracy in unique, large-scale financial transactions fail to make plausible antitrust claims and, instead, are the by-products of market conditions and sophisticated bargaining.

This Article ultimately concludes that the plaintiffs alleging conspiracy in the stock lending market and over-the-counter markets, in general, do not have a judicial remedy available to them. Instead, as sophisticated, large clients, their remedy is legislative and regulatory (assuming that a remedy is warranted).