Gelboim v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al
| Ellen Gelboim |
| Credit Suisse Group AG, Bank of America Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., HSBC Holdings plc., Barclays Bank PLC, Lloyds Banking Group plc, WestLB AG, UBS AG, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Deutsche Bank AG, Citibank NA, Rabobank Group, The Norinchukin Bank, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Societe Generale and Royal Bank of Canada |
| 1:2012cv01025 |
| February 9, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Westchester |
| Unassigned |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
311
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN BONDHOLDER PLAINTIFFS AND MUFG BANK, LTD., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, AND THE NORINCHUKIN BANK, CERTIFICATION OF THE BONDHOLDER SETTLEMENT CLASSES, APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT C LASS COUNSEL, AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: Unless indicated otherwise herein, all capitalized terms used in this Final Judgment and Order shall have the sa me respective meanings as in the Settlement Agreements. The aggregate settlement funds total $1,749,000 ("Subsequent Settlement Funds"), and consist of the following: $750,000 paid by MUFG, $550,000 paid by Credit S uisse, and $449,000 paid by Norinchukin. Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the pro rata Plan of Allocation that was preliminarily approved by the Court has a reasonable basis and is fair and adequate. Therefore, the Plan of Allocation for the distribution of Subsequent Settlement funds is hereby finally approved. Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and solely for settlement purposes, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At Law and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC are designated as Counsel for the Subsequent Settlement Classes. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/28/2023) (ate) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
274
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL BETWEEN BONDHOLDER PLAINTIFFS AND BARCLAYS BANK PLC, UBS AG, HSBC BANK PLC, CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP INC., JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA , N.A., AND THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: Unless indicated otherwise herein, all capitalized terms used in this Final Judgment and Order shall have the same respective meanings as in the Settlement Agreements. Moreover, the Court concludes as follows: The aggregate settlement funds totaled $68,625,000 ("Settlement Funds"), and consisted of the following: $7,100,000 paid by Barclays, $17,900,000 paid by U BS, $11,100,000 paid by HSBC, $7,025,000 paid by Citi, $6,250,000 paid by JPM; $6,250,000 paid by BOA, and $13,000,000 paid by RBS; Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and solely for settlement pur poses, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At Law and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC are designated as Counsel for the Settlement Classes. Counsel for the Settlement Classes are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $18,515,286.00. Counse l for the Settlement Classes are awarded reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $ 817,237.03. Plaintiffs Ellen Gelboim and Linda Zacher are each awarded the sum of $25,000, plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund s, as reasonable costs and expenses and as a service award directly relating to their representation of the Bondholder Class. Epiq is awarded reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $375,000.00. The Court approves and directs the implementati on of all the terms of the Settlements. And as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED., Motions terminated: (257 in 1:12-cv-01025-NRB, 3220 in 1:11-md-02262-NRB) MOTION to Approve Final Approval of Bondholder Settlements . filed by Linda Z acher, Ellen Gelboim, (3141 in 1:11-md-02262-NRB) MOTION for Settlement Exchange-Based Plaintifs' Notice of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with Defendants Bank of America, Barclays Bank Plc, Citi, Deutsche Bank, HS BC Bank Plc, JPMorgan, and Societe Generale. filed by 303030 Trading LLC, 303030 Trading, LLC, FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Metzler Investment GmbH, Gary Francis, Nathaniel Haynes, FTC Futures Fund SICAV, (26 3 in 1:12-cv-01025-NRB, 3226 in 1:11-md-02262-NRB) MOTION to Approve Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses . filed by Linda Zacher, Ellen Gelboim. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 12/16/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
273
ORDER: ORDERED that the fairness hearing shall be conducted telephonically on the date and time that it was previously scheduled, December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Chambers will post dial-in instructions on the MDL docket and the Non-Defendant OTC Plaintiff action dockets on the morning of December 16, 2020., ( Fairness Hearing set for 12/16/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 12/01/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying (418) Motion for Reconsideration; terminating (428) Motion to Strike; denying (453) Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part (507) Motion to Dismiss; granting (516) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-md-02 262-NRB. For the reasons stated above, exchange-based plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of our ruling on trader-based claims is denied, but their motion for leave to amend their complaint is granted; defendants' motion to dismiss CEA claims on scienter grounds is denied; defendants' motion to dismiss CEA claims arising out of contracts purchased between May 30, 2008 and April 14, 2009 is granted; defendants' motion to dismiss OTC plaintiffs' contract and unjust enrichment claims is granted in part and denied in part; and defendant Societe Generale's motion to dismiss the exchange-based plaintiffs' complaint is granted. It has been nearly two years since defendants first moved to dismiss plaintiff s' consolidated amended complaints. Since then, this Court has issued three major opinions and the parties have submitted hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of briefing materials, all in an attempt to resolve the threshold question of any lit igation: what claims, if any, have plaintiffs adequately pled? Now, at long last, there is clarity. OTC plaintiffs may state claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims for unjust enrichment, but only ag ainst those defendant banks with which OTC plaintiffs transacted directly. Exchange-based plaintiffs may state claims under the CEA based on contracts purchased between April 15, 2009 and the end of the Class Period, based on a theory that defendants ' alleged persistent suppression of LIBOR caused them damages; however, no such claim may lie against Societe Generale, as those claims are time barred. Exchange-based plaintiffs may also state claims against Barclays and Rabobank based on the alleged day-to-day, trader-based manipulation that occurred between January 1, 2005 and August 2007. This Memorandum and Order resolves docket entry nos. 396, 418, 428, 453, 507, and 516. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 6/23/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al. ***Docketed in all member and related cases pursuant to instructions from Chambers. (mro)
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss; terminating pursuant to instructions from Chambers; 32 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated above, defendants motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied i n part. First, defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs federal antitrust claim is granted. Regardless of whether defendants conduct constituted a violation of the antitrust law "antitrust injury." An antitrust injury is an injury that resul ts from an anticompetitive aspect of defendants conduct. Here, although plaintiffs have alleged that defendants conspired to suppress LIBOR over a nearly three-year-long period and that they were injured as a result, they have not alleged that their injury resulted from any harm to competition. The process by which banks submit LIBOR quotes to the BBA is not itself competitive, and plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants conduct had an anticompetitive effect in any market in which defendants compete. Because plaintiffs have not alleged an antitrustinjury, their federal antitrust claim is dismissed. Second, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' commodities manipulation claims is granted in part and denied in part. Contrary to defendants' arguments, plaintiffs' claims do not involve an impermissible extraterritorial application of the CEA, and plaintiffs have adequately pleaded their claims. However, certain of plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because n umerous articles published in April and May 2008 in prominent national publications placed plaintiffs on notice of their injury. Therefore, plaintiffs commodities manipulation claims based on contracts entered into between August 2007 and May 29, 200 8, are time-barred. However, plaintiffs claims based on contracts entered into between April 15, 2009, and May 2010 are not time-barred, and plaintiffs' claims based on contracts entered into between May 30, 2008, and April 14, 2009, may or may not be barred, though we will not dismiss them at this stage. Additionally, because the Barclays settlements broughtto light information that plaintiffs might not previously have been able to learn, we grant plaintiffs leave to move to amend their co mplaint to include allegations based on such information, provided that any such motion addresses the concerns raised herein and is accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint. Third, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO cl aim is granted. For one, the PSLRA bars plaintiffs from bringing a RICO claim based on predicate acts that could have been the subject of a securities fraud action. Here, the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud underlying plaintiffs' RICO clai m could have been the subject of a claim for securities fraud. Additionally, RICO applies only domestically, meaning that the alleged enterprise must be a domestic enterprise. However, the enterprise alleged by plaintiffs is based in England. For the se reasons, plaintiffs RICO claim is dismissed. Finally, plaintiffs' state-law claims are all dismissed, some with prejudice and some without. Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim is dismissed with prejudice for lack of antitrust injury. The ex change-based plaintiffs' New York common law unjust enrichment claim is also dismissed with prejudice, as plaintiffs have not alleged any relationship between them and defendants. With regard to the remaining state-law claims, we decline to exer cise supplemental jurisdiction and We recognize that it might be unexpected that we are dismissing a substantial portion of plaintiffs claims, given that several of the defendants here have already paid penalties to government regulatory agencies rea ching into the billions of dollars. However, these results are not as incongruous as they might seem. Under the statutes invoked here, there are many requirements that private plaintiffs must satisfy, but which government agencies need not. The reaso n for these differing requirements is that the focuses of public enforcement and private enforcement, even of the same statutes, are not identical. The broad public interests behind the statutes invoked here, such as integrity of the markets and comp etition, are being addressed by ongoing governmental enforcement. While public enforcement is often supplemented by suits brought by private parties acting as "private attorneys general," those private actions which seek damages and attorne ys fees must be examined closely to ensure that the plaintiffs who are suing are the ones properly entitled to recover and that the suit is, in fact, serving the public purposes of the laws being invoked. Therefore, although we are fully cognizant of the settlements that several of the defendants here have entered into with government regulators, we find that only some of the claims that plaintiffs have asserted may properly proceed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 3/29/2013) (tro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
