Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd. et al
| Jeffrey Laydon |
| Mizuho Bank, Ltd., The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Resona Bank, Ltd., Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd., Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation, Mizuho Trust and Banking Co., Ltd., The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Co., Ltd., Citibank, Japan Ltd., JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, BNP Paribas S.A., Shinkin Central Bank, The Shoko Chukin Bank, The Norinchukin Bank, Barclays Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings plc, Citibank NA, Credit Agricole CIB, Lloyds Banking Group plc, Societe Generale and Rabobank Group |
| 1:2012cv03419 |
| April 30, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| George B. Daniels |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 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
1107
JUDGMENT : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. This Final Judgment hereby incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Tullett Prebon entered into on July 20, 2022 (the "Settlement Agreement"), and all terms used herein, except as otherwise expressly defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enter this Final Judgment and that it has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiff,Tullett Prebon (in this Action only and for purposes of this Settlement), and all members of the Settlement Class. 3. This Action, including each claim in the Action, is hereby dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to Tullett Prebon and without fees or costs. 4. Upon the Settlement Agreement becoming final in accordance with its terms, all of the following claims shall be released. Specifi cally: As further set forth in this Order. 5. The Court, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to Tullett Prebon shall be final and entered forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/14/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing
1062
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH TP ICAP PLC (F/K/A TULLETT PREBON PLC AND N/K/A TP ICAP FINANCE PLC), AND SCHEDULING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL THEREOF, AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED FORM AND PROGRAM OF NOTICE TO THE CLASS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Except for the terms expressly defined herein, the Court adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Settlement Agreement for the purposes of this Order. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, and the Settlement contained therein under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that it has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs, Tullett Prebon (in the Actions only and for purposes of th is Settlement), and all Class Members. A hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on or after March 14, 2023 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 11A. Unless otherwise specified, the word "days," as used herein, means calendar days . In the event that any date or deadline set forth herein falls on a weekend or federal or state legal holiday, such date or deadline shall be deemed moved to the first business day thereafter. And as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED., ( Fairness Hearing set for 3/14/2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/04/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
1032
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 974 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants' motion to for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 974), is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 580), is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion accordingly. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/27/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
1016
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, THE SHOKO CHUKIN BANK, LTD., SUMITOMO MITSUI TRUST BA.l~K, LIMITED, AND RESONA BANK, LTD.: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. This Final Judgment hereby incorporates by reference the definitions in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement Settlement with the Settling Defendants entered into on September 5, 2019 (the "Settlement Agreement"), and all terms used herein, exce pt as otherwise expressly defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enter this Final Judgment and that it has perso nal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, the Settling Defendants (in this Action only and for purposes of this Settlement), and all members of the Settlement Class. 3. This Action, including each claim in this Action, is hereby dismissed with prejudice o n the merits as to the Settling Defendants and without fees or costs, and as further set forth in this judgment. (The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd., The Shoko Chukin Bank, Shinkin Central Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Limited terminated.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/19/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
596
OPINION AND ORDER re: 495 MOTION For Order Sustaining Objections to Discovery Under Data Privacy Laws of the United Kingdom . filed by HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank Plc. For all the foregoing reasons, defendants HSBC Holdings p lc, HSBC Bank plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Societe Generale, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., and Deutsche Bank AG's motion for an Order sustaining their objec tions to Plaintiff's First Request for Productions of Documents and requiring that plaintiff pursue discovery of documents contained in the United Kingdom through the procedures set forth in the Hague Convention is denied. (As further set forth in this order) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/29/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb)
|
|
Filing
558
ORDER: On or about December 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint ("TAC") under seal. (ECF No. 547.) On December 30, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff permission to refile the TAC in redacted form. (ECF No. 55 7.) Since that time, however, the Court has determined that the TAC violates this Court's prior order which only granted Plaintiff leave to amend to add four defendants. (ECF No. 448 at 2, 21.) The TAC adds several additional plaintiffs and cl aims. In addition, the TAC includes claims and defendants that this Court ordered dismissed from this action. (See ECF Nos. 270, 447.) Defendant's January 5, 2016 letter request that this Court strike the filed TAC in its entirety is GRANTED. The TAC, (ECF Nos. 544-47), is hereby ORDERED stricken from the docket. Should Plaintiff wish to file another amended complaint, he should submit a letter request with a Proposed Complaint attached which is consistent with this Court's previo us orders, and serve a copy on opposing counsel no later than January 28, 2016. Should opposing counsel wish to respond to Plaintiffs' submission, it should do so no later than February 18, 2016. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/8/2016) (kl)
|
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.
