The Berkshire Bank v. Bank of America Corporation et al
| The Berkshire Bank |
| Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Barklays Bank Plc, Citigroup Inc., Citibank N.A., Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisenboerenleenbank B.A., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings plc., HSBC Bank Plc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Lloyds Banking Group plc., HBOS Plc., Royal Bank of Canada, The Norinchukin Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., UBS AG, WestLB AG and Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG |
| 1:2012cv05723 |
| July 25, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Naomi Reice Buchwald |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
431
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiffs have not approached meeting the standards required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C § 1292(b) for the relief sought. Accordingly, the applications are denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 1/26/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al. (mml)
|
|
Filing
430
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FUNDS granting (3592) Motion for Disbursement of Funds in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Distribution of Class Acti on Settlement Funds is GRANTED. 2. The funds that are currently in the Settlement Funds1 (after deducting any Notice and Administration Cost, Taxes and Tax Expenses) shall be distributed on a pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibit B-1 to the Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough in Support of Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds (the "Keough Declaration"), at the direction of Plaintiffs' Counsel pursuant to the various Settlement Ag reements and the Plan of Distribution previously approved by the Court. 3. Any person asserting any rejected or subsequently filed claims for the relevant settlements are finally and forever barred as of October 31, 2022, the date used to finalize t he administration based on the Keough Declaration, as further set forth herein. 6. Pursuant to the Plan of Distribution, if any funds remain in the Settlement Funds by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, then, after JND has made reasonable and d iligent efforts to have Settlement Class Members who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the Settlement Funds cash their distribution checks, any balance remaining in the Settlement Funds after six (6) months from the initial distribut ion (whether by reason of tax refunds uncashed checks or otherwise), Plaintiffs' Counsel, in connection with JND, shall, if feasible and cost-effective make a second distribution to claimants who cashed their checks from the initial distributio n and who would receive at least $10.00. Additional re-distributions may occur thereafter in three (3) month intervals until Plaintiffs' Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines that further redistribution is not cost-effective. 7. JND 's request for payment of: (a) outstanding fees and expenses already incurred in connection with the administration in the amount of $17,387.73; and (b) its estimate to complete the Initial Distribution in the amount of $26,802.00, as set forth in paragraph 17 of the Keough Declaration and Exhibit C thereto, is approved. 8. This Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or matter which may arise in connection with this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 12/16/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB. (mml) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
425
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Second Circuit's recent decisions in Schwab II and Berkshire leave undisturbed this Court's ruling in LIBOR VIII with respect to the BBA. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 11/18/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB, 1:14-cv-01757-NRB, 1:14-cv-03094-NRB. (mml)
|
|
Filing
415
ORDER: The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to remove The Berkshire Bank and the Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico from all LIBOR-related cases other than 12cv5723 and 11md2262. Directors Financial Group should be removed from all such cases other than 13cv1016 and 11md2262. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 8/1/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB, 1:13-cv-01016-NRB. (mml)
|
|
Filing
413
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN LENDER PLAINTIFFS AND CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG AND THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., N/K/A MUFG BANK, LTD.: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDE RED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. Unless indicated otherwise, capitalized terms used herein have the same meanings defined in the Agreements. 2. For purposes of finally approving the Settlements, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter o f the Lender Action, Lender Plaintiffs, all Lender Class Members, and, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlements and subject to the limitations contained in the Agreement, the Settling Defendants, as further set forth. 6. All of the cl aims asserted in the Lender Action are hereby dismissed on the merits with prejudice as to the Settling Defendants. The Parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Agreements, as further set forth. 11. Lender Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $212,800.00 plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Funds, and expenses in the amount of $2,803.89 plus interest at the same rate a s earned by the Settlement Funds, such amounts to be paid from out of the Settlement Funds no later than five (5) business days following the entry of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, as further set forth. 20. Without f urther order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions in the Settlement Agreements. 21. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. The finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice shall not be affected, in any manner, b y any appeals concerning the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded herein, the award to Lender Plaintiffs, or the Plan of Distribution, as further set forth. 25. All agreements made and orders entered during the course of this Lender Action rel ating to the confidentiality of information shall survive the Settlements and be binding on the Parties, including but not limited to the Stipulation and Protective Order entered on March 21, 2016 (ECF No. 1347). Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Credit Suisse Group AG, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. and Bank of Tokyo-Mistsubishi UFJ terminated. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/26/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB (mml)
|
|
Filing
412
CORRECTED ORDER, WHEREAS no class member has objected to the settlements that will be discussed at the fairness hearing scheduled for July 13, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (the "Fairness Hearing"); and WHEREAS the Lender Plaintiffs have filed written submissions regarding the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of those settlements, the Court will hold the Fairness Hearing telephonically. Chambers will post dial-in instructions on the MDL and Lender Plaintiff Action dockets on the morning of July 13, 2022. ( Telephone Conference set for 7/13/2022 at 02:30 PM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/11/22) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB (yv)
|
|
Filing
392
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN LENDER PLAINTIFFS AND DEUTSCHE BANK AG: On the 15th day of March, 2021, a hearing having been held before this Court todetermine, among other things: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Deutsche Bank AG Settlement Agreement, dated July 29, 2020 (the Settlement as documented in an Agreement) which settle all claims in The Berkshire Bank and Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico v. Bank of America, et al., No. 12-cv-5723-NRB (the Lender Action), consolidated in In Re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Litig., No. 11-md-2262-NRB, for $425,000 (the Settlement Amount), are fair, reasona ble, and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by the Lender Class1 against Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank or the Settling Defendant); and (2) whether to approve the proposed Plan of Distribution as a fair a nd reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among the Lender Class Members; as further set forth in this order. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: Unless indicated otherwise, capitaliz ed terms used herein have the same meanings defined in the Agreement. For purposes of finally approving the Settlement, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Lender Action, Lender Plaintiffs, all Lender Class Members , and, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement and subject to the limitations contained in the Agreement, the Settling Defendant. Excluded from the Lender Class Members are those Persons who filed valid and timel y Requests for Exclusion in accordance with the Agreement (the Opt-Outs) (paragraph 5(d) of the Agreement). The Opt-Outs are listed in Exhibit A. The Court hereby finds that the forms and methods of notifying the Lender Class of the Settlement and its terms and conditions met the requirements of the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pursuant to, and in accordance with, R ule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Lender Class, in all respects (including, without limitation: the amounts paid un der the Settlement; the Releases provided for herein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims provided for herein). Lender Plaintiffs and Settling Defendant (the Parties) are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the ter ms and provisions of the Agreement. All of the claims asserted in the Lender Action are hereby dismissed on the merits with prejudice as to the Settling Defendant. The Parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Agreement. This Court orders that: Releasing Parties hereby release and forever discharge the Released Parties from any and all Released Claims. Releasing Parties are hereby permanently Procedure, an d all other applicable law and rules; Accordingly, the Court hereby bars all Released Claims against and by the Released Parties as provided herein. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/15/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB (js) Modified on 3/15/2021 (js).
|
|
Filing
391
ORDER: ORDERED that the fairness hearing shall be conducted telephonically on the date and time that it was previously scheduled, March 15, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Chambers will post dial-in instructions on the MDL docket and the Lender Plaintiff Actio n dockets in advance of the fairness hearing., ( Fairness Hearing set for 3/15/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/04/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB (ama)
|
|
Filing
388
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT BETWEEN LENDER PLAINTIFFS AND DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING THE LENDER SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTING SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL, APPROVING NOTICE PROGRAM AND PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PLAN OF DISTRIBUT ION: The Court, having reviewed the Motion, its accompanying memorandum, the Settlement Agreement, the Declaration of Jeremy A. Lieberman (Lieberman Declaration) and exhibits thereto, the Plan of Distribution, the Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough an d exhibits thereto, and the file, HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES: The Settlement is hereby preliminarily approved, including the releases contained therein, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Lender Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to final Court approval following the Fairness Hearing described below. The Court finds that the Settlement was entered into at arms length by experienced counsel and is sufficiently within the range of reaso nableness that notice of the Settlement should be given to the members of the Lender Class as provided in this Order. A Fairness Hearing set for 3/15/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. And as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 10/30/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
377
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN LENDER PLAINTIFFS, JPMORGAM CHASE & CO. AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("JPMORGAN") AND BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION AND BANK OFAMERICA, N.A. ( "BOA") AND UBS AG ("UBS"): NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: Unless indicated otherwise, capitalized terms used herein have the same meanings defined in each of the Agreements. For purposes of fina lly approving the Settlements, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Lender Action, Lender Plaintiffs, all Lender Class Members, and, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlements and subject to the limitations contained in the Agreements, the Settling Defendants. Lender Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,120.000 plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Funds, and expensesin the amount of $11,688.47 plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Funds, if such amounts are not paid from out of the Settlement Funds within five (5) business days following the entry of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Plaintiff The Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico is awarded the sum of $ 15,000 plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Funds, as reasonable costs and expenses and as a service award directly relating to the representation of t he Lender Class. All agreements made and orders entered during the course of this Lender Actionrelating to the confidentiality of information shall survive the Settlements and be binding on the Parties, including but not limited to the Stipulation an d Protective Order entered on March 21, 2016 (ECF No. 1347). And as set forth herein., Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPM organ Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, UBS AG, UBS AG, UBS AG, UBS AG, Bank Of America Corporation and Bank of America Corp. terminated. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/26/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
375
ORDER: Whereas the United States Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City is, pursuant to Standing Order 20 Misc. 155, closed for hearings such as the fairness hearing scheduled for May 26, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. (the "Fairness Hearing "), whereas no class member has objected to the settlements that will be discussed at the Fairness Hearing, and whereas the Lender Plaintiffs have filed written submissions regarding the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of those settlement s, the Court will hold the Fairness Hearing telephonically. Chambers will post dial-in instructions on the MDL and Lender Plaintiff Action dockets on the morning of May 26., ( Fairness Hearing set for 5/26/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald., Telephone Conference set for 5/26/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/15/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB (ama)
|
|
Filing
335
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Lender plaintiffs' settlements with Barclays, Citi, and HSBC are preliminarily approved, and a class is certified for purposes of effectuating these settlements. JND Legal Administration is approved as the Claims Administra tor for all three settlements, and Huntington Bank is approved as Escrow Agent. Lender plaintiffs shall propose revisions to the long form notice and amended publication notice that reflect the Second Circuit's denial of their Rule 23 (f) motion for interlocutory review of LIBOR VII's denial of certification of a Lender class. An order establishing a schedule for the dissemination of notice, the filing of objections and exclusions, and the process of final approval (including the holdi ng of a fairness hearing) will issue following the receipt of revisions to the Court's satisfaction. SO ORDERED.,, Motions terminated: (2506 in 1:11-md-02262-NRB) LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald from Jeremy A. Lieberman dated May 4, 2018 filed by Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, The Berkshire Bank. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/18/2018) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB(ama)
|
|
Filing
332
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Lender plaintiffs' application for reconsideration untimely, underdeveloped, and ultimately unpersuasive is denied. Lender plaintiffs shall revise the notice program proposed in relation to the pending settlements to acknow ledge both LIBOR V's dismissal of GDB' s fraud claims and LIBOR VII' s denial of class certification, as directed by the Court during the conference held on June 18, 2018. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/02/2018) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:12-cv-05723-NRB(ama)
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying (296) Motion for Reconsideration; denying (327) Motion for Leave to File Document; denying (330) Motion for Leave to File Document; granting in part and denying in part (333) Motion to Amend/Correct ; denying (341) Motion for Leave to File Document in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB. For the reasons stated above, the exchange-based plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory appeal is denied; the OTC, bondholder, and exchange-based plaintiffs' motions to add allegations w ith respect to antitrust are denied; the exchange-based plaintiffs' motion to add allegations with respect to trader-based manipulation is denied; BT-MU, Credit Suisse, and Norinchukin's motion for reconsideration is denied without prejudic e to a similar motion being filed by defendants that addresses the issues raised herein; and, the OTC plaintiffs motion for leave to reassert their unjust enrichment claim and to add a claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair deali ng is granted. By September 10, 2013, the OTC plaintiffs and the exchange-based plaintiffs shall each file a second amended complaint that conforms with the rulings herein. If defendants believe that the new complaints are inconsistent with our ruli ngs, they shall inform us by September 20, 2013. Further, if defendants wish to file a motion for reconsideration on grounds similar to those asserted in BT-MUs, Credit Suisse's, and Norinchukin's motion and which addresses the issues we ha ve raised, they must file such a motion by September 20, 2013. Finally, if defendants intend to move for reconsideration of the March 29 Order on statute of limitations grounds or to make a renewed motion to dismiss with regard to "Period 2" ; claims, they must seek leave to file such a motion by September 20, 2013. This Memorandum and Order resolves docket entry nos. 296, 316, 327, 330, 333, and 341. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 8/23/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(ft)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part (165) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-00598-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in c ase 1:13-cv-00597-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-cv-05723-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-cv-05822-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-cv-06056-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-cv-06693-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-cv-07461-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13 -cv-00398-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-00626-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-00625-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv- 00627-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-00667-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-00346-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-0040 7-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-01135-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-01198-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-01456-NR B; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:13-cv-01016-NRB. For the reasons stated above, defendants motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in 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 results from an anticompetitive aspect of defendants conduct. Here, although p laintiffs 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 a n impermissible extraterritorial application of the CEA, and plaintiffs have adequately pleaded their claims. However, certain of plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because numerous 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, 2008, are time-barred. However, plaintiffs claims based on contracts ent ered 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. Additi onally, 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 complaint to include allegations based on such information, provided t hat any such motion addresses the concerns raised herein and is accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint. Third, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO claim 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 claim could have been the subject of a claim for securities fraud. Add itionally, 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 these reasons, plaintiffs RICO claim is dismissed. Finally, plainti ffs' 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 exchange-based plaintiffs' New York common law unjust enric hment 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 exercise 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 reaching into the billions of dollars. However, these results a re 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 reason 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 competition, are being addressed by ongoing governmental enfo rcement. While public enforcement is often supplemented by suits brought by private parties acting as "private attorneys general," those private actions which seek damages and attorneys fees must be examined closely to ensure that the plai ntiffs 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 Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/29/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(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.
