Duncan Galvanizing Corporation v. The London Metal Exchange Limited et al
| Duncan Galvanizing Corporation |
| The London Metal Exchange Limited, Lime Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchange & Clearing Limited, Glencore Xstrata Plc., Glencore Ltd., Pacorini Metals USA LLC., The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Metro International Trade Services LLC and JPMorgan Chase & Company |
| 1:2014cv03728 |
| May 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Katherine B. Forrest |
| 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
340
ORDER APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND granting (336) Motion for Disbursement of Funds in case 2:14-cv-03728-PAE. NOW, THEREFORE, upon careful consideration of: (i) the Declaration of Kevin K. Flynn in Support of Plaintiffs' Motio n for Approval of Distribution of Net Settlement Fund submitted on behalf of Angeion ("Flynn Declaration"); (ii) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Distribution of Net Settlement Fund; and (iii) the other submissions and papers on file with the Court; and upon all prior proceedings heretoforeand herein, and after due deliberation, it is hereby: As further set forth by this Order. ORDERED, that Angeion be paid the sum of $24,259.90 from the Net Settlement Fund as payment for its estimated fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with distributing the Net Settlement Fund to Claimants, filing the necessary tax returns, responding to Claimant inquires regarding their di stribution amounts and closing the administration of this Settlement; and it is further ORDERED, that this Court retain jurisdiction over any further application or matter which may arise in connection with the Action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/27/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (tg) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
329
FINAL JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANTS GLENCORE LTD. AND ACCESS WORLD (USA) LLC: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: This Court has jurisdiction over the subject mat ter of the Action and over all parties to the Settlement Agreement, including all Settlement Class Members. The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1715, have been satisfied. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied, and based on the record before the Court, the Court hereby finally certifies, for the purposes of settlement only, the following Settlement Class: All persons and entities that purchased LME U .S. Zinc and paid the Platts Zinc MW SHG Premium or similar price premium in the United States from a primary zinc producer or a Defendant from September 14, 2010 to February 11, 2016. Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and all other defendants named in the Corrected and Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed September 28, 2015 (ECF No. 138), and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates and all federal governmental entities. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied solely for settlement purposes, as follows; as further set forth in this Order. Plaintiffs are certified as class representatives on behalf of t he Settlement Class. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice and the publication of the Publication Notice; as further set forth herein. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby fully and fina lly approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement in all respects (including, without limitation, the amount of the Settlement, the Releases provided for therein, and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defe ndants in the Action), and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000) and Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the C ourt concludes that, as further set forth herein. The Court hereby grants final approval of the Plan of Allocation on the basis that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Rele ased Claims, against any of the Released Parties by the Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, and Releasing Parties are hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreem ent. The Court's determination as to any fee and expense application and/or Plan of Allocation shall in no way disturb or affect this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal and shall be considered separate from this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of this Judgment shall be forever binding on Defendants, Plaintiffs, and all other Settlement Class Members (regardless of whether or not any individual Settlement Class Member submits a Claim Form or seeks or obtains a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as their respective heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns in their capacities as such. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasin g Parties: (a) shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, shall have fully, finally, and forever waived, released, relinquished, and discharged, as further set forth herein. This Final Judgment and Or der of Dismissal shall not affect, in any way, the right of Plaintiffs or Settlement Class Members to pursue claims, if any, outside the scope of the Released Claims. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor the settlement contained therein, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement Agreement or the settlement: a. shall be offered against any of the Defendants as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any presumption, concess ion, or admission by any of the Defendants with respect to the truth of any fact alleged by Plaintiffs, as further set forth herein. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal in any way, this Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of this settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; as further set forth herein. The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Pa rties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event the Settlement Agreement is terminated, is vacated, is not approved, or the Ef fective Date fails to occur for any reason, then the Parties to the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of 90 days prior to the Execution Date, and, except as otherwise expressly prov ided herein, the Parties shall proceed in all respects as if the Settlement Agreement and any related orders had not been entered, and any portion of the Settlement Fund previously paid by or on behalf of Defendants, together with any interest earn ed thereon, less any Taxes due and notice costs actually incurred up to $100,000, if any, with respect to such income, shall be returned to Defendants within ten (10) business days from the date of the event causing such termination. At the request of Defendants' Counsel, the Escrow Agent shall apply for any tax refund owed on the Settlement Fund and/or the Notice and Administration Fund and pay the proceeds to Defendants. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment as a final judgment in this Action. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to immediately enter this final judgment in this Action. ( As further set forth in this Judgment.) IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/16/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (vfr)
|
|
Filing
326
ORDER: On February 2, 2022, the Court informed the parties that the fairness hearing in this case would take place at 3:30 p.m. Dk:t. 320. The hearing will now begin at 3:00 p.m. the same day, February 16, 2022. The Court directs counsel to info rm all parties of this time change, as well as any persons or entities who have indicated an interest in being heard. Participants are directed to review the District's COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, which are available online at ht tps://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus, to ensure that they will be able to gain access to the courthouse. SO ORDERED. ( Fairness Hearing set for 2/16/2022 at 03:00 PM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/10/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (va)
|
|
Filing
303
ORDER: The Court accordingly directs plaintiffs' counsel to file a supplemental declaration answering the following questions: 1. In the event that the sum total of the qualifying claims made by class members falls short of the $9.85M in cash which defendants have put in escrow (less the sums awarded for attorneys' fees, costs, and service award(s)), what will become of the excess? Will it be allocated to the class members who have submitted valid claims, such that those c lass members can potentially receive in excess of the face value of their claims? Will it go to a cy pres fund? 2. Assuming that all class members submit claim forms that are approved by the claims administrator, what total would these claims (dis counting indirect purchasers' claims by 90% as proposed) add up to? Assuming maximum participation, what percentage of each class member's claims would each class member stand to receive? 3. What are counsels' and the claims adm inistrators' estimates of the likely share of the class that will submit valid claim forms and the likely aggregate total of the validly submitted claims? What is the basis for these estimates? The Court would welcome a detailed discussion of the factors bearing on the likelihood that a class member will submit a valid claim (e.g., the size of the claim; the age of the claim; the complexity of the claim form; the need to present historical documentation in support of the claim) and ho w these factors apply here. The Court assumes that counsel, in order to assure that the proposed settlement carried a concrete promise of recovery for members of the putative class, undertook an analysis of these factors in the course of the settle ment process, and that this information is therefore readily available. Plaintiffs' counsel's declaration is due one week from today, on Monday, August 16, 2021. The declaration should state whether defense counsel agree with the answers set out in the declaration. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/9/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (va)
|
|
Filing
302
ORDER: The Court is in the process of reviewing plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement and supporting documents. The Court would benefit from the opportunity to review the Confidential Supplement referen ced at paragraph 43 of Exhibit A to plaintiffs' motion. The Court asks counsel to deliver the Confidential Supplement to the Court's chambers by close of business Friday, July 30, either by email or by express mail. Counsel are directed to notify chambers, by email, of the means of delivery they select. Following review of the Confidential Supplement, the Court will determine whether further information from counsel is needed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/27/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (va)
|
|
Filing
292
ORDER with respect to 290 Letter Motion to Compel: The Court gives third-party Natixis North America LLC until Monday, October 26, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., to respond to defendants' motion. The Court will otherwise resolve that motion on the basis of defendants' submission. Defendants' counsel is directed forthwith today to email this order to counsel for Natixis. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 10/23/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
277
ORDER terminating (275) Letter Motion for Discovery in case 2:14-cv-03728-PAE: Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants produce responsive, non-privileged documents through February 11, 2016. The Court further orders that defendants search th e files of Waszkis and Lucke and produce responsive, non-privileged documents from those custodians. However, the Court denies the additional relief requested by plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/3/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (jwh)
|
|
Filing
268
ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LETTERS ROGATORY {LETTER OF REQUEST) granting (267) Letter Motion for Discovery in case 2:14-cv-03728-PAE: THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Glencor e Ltd.'s Application for the Issuance of International Letters Rogatory (the "Application"). The Court, having considered the Application, hereby ORDERS that the Application is GRANTED. This Court will issue the Letter of Request attac hed hereto seeking the assistance of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto Region, in obtaining evidence from Hudbay Minerals Inc., a company based in Ontario, Canada. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/2/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 2:14-cv-03728-PAE, 2:14-cv-04290-PAE (jwh) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
187
OPINION & ORDER re: (165 in 1:14-cv-03728-KBF) MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint. filed by Glencore Ltd., (168 in 1:14-cv-03728-KBF) MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Ac tion Complaint. filed by Pacorini Metals USA LLC. For the reasons set forth above, Glencore Ltd.'s and Pacorini's motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint are DENIED as to plaintiffs' monopolization and attem pted monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and GRANTED as to plaintiffs' illegal merger claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Discovery in this matter shall proceed immediately. The parties are directed to confer on a sch edule for the remainder of this case, including fact and expert discovery, briefing on class certification, final motions for summary judgment, and trial. The parties shall submit a joint proposed schedule within one week of the date of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 165 and 168. (As further set forth in this order) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/6/2016) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
155
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Consolidated Amended Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice, while Count III and IV are dismissed without prejudice. As a result, plaintiffs may attempt to re-plead Counts III and IV against Glencore Ltd. and/or Pacorini, but may not assert any amended claims against any of the other defendants. Should plaintiffs choose to replead Counts III and IV, they must file an y amendment, redlined against the CAC, within 21 days of the filing of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 122, 124, 127, and 130. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/7/2016) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-03728-KBF, 1:14-cv-04290-KBF(cf)
|
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.
