LETTER addressed to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald from Christopher Lovell dated 10/15/13 re: Charts of U.S. dollar Libor submissions for the dates listed in Docket Number 439 at p. 4 in response to the Court's direction on October 8, 2013. Document filed by FTC Capital GMBH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-02613-NRB et al.(Lovell, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part (89) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-02613-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-07676-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05931-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05930-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05929-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05928-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-04736-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-03423-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-06120-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05927-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05641-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05638-NRB; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss in case 1:11-cv-05640-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 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 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 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 complaint 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 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. 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 these 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 exchange-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 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 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 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 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 attorneys 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 Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/29/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-02613-NRB et al.(tro) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, we reverse our previous consolidation order pursuant to Rule 42(a) and instead consolidate the class action complaints pending in the MDL for pretrial purposes only. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/18/2012) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(lmb)
STIPULATION AS TO ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: Subject to the reservation of rights set forth in paragraph 2 below, each of the Defendants hereby accepts service of process in the following actions to the extent the Defendant is named as a defendant in the complaints, including the amended complaints filed on April 30, 2012. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 7/5/2012) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(pl)
Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney David Kovel to RE-FILE Document [17] Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. ERROR(S): Corporate Parents were not added. Please re-file this document and when prompted: Are there any corporate parents or other affiliates?, select the YES radio button and enter the Corporate Parent(s) or Affiliate(s). (kco)
NOTICE of of Withdrawal of Counsel re: (12 in 1:11-cv-04736-NRB) Notice (Other). Document filed by Ravan Investments, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Nussbaum, Linda)
Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney David Kovel to RE-FILE Document [16] Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement,. ERROR(S): Corporate Parents were not added. Please re-file this document and when prompted: Are there any corporate parents or other affiliates?, select the YES radio button and enter the Corporate Parent(s) or Affiliate(s). (gp)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Robert Gerard Eisler on behalf of Ravan Investments, LLC (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Eisler, Robert)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 3/1/2012 before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Toni Stanley, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/5/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/16/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/14/2012.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(McGuirk, Kelly)
PRE-TRIAL ORDER NO. 1: Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America, et al., Case No. 11.Civ. 5450, is designated as the lead action for the Over-the-Counter Plaintiff class actions("Over-the-Counter Plaintiff Action"), as further listed in this Pretrial Order. All filings related to the Over-the-Counter Plaintiff Action must be filed in that docket and in the docket for In re LIBOR-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2262. Upon their transfer to the docket for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America, et al., the Clerk will close the docket for those additional cases. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), the Court designates as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Over-the-Counter Plaintiff class, Hausfeld LLP, and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. FTC Capital GmbH, et al. v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., Case No. 11 Civ. 2613 is designated as the lead action for the Exchange-Based Plaintiff actions ("Exchange-Based Plaintiff Action"), as further listed in this Pretrial Order. All filings related to the Exchange-Based Plaintiff Action must be filed in that docket and in the docket for In re LIBOR-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2262. Upon their transfer to the docket for FTC Capital GmbH, et al. v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., the Clerk will close the docket for those additional cases. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), the Court designates as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Exchange-Based Plaintiff class, Kirby Mcinerney LLP, and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 12/22/2011) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-02613-NRB et al.(tro)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. UBS AG served on 5/26/2011, answer due 6/16/2011. Service was accepted by Priscilla Rua. Document filed by Gary Francis. (Richards, John)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. served on 5/25/2011, answer due 6/15/2011. Service was accepted by Scott LaScala. Document filed by Gary Francis. (Richards, John)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Citibank NA served on 5/26/2011, answer due 6/16/2011. Service was accepted by Mary Foran. Document filed by Gary Francis. (Richards, John)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Bank of America Corporation served on 5/25/2011, answer due 6/15/2011. Service was accepted by Scott LaScala. Document filed by Gary Francis. (Richards, John)
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT on or before 6/13/11, JPMorgan will submit a letter to the Court requesting the required pre-motion conference for its motion to stay this action pending the adjudication of the MDL Motion and JPMorgan and all defendants to move to dismiss or answer the complaint is extended until after the Court adjudicates JPMorgan's forthcoming stay motion. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 6/13/11) (cd)
COMPLAINT against Bank of America Corporation, Citibank NA, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., UBS AG. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 7212)Document filed by Gary Francis.(ama)
Update
Alerts
Jump