ORDER in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB; granting in part and denying in part (7) Motion to Consolidate Cases 11 MD 2262 (as Lead Case) in case 1:13-cv-00346-NRB. To the extent that plaintiffs seek to be considered a case within the LIBOR MDL, 11 MD 2262 (NRB), rather than as a related case filed in this district, the motion is granted. In all other respects, the motion is denied without prejudice and the case is ordered subject to the continuing stay contained in our Memorandum and Order of August 23, 2013. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 8/23/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:13-cv-00346-NRB(ft) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
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 with 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 prejudice 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 dealing 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 rulings, 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 have 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) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Leigh Mager Nathanson on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Barclays U.S. Funding LLC. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Nathanson, Leigh) (Entered: 06/29/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lisa Jean Fried on behalf of Lloyds Banking Group, PLC, Lloyds Banking Group PLC, HBOS PLC, HBOS Plc., Lloyds Banking Group plc., Lloyds Banking Group PLS. Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Fried, Lisa) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Notice of Assignment served on All Defendants on 5/10/2013. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Hall, Caitlin) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ORAL ARGUMENT proceeding held on 3/5/13 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ORAL ARGUMENT held on 3/5/2013 before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (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 6/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/19/2013.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Bank Of America Corporation served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; Bank of America, N.A. served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; Barclays Bank Plc. served on 1/30/2013, answer due 2/20/2013; Citibank, N.A. served on 1/28/2013, answer due 2/19/2013; Citigroup Inc. served on 1/28/2013, answer due 2/19/2013; Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. served on 1/29/2013, answer due 2/19/2013; Credit Suisse Group AG served on 1/31/2013, answer due 2/21/2013; Deutsche Bank AG served on 1/28/2013, answer due 2/19/2013; HSBC Bank Plc. served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; HSBC Holdings plc. served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; JPMorgan Chase & Co. served on 2/5/2013, answer due 2/26/2013; JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association served on 2/5/2013, answer due 2/26/2013; Royal Bank of Canada served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc served on 5/8/2013, answer due 5/29/2013; The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. served on 1/25/2013, answer due 2/15/2013; The Norinchukin Bank served on 4/11/2013, answer due 5/2/2013; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc. served on 5/8/2013, answer due 5/29/2013; UBS AG served on 1/29/2013, answer due 2/19/2013; WestLB AG served on 1/29/2013, answer due 2/19/2013. Service was made by E-mail. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Hall, Caitlin) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
MEMORANDUM: We have received a number of letters since issuing our Memorandum and Order of March 29, 2013 (the "Memorandum and Order"). These letters generally address four topics: (1) plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their amended complaints with regard to antitrust injury; (2) the motion for reconsideration filed by defendants The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU"), Credit Suisse Group AG, and The Norinchukin Bank; (3) requests to lift the stay imposed by our Memorandum and Order of August 14, 2012 by plaintiffs whose cases are subject to the stay; and (4) the exchange-based plaintiffs' request for leave to move for interlocutory appeal of a part of our Memorandum and Order. We will address these topics in turn. Based on the submissions to date, this Court could not enter such a certification. Nonetheless, to give exchange-based plaintiffs a full opportunity to support their position, we will accept a reply submission within two (2) weeks. Furthermore, we will treat the application as a letter motion for section 1292(b) certification and will file all the submissions on the docket when we issue our decision. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/3/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(rsh) Modified on 5/13/2013 (rsh). (Entered: 05/03/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Colin Reardon on behalf of Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Reardon, Colin) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ashley Margaret Simonsen on behalf of Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Simonsen, Ashley) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alan Schoenfeld on behalf of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Schoenfeld, Alan) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Sapir Lesser on behalf of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Lesser, David) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr on behalf of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Hunter, Fraser) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
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 case 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-00407-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-NRB; 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 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-md-02262-NRB et al.(tro) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 3/1/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
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 4/18/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2013.Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Brille on behalf of Barclays Bank, PLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Barclays PLC Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(Brille, Michael) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 3 Motion for Caitlin S. Hall to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/4/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 4 Motion for Andrew C. Shen to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/4/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 6 Motion for Stuart H. McCluer to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/4/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 8 Motion for Michael J. Guzman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/4/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
ORDER: Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss shall be held on March 5, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. at the United States Court House, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in Courtroom 21A., ( Oral Argument set for 3/5/2013 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 21A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.) (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 2/14/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.(lmb) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
MOTION for R. Bryant McCulley to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:13-cv-00346-NRB(McCulley, R.) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
ORDER: This case was previously designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (the "Pilot Project), it is hereby ORDERED that designation is hereby vacated, and the Clerk of Court shall remove the COMPLEX-CSMGMT flag. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 1/31/2013) (ft) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
MOTION for Michael J. Guzman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-8174541. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Guzman, Michael) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
MOTION for Stuart Halkett McCluer to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-8167095. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McCluer, Stuart) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for R. Bryant McCulley to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-8166812. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McCulley, R.) Modified on 1/23/2013 (bwa). (Entered: 01/23/2013)
MOTION for Andrew Chun-Yang Shen to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-8166097. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shen, Andrew) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
MOTION for Caitlin Sinclair Hall to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-8166017. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hall, Caitlin) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
STANDING ORDER IN RE PILOT PROJECT REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX CIVIL CASES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (See M-10-468 Order filed November 1, 2011). This case is hereby designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (the Pilot Project), unless the judge to whom this case is assigned determines otherwise. This case is designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project because it is a class action, an MDL action, or is in one of the following Nature of Suit categories: 160, 245, 315, 355, 365, 385, 410, 830, 840, 850, 893, or 950. The presiding judge in a case that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion in the Pilot Project may nevertheless designate the case for inclusion in the Pilot Project by issuing an order directing that the case be included in the Pilot Project. The description of the Pilot Project, including procedures to be followed, is attached to this Order. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/31/2011) (jd) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
COMPLAINT against Bank Of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank Plc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Inc., Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, HBOS Plc., HSBC Bank Plc., HSBC Holdings plc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Lloyds Banking Group plc., Royal Bank of Canada, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., The Norinchukin Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., UBS AG, WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, WestLB AG. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 465401057695)Document filed by Guaranty Bank & Trust Company.(jd) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
Update
Alerts
Jump