IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

The plaintiffs—Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association—settled the action on behalf of themselves and the proposed settlement class. The settling defendants were Bank of America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch International; NatWest Markets Plc; NatWest Markets Securities Inc.; Nomura International plc; UBS AG; UBS Europe SE; UBS Securities LLC; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Limited; Jefferies International Limited; and Jefferies LLC.

In a July 29, 2024 preliminary approval order, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, directed notice to the proposed class, allowed class members to object or exclude themselves, and scheduled a final-approval hearing. The court held that hearing on December 6, 2024.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class consisting of all people and entities that purchased or sold one or more European Government Bonds in the United States directly from a defendant, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, or specified related entities or alleged co-conspirators, during the period from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2016. European Government Bonds were defined as euro-denominated sovereign debt or bonds issued by European governments.

The class excluded the defendants, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, their specified related entities and alleged co-conspirators, the United States government, judicial officers and related personnel involved in the case, and people or entities that timely and validly opted out. Investment Vehicles were not excluded merely on that basis. The court found that the class satisfied the requirements for numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of the class-action method. It also certified the plaintiffs as class representatives and co-lead counsel as class counsel.

The court specified that this settlement-only certification did not prevent the defendants from contesting a later request to certify a class and could not be used as binding or persuasive authority on a later certification motion.

Ruling

Judge Victor Marrero fully and finally approved the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, including its settlement amount and releases. The opinion does not state the settlement amount.

The court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against the settling defendants by the plaintiffs and settlement-class members, except claims belonging to timely accepted opt-outs. “With prejudice” means those dismissed claims may not be brought again. The opt-out identified in Exhibit A was not bound by the settlement and could not claim a settlement benefit.

The judgment made the settlement and its releases binding on the settling defendants, released parties, plaintiffs, and other settling plaintiff parties. It released claims arising from or related to the conduct alleged in this action and in an earlier related proceeding, subject to stated exceptions, including claims outside the Sherman Act’s extraterritorial reach, claims to enforce the settlement, and claims of accepted opt-outs. The judgment also barred certain contribution and indemnification claims, while stating that the settlement was not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by either side.

The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, interpretation, implementation, enforcement, the settlement fund, fee and expense applications, service awards, and matters involving settlement-class members. Separate orders were to address fees, litigation expenses, service awards, and the distribution plan. If the settlement were terminated or its effective date failed to occur, the judgment would be vacated as provided in the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to enter the judgment immediately as a final judgment.