IN RE PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs Larry Hollin and White Oak Fund LP entered into a settlement with BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Banks USA, N.A., and ICBC Standard Bank Plc. The plaintiffs acted for themselves and the settlement class. The court had previously granted preliminary approval, directed notice to the proposed class, allowed class members to object or exclude themselves, and scheduled a final-approval hearing.

The court held the settlement hearing on January 14, 2025. The opinion states that the court reviewed the settlement agreement, the filed papers, the proceedings, comments received about the settlement, and the case record.

Settlement Class and Notice

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that, from January 1, 2008, through November 30, 2014, either sold platinum or palladium futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in part on the New York Mercantile Exchange, sold platinum or palladium call options in such transactions, or bought platinum or palladium put options in such transactions.

The defendants, their employees and related entities, alleged co-conspirators, and the U.S. government were excluded, subject to the stated exception for investment vehicles. The presiding judge and certain members of the judge’s household and family were also excluded. The court found that the class satisfied the requirements for settlement certification, including numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class-action procedure. The court certified the plaintiffs as class representatives and co-lead counsel as class counsel.

The court found that the mailed and published notices followed the preliminary-approval order, were the best notice practicable under the circumstances, adequately informed class members about the settlement and related applications, and satisfied the applicable class-action and constitutional notice requirements.

Rulings

The court fully and finally approved the settlement, including its settlement amount, releases, and dismissal provisions. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under the applicable class-action standards. The court also approved the distribution plan as fair and reasonable to the settlement class.

Except for claims belonging to people or entities that timely requested exclusion, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against the defendants by the plaintiffs and other settlement-class members. Exhibit A identifies EMP srl Tecnologie Elettriche as the opt-out. The court ordered that entity excluded from the class, not bound by the settlement or judgment, and unable to claim or receive settlement benefits.

The judgment made the settlement binding on the defendants, other released parties, plaintiffs, and other releasing parties. Upon the settlement’s effective date, covered claims were released, and the relevant parties were barred from bringing those released claims. The judgment states that the settlement and judgment could be used to support defenses based on claim or issue preclusion and related doctrines. It also barred certain contribution and indemnification claims against released parties.

The judgment states that neither the settlement nor the judgment constitutes an admission of liability, wrongdoing, or the validity or invalidity of the claims or defenses. The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, interpretation, implementation, enforcement, the settlement fund, fee and expense applications, service awards, and matters concerning settlement-class members. A separate order was to address attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and service awards. The judgment would be vacated if the settlement were terminated or its effective date failed to occur, subject to the settlement agreement.

Disposition

This judgment approved the class-action settlement, certified the settlement class for settlement purposes, approved the distribution plan, and dismissed the covered claims with prejudice against the defendants, subject to the identified opt-out. It did not treat the settlement or judgment as an admission of liability.