California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. UBS AG et al.
- P. Castel
- 1:13-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. UBS AG, Judge Castel received a joint request to temporarily stay proceedings after a settlement term sheet.
The requested stay would affect the proceedings and deadlines between California State Teachers’ Retirement System and UBS AG, including UBS’s deadline to move to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. The provided text does not state that the request would affect the other defendants.
What happened
California State Teachers’ Retirement System and UBS AG told Judge P. Kevin Castel that they had reached a settlement in principle covering all outstanding claims against UBS. They said they had signed a binding settlement term sheet and were preparing a formal settlement agreement.
The parties jointly asked the court to temporarily pause all proceedings and deadlines between them, including UBS’s deadline to seek dismissal of the fifth amended complaint. They said continuing the case could cause unnecessary expense while they completed the settlement process and sought preliminary approval.
The provided text is a letter requesting a stay, not an order showing that the court granted or denied it. Judge P. Kevin Castel’s action on the request is therefore not stated.
The detailed version
- California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. UBS AG et al. · No. 1:13-cv-02811
- P. Castel
- July 16, 2026
What the Filing Says
Counsel for UBS AG and California State Teachers’ Retirement System jointly informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle resolving all outstanding claims against UBS. The parties stated that they executed a binding settlement term sheet on July 15, 2026, and were working to convert it into a formal settlement agreement.
Requested Stay
The parties jointly requested a temporary stay, meaning a pause, of all litigation proceedings and deadlines between Plaintiff and UBS. The request included the July 17, 2026 deadline for UBS to move to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. The letter stated that Plaintiff expected to file a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement with UBS.
The letter said that UBS and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, now known as NatWest Markets plc, had previously sought a stay of discovery while a motion to dismiss was resolved, and that the court had provisionally granted that earlier request. The letter also stated that UBS had not otherwise sought an extension or adjournment of the case schedule or the motion-to-dismiss briefing schedule.
Parties’ Position on the Settlement
The parties argued that a stay was appropriate because they intended to be bound by the executed term sheet. They stated that neither side had expressly reserved the right not to be bound, that the written term sheet contained the material provisions of the forthcoming settlement agreement, and that the parties had partially performed by communicating the settlement to the court. They also identified the mediation before retired Judge Edward A. Infante as further support for their position that the term sheet was binding rather than merely tentative.
Disposition Reflected in the Provided Text
The provided material is a joint letter requesting relief. It does not include an order by Judge P. Kevin Castel granting, denying, or otherwise ruling on the requested stay. Accordingly, the court’s disposition is not stated in the provided text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.