In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation

Background

The plaintiffs were Joseph M. Torsella, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and statutory custodian of all Commonwealth Funds; City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System; Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103, I.B.E.W.; and Local 103, I.B.E.W. Health Benefit Plan. They sought to settle all claims asserted against Barclays Capital Inc. and related released parties. The proposed settlement was set out in a December 16, 2019, settlement agreement.

The court had preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered notice to the proposed settlement class, allowed class members to object or exclude themselves, and held a settlement hearing on June 9, 2020. The judgment states that adequate notice was given and that the court reviewed the settlement agreement, the filed materials, the proceedings, comments, and the record.

Class certification

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The class consists of people and entities that entered into a GSE bond transaction with one or more defendants, or with a defendant’s direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division, during the period from January 1, 2009, through January 1, 2019.

The class excludes defendants and their related entities, the United States government, judicial officers involved in the action and specified related personnel, and people or entities who timely and validly excluded themselves. Investment Vehicles were not excluded. The court found that the class was numerous, had common legal or factual questions, and had claims represented by plaintiffs whose claims were typical. It also found that the plaintiffs and class counsel would adequately represent the class, that common issues predominated, and that a class action was superior to other methods for resolving the action.

The certification was limited to settlement purposes. The judgment states that it did not waive or prejudice any defendant’s right to oppose a later request to certify a class and could not be used as binding or persuasive authority on a later certification motion.

Ruling and effect of the settlement

The court fully and finally approved the settlement under Rule 23, including its releases and the dismissal of the claims against Barclays. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under the factors identified in the judgment. All claims asserted against Barclays by the plaintiffs and other settlement class members were dismissed with prejudice. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs and expenses unless the settlement agreement provided otherwise.

The settlement’s releases apply on its effective date. They require the settling plaintiffs and settlement class members to release the defined settled claims against Barclays and other released parties and prohibit them from prosecuting those claims. Barclays likewise releases the defined claims it has against the plaintiffs and other settling plaintiff parties. The releases do not apply to people or entities listed in Exhibit 1 or to claims concerning enforcement of the settlement. The judgment also states that the settlement and related proceedings do not constitute admissions of liability, wrongdoing, or the merits of the parties’ positions.

Continuing jurisdiction and final judgment

The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, interpretation, implementation, enforcement, the settlement fund, distribution issues, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, and matters relating to settlement class members. Separate orders were to address the distribution plan and counsel’s fee and expense request. If the settlement were terminated or its effective date failed to occur, the judgment would be vacated and the parties would revert to their positions as provided in the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to enter the judgment immediately as a final judgment.