IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. filed a proposed antitrust class action against several financial institutions. They alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices for European Government Bonds during the period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2012, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The proposed class consisted of persons or entities that directly bought or sold European Government Bonds in the United States from the defendants during that period, with stated exceptions for the defendants, their employees and affiliates, and the United States government.

The court noted that a third plaintiff, Boston Retirement System, had been dismissed on July 23, 2020. The defendants initially sought dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim. The court granted that motion as to all defendants except Natixis S.A., Nomura International plc, and Nomura Securities International Inc. Those three defendants are referred to in the opinion as the Moving Defendants.

Reconsideration motion

The Moving Defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier order. They argued that the court had misapplied legal precedent concerning antitrust standing and personal jurisdiction. They also argued that the court had applied the wrong standard concerning fraudulent concealment and had misunderstood factual allegations about direct transactions and Figure 12 in the complaint.

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy governed by Local Rule 6.3. It is generally appropriate only when the court overlooked controlling decisions or information, when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, when new evidence is available, or when correction of a clear error is needed to prevent manifest injustice. A disagreement with the court’s analysis, or an attempt to present arguments that could have been made earlier, is not enough.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the Moving Defendants’ arguments. It stated that the cited cases concerning antitrust standing and personal jurisdiction had already been considered in the earlier order. The defendants’ disagreement with the court’s interpretation of those cases did not justify reconsideration.

The court also rejected the argument concerning fraudulent concealment, finding that its earlier order had thoroughly examined the defendants’ codes of ethics and had determined that the representations in those codes supported the plaintiffs’ showing of due diligence, a required part of the fraudulent-concealment analysis.

As to the factual allegations, the court stated that it had previously found that the complaint alleged that Ohio Carpenters purchased European Government Bonds from Natixis and that Local 103 transacted directly with Nomura International. The court also had previously concluded that Natixis’s lack of participation as a primary dealer in Italian government bond auctions was not necessarily fatal to the alleged conspiracy. The Moving Defendants offered no persuasive factual or legal basis for changing those conclusions.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero denied Natixis S.A., Nomura International plc, and Nomura Securities International Inc.’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion characterizes the motion as an improper attempt to relitigate issues already decided, but it does not change the earlier order’s disposition of the underlying motion to dismiss.