IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association, and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. brought a proposed antitrust class action against numerous financial institutions. They alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices for European Government Bonds in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The proposed class covered persons or entities that purchased or sold those bonds directly from defendants in the United States between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012.

In a March 14, 2022 decision, the court treated defendants’ letter motions as motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal motions filed by Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, NatWest Markets, NatWest Markets Securities Inc., UBS AG, UBS Europe SE, UBS Securities LLC, UniCredit Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, RBC Europe Limited, RBC Capital Markets, and Royal Bank of Canada. The court denied dismissal motions filed by Natixis, Nomura Securities International, Nomura Securities International, UCB, Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Jefferies International Limited, and Jefferies LLC. The opinion uses both “Nomura International” and “NSI” in discussing the earlier ruling.

Motions for Reconsideration

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Jefferies International Limited, and Jefferies LLC argued that the court overlooked their absence from a European Commission decision, improperly assessed chat transcripts, misinterpreted Figure 12 of the complaint, and incorrectly inferred that Jefferies was a primary dealer of Italian government bonds. UniCredit Bank AG argued that the allegations of parallel conduct and the identified “plus factors”—additional circumstances that can support an inference of conspiracy—did not establish a plausible conspiracy. Natixis argued that the court overlooked facts about Figure 12, Natixis’s role in the Italian bond market, and the significance of its inclusion in the European Commission decision.

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available only on a demanding showing, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A party may not use reconsideration simply to relitigate issues already decided or to present arguments that are better suited to summary judgment.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments. It stated that it had considered the relevant allegations, including Figure 12, and had already considered the European Commission decision as appropriate. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court could take notice of the decision’s existence and the existence of facts contained in it, but could not treat the decision’s factual assertions as true or use them to resolve factual disputes against the complaint’s allegations. The court also reiterated that not being a primary dealer in Italian European Government Bonds did not necessarily rule out participation in a conspiracy.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Jefferies International Limited, and Jefferies LLC. It denied UniCredit Bank AG’s motion for reconsideration and denied Natixis S.A.’s motion for reconsideration. The court therefore left the March 14, 2022 motion-to-dismiss rulings in place. The parties were directed to submit, within 30 days, a joint letter addressing the case, possible motions, settlement prospects, and consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, along with a proposed case-management plan providing for discovery to be completed within four months unless the court allowed otherwise.