Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. v. UBS AG

Background

Plaintiffs originally asserted claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state law. In an earlier order, the court dismissed some plaintiffs’ claims and allowed other claims by Hayman Capital Master Fund, L.P. and California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to continue against Société Générale and UBS. The earlier order also dismissed claims against RBS for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning the court determined that RBS was not subject to the court’s authority in this case.

After that order, Société Générale moved for clarification and reconsideration; UBS moved for reconsideration; and CalSTRS moved for reconsideration of the ruling concerning RBS.

Société Générale

The court clarified that Hayman Funds’ Sherman Act claim against Société Générale was dismissed for lack of antitrust standing. Antitrust standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show the type of injury and connection to the alleged antitrust violation needed to bring the claim. The court stated that Hayman Funds had not alleged that it transacted with Société Générale. The conclusion dismissed all Hayman Funds’ claims against Société Générale, including its antitrust claim.

The court also granted Société Générale’s motion for reconsideration concerning CalSTRS’s unjust-enrichment claim. New York’s borrowing statute requires applying the shorter limitations period of New York or the foreign jurisdiction where a nonresident’s claim accrued. The court applied California’s three-year limitations period. Because the parties agreed that CalSTRS was on inquiry notice by at least July 26, 2011, and the action was filed on July 24, 2015, the court held that the claim was time-barred and dismissed CalSTRS’s unjust-enrichment claim against Société Générale.

UBS

The court granted UBS’s motion for reconsideration. UBS relied on a January 15, 2020 release in which CalSTRS released UBS from civil claims arising from the relevant conduct and alleged misconduct involving other interbank offered rates during the stated period. The court found the release unambiguous and concluded that it barred CalSTRS’s claims against UBS. The court therefore dismissed CalSTRS’s claims against UBS. Because the earlier order had dismissed Hayman Funds’ Sherman Act claim against UBS for lack of antitrust standing, the court stated that all claims in the action were dismissed against UBS.

RBS

The court denied CalSTRS’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of its claims against RBS for lack of personal jurisdiction. CalSTRS argued that the court had overlooked evidence concerning whether RBS transacted business in the district. The court stated that it had considered the declaration and exhibits and had determined that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficiently specific activities to satisfy the applicable standard. All claims in the action were therefore dismissed against RBS.

Disposition

The court granted Société Générale’s motion for reconsideration concerning CalSTRS’s unjust-enrichment claim, granted UBS’s motion for reconsideration, denied CalSTRS’s motion for reconsideration concerning RBS, and clarified the status of Hayman Funds’ antitrust claim against Société Générale. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to close the three motion entries. Judge George B. Daniels did not decide the underlying antitrust allegations on their merits in this order; the rulings rested on standing, timeliness, a release, and personal jurisdiction.