DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd
- Barbara Moses
- 1:17-cv-04576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd., Judge Moses denied Jane Doe’s renewed request to proceed anonymously because she showed no cognizable interest in the case.
Jane Doe’s request to participate anonymously was denied. The order also explains the nature of DoubleLine’s claims against the Odebrecht-related defendants but does not decide those claims.
What happened
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd., Jane Doe asked to participate anonymously so she could investigate whether money connected to a Panamanian corporate group had been invested in DoubleLine or other U.S. corporations. She said the group had contracted over land in Panama in which she had power-of-attorney interests.
The court explained that this case concerns DoubleLine’s claimed investment losses from buying bonds issued by Odebrecht Finance. DoubleLine alleges that the defendants’ financial statements were materially false or misleading. Jane Doe’s filing did not show that she had a legally recognized interest in those claims.
Judge Moses denied the renewed motion. She found that Jane Doe had not shown grounds to participate in the case, much less to do so anonymously.
The detailed version
- DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04576
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Jane Doe first filed a motion seeking permission to participate as “Jane Doe” and to file the matter under seal. On August 25, 2022, the court denied that motion without prejudice to renewal. The court instructed her that, if she wanted to participate as a party, she needed to file a motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and include a pleading stating the claims or defenses involved. The court also explained what she needed to show to proceed anonymously or to seek permission to file materials under seal.
Renewed Motion
On September 23, 2022, Ms. Doe renewed her request to proceed anonymously. The court understood that she no longer sought to intervene as a party and was not asking to file materials under seal. She said she wanted to investigate whether money from a Panamanian “corporate group” nicknamed “mini Odebrecht” had been used by Odebrecht entities and invested in DoubleLine or other U.S. corporations. She connected that concern to a 2014 land-extraction contract and events involving people associated with the land in Panama.
The Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that Ms. Doe had made no showing justifying her participation as a party, and therefore had not shown grounds to participate anonymously. The court also explained that she appeared to misunderstand the underlying case: Odebrecht did not invest in DoubleLine; DoubleLine invested in Odebrecht by purchasing bonds issued by Odebrecht Finance. DoubleLine’s claims seek recovery of losses on those bonds under federal securities laws and state law, principally based on allegations that the defendants’ financial statements were materially false or misleading. The court found that nothing in Ms. Doe’s renewed motion showed a legally recognized interest in those claims.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses DENIED the renewed motion. The opinion does not state that the court granted permission to intervene, granted anonymous-party status, or entered a sealing order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.