Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Background

The plaintiffs requested final approval of a class-action settlement with Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in litigation involving alleged manipulation of the Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW) and financial instruments connected to BBSW. CBA consented to the settlement. The court held a fairness hearing on November 1, 2022.

The settlement class includes persons and entities that purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had an interest in specified BBSW-based derivatives during January 1, 2003, through August 16, 2016. It also includes certain BBSW-based deposits or loans, prime bank bills or eligible securities, and similar financial instruments entered into by a U.S. person or through a location within the United States, as described in the order. Defendants, their specified affiliates and agents, alleged co-conspirators, and the United States Government are excluded.

Court’s Findings

For settlement purposes only, the court reconfirmed that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common questions existed, that the representative plaintiffs’ claims were typical, that their interests did not conflict with absent class members, and that class counsel had adequately represented the class. The court also found that common issues predominated and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.

The court found that the mailed notice, publication notice, website, and class-notice plan were the best practicable notice and gave class members a fair opportunity to exclude themselves, object, or appear at the fairness hearing. The court found that two class members validly excluded themselves from the settlement with CBA: Kerant Capital Limited and KPMG Luxembourg S.A., as liquidator of Nordea Bank S.A. The order states that no objections were submitted.

Ruling and Effect

The court finally approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It directed the parties to carry out the settlement agreement, approved the settlement fiduciary account, approved the distribution plan and proof-of-claim form, and appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as settlement administrator. Class members must execute the required release and promise not to sue to receive a payment, although the order states that the claims are released under the settlement agreement regardless of whether a class member executes that document.

The court approved the release and promise not to sue and directed that the action be dismissed against CBA fully, finally, and with prejudice. The dismissal applies to CBA, not the other defendants. The order also permanently bars covered parties from pursuing released claims against CBA or other released parties and addresses contribution and indemnification claims connected to those released claims.

The order states that the settlement, final approval order, and related materials are not admissions, adjudications, or evidence of a legal violation, wrongdoing, liability, or the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations. The court retained exclusive jurisdiction over implementing and enforcing the settlement. The request for attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive awards was left for a separate order. The order also states that if the settlement is validly terminated or does not become final under its terms, the approval order and related settlement actions become void as to the settlement and the parties return to their prior positions.