Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Background

The order concerns the proposed class-action settlement between the representative plaintiffs and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (ANZ). The claims involved alleged manipulation of BBSW, the Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate, and financial instruments connected to that benchmark. The settlement agreement was dated December 10, 2021, and the court held a fairness hearing on November 1, 2022.

The settlement class included natural persons and entities that purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had an interest in BBSW-based derivatives from January 1, 2003, through August 16, 2016. The settlement’s released claims also covered specified BBSW-based deposits or loans, prime bank bills or eligible securities, and similar instruments, subject to the settlement agreement’s stated limits, including certain United States connections. Defendants, their specified affiliates and agents, alleged co-conspirators, and the United States Government were excluded from the class.

Court’s Findings

For settlement purposes only, the court reconfirmed that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common legal and factual questions existed, that the representative plaintiffs’ claims were typical, and that their interests aligned with absent class members. It also found that class counsel adequately represented the class, that common issues predominated, and that a class action was superior to other methods of resolving the dispute.

The court approved the representative plaintiffs as class representatives and appointed Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as class counsel for the settlement. It found that the notice program was the best practicable notice and adequately informed class members about the settlement, exclusion and objection rights, the fairness hearing, the distribution plan, and requests for fees, expenses, and incentive awards. The court stated that no objections were submitted and that two class members validly excluded themselves.

Ruling and Effect

The court finally approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It directed the parties to implement the settlement agreement, approved the settlement fund as a qualified settlement fund, approved the distribution plan and proof-of-claim form, and confirmed A.B. Data, Ltd. as settlement administrator. A settling class member generally had to submit a release and promise not to sue to receive a payment, but the order stated that claims were released under the settlement agreement regardless of whether that document was submitted.

The court approved the release and promise not to sue and directed that the action be dismissed as against ANZ, but not any other defendant, fully, finally, and with prejudice. It permanently barred released claims against ANZ and other released parties, including related class actions and certain contribution or indemnification claims, as described in the order. The settlement and order were not admissions or evidence that ANZ or any released party violated the law, that the allegations were true, or that anyone suffered damages. The court retained exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce the settlement. The request for attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive awards was reserved for a separate order.