Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-06496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Judge Kaplan approved a class settlement with five banks, released specified BBSW-related claims, and dismissed claims against settling defendants.
The settlement binds the defined class of people and entities with interests in BBSW-based derivatives during the specified period, except the two excluded class members. It also affects the five settling defendants and released parties by resolving and barring the covered claims; the order does not dismiss claims against other defendants.
What happened
In Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the court considered a proposed settlement between the representative plaintiffs and BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS. The case involved alleged manipulation of BBSW and related financial instruments.
The court finally certified a settlement class consisting of people and entities that purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had an interest in BBSW-based derivatives from January 1, 2003, through August 16, 2016. Two class members—Kerant Capital Limited and KPMG Luxembourg S.A. as liquidator of Nordea Bank S.A.—were excluded. No objections were submitted.
The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the class’s best interests, approved the settlement and distribution plan, and directed that the action be dismissed against the settling defendants and released parties fully, finally, and with prejudice. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan stated that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing or liability.
The detailed version
- Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:16-cv-06496
- Lewis Kaplan
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs sought final approval of a class-action settlement with BNP Paribas, S.A.; Deutsche Bank AG; Royal Bank of Canada; The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, now known as NatWest Markets PLC; and UBS AG. The settlement concerned claims arising from alleged manipulation of BBSW and related financial instruments, including claims under federal antitrust and other statutes. The opinion does not state the settlement amount.
Settlement Class and Notice
For settlement purposes only, the court finally certified a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had an interest in BBSW-based derivatives between January 1, 2003, and August 16, 2016. The United States Government, the defendants and their affiliates or agents, and alleged co-conspirators were excluded from the class as defined in the order.
The court reconfirmed that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied for settlement purposes. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common issues existed, that the representative plaintiffs’ claims were typical, that their interests aligned with absent class members, and that class counsel adequately represented the class. It 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, published, and website notice provided the best practicable notice and adequately informed class members about the settlement, exclusion and objection rights, the fairness hearing, the distribution plan, and the requests for attorneys’ fees and incentive awards. The court stated that two class members validly excluded themselves: Kerant Capital Limited and KPMG Luxembourg S.A., as liquidator of Nordea Bank S.A. No objections were submitted.
Ruling
The court finally approved the settlement under Rule 23 and found it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It approved the distribution plan and proof-of-claim form, appointed the settlement administrator, and directed the parties to carry out the settlement agreement.
The order binds settlement class members and gives the settlement and order preclusive effect concerning the released claims. It releases specified claims involving BBSW-based derivatives, certain BBSW-based deposits or loans, prime bank bills or eligible securities, and similar BBSW-priced, benchmarked, or settled financial instruments. It also permanently bars and enjoins covered parties from bringing or assisting certain proceedings based on those released claims.
The court directed dismissal of the action against the settling defendants and released parties fully, finally, and with prejudice, while stating that the dismissal did not apply to other defendants. The order also states that the settlement and approval order are not admissions, adjudications, or evidence of liability, wrongdoing, damages, or the truth of the allegations. The court reserved jurisdiction over implementing and enforcing the settlement. The request for attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive awards was left for a separate order. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.