Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Background

The plaintiffs moved for final approval of a class-action settlement with Westpac Banking Corporation. The settlement concerned claims arising from alleged manipulation of the Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate, or BBSW, and the prices of financial instruments tied to BBSW. The order states that the settlement was reached through arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel. It does not decide whether Westpac or any other party violated the law or committed the alleged wrongdoing.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court finally certified a class consisting of all people and entities that purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had an interest in BBSW-based derivatives during the period from January 1, 2003, through August 16, 2016, inclusive. The released claims also covered specified BBSW-based deposits or loans, prime bank bills or eligible securities, and similar financial instruments, subject to the geographic and other limitations stated in the order.

The defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and alleged co-conspirators, as well as the United States Government, were excluded from the settlement class. Two class members—Kerant Capital Limited and KPMG Luxembourg S.A., as liquidator of Nordea Bank S.A.—were found to have properly excluded themselves. They would receive no settlement payment and would have no rights under the settlement against Westpac.

Court’s Findings

The court found that the settlement class satisfied the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common legal and factual 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 controversy.

The court found that the mailed and published notices, website, and other notice procedures were the best practicable notice and gave class members a fair opportunity to exclude themselves, object, or appear at the fairness hearing. No objections were submitted. The court independently reviewed the settlement and concluded that it was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It approved the distribution plan and proof-of-claim and release form.

Disposition

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan finally approved the settlement and directed the parties to carry it out. The order made the settlement binding on settling class members and gave it preclusive effect for the released claims. It approved releases and permanently barred specified lawsuits and contribution or indemnification claims involving Westpac and the released parties.

The court directed dismissal of the action against Westpac—but not any other defendant—fully, finally, and with prejudice under the settlement agreement and the final judgment entered with the order. The order stated that the settlement and approval order were not admissions, adjudications, or evidence of liability, wrongdoing, damages, or the truth of the claims. The court reserved jurisdiction to enforce and administer the settlement. The request for attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive awards was left for a separate order.