IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association, and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. brought a proposed antitrust class action against numerous defendants, including Natixis S.A., UniCredit Bank AG, and UniCredit Capital Markets LLC. The plaintiffs reached partial settlements with Natixis and UniCredit. The court had preliminarily approved those proposed settlements on May 16, 2023. The settlements provided for a $27 million settlement fund and cooperation to help the plaintiffs pursue certain claims.

Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A., Rabo Securities USA, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., collectively called Rabo and Deutsche, were not parties to this case. They were parties to a related case before the same court, but the proposed settlements nevertheless included them within the definition of “Defendants.” Rabo and Deutsche jointly objected, arguing that the settlements improperly treated them as defendants, restricted their ability to seek contribution and indemnification from the settling parties, and imposed discovery obligations on them. The plaintiffs opposed the objection.

Treatment as defendants and effect on legal claims

The court sustained this part of the objection. It held that the plaintiffs should not have included Rabo and Deutsche in the definition of “Defendants” because they were not parties to the case. The court found that the plaintiffs had not identified authority allowing them to impose settlement-related demands on entities that were not parties to the action or to treat those entities as actual defendants through the settlements.

The court also concluded that the proposed settlements improperly burdened Rabo and Deutsche’s rights to pursue contribution and indemnification claims against the released parties. The settlements stated that they would release contribution, indemnification, and similar claims to the fullest extent permitted by law. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that this savings language eliminated any legal prejudice. It explained that such language could not make a bar order—that is, an order restricting legal claims against settling parties—apply to non-parties to the action. The court therefore directed the plaintiffs to remove Rabo and Deutsche from the settlements’ definition of “Defendants.”

Discovery objection

The court overruled the objection to the proposed discovery request. The plaintiffs had indicated that they planned to meet and confer with Rabo and Deutsche to obtain information about potential class members who had been their customers. The court read this request as seeking cooperation, not imposing a mandatory discovery obligation through the settlements. It noted that, if Rabo and Deutsche did not cooperate, the plaintiffs had other methods of obtaining information from non-parties, including subpoenas.

The court directed Rabo and Deutsche to respond to or move to quash the plaintiffs’ subpoenas within 14 days of the order.

Order

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that Rabo and Deutsche’s objection to their inclusion as “Defendants” in the proposed settlements was SUSTAINED. The plaintiffs were directed to amend the settlements to remove Rabo and Deutsche from that definition within 14 days. The court separately ordered that Rabo and Deutsche’s objection to the plaintiffs’ discovery request was OVERRULED, and gave them 14 days to respond to or move to quash the subpoenas.