IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

The named plaintiffs were Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association. They acted on behalf of themselves and other members of the proposed settlement class. The defendants settling under this judgment were State Street Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company, together with their affiliates and subsidiaries.

The parties agreed to settle all claims asserted against State Street and related released parties on the terms of a written settlement agreement. The court held a settlement hearing on April 19, 2024, after previously ordering notice to the proposed settlement class and allowing class members to object or exclude themselves.

Settlement Class and Notice

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or sold one or more European Government Bonds in the United States directly from a defendant, certain related entities, or alleged conspirators, from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2012.

The class excludes defendants and specified related entities, the United States government, the presiding judicial officer and related court personnel, and anyone who timely and validly excluded themselves. Investment Vehicles were not excluded. The court found that the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied for settlement purposes, including numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class action procedure. The named plaintiffs were certified as class representatives, and co-lead counsel were certified as class counsel.

The court found that the settlement notice was implemented as previously ordered, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, adequately informed class members about the settlement and their rights, and satisfied Rule 23, constitutional due-process requirements, and other applicable law.

Ruling

The court fully and finally approved the settlement, including its releases, and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent. The court dismissed all claims asserted against State Street by the plaintiffs and settlement class members with prejudice. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs and expenses except as provided in the settlement agreement.

The judgment makes the settlement and its terms binding on State Street, other released parties, the plaintiffs, and other settling plaintiff parties. Once the settlement became effective, the covered claims were released, and the relevant parties were barred from prosecuting those claims. Claims relating to enforcing the settlement, claims outside the Sherman Act’s territorial reach, and claims belonging to persons or entities whose exclusions were accepted were not included in the released claims.

The judgment states that neither the settlement nor the approval proceedings constitute an admission of liability, wrongdoing, or the validity or invalidity of the parties’ positions. The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement, and over matters relating to the action. If the settlement is terminated or its effective date does not occur as specified in the settlement agreement, the judgment is to be vacated and the parties are to return to their prior positions as provided in that agreement. The clerk was directed to immediately enter the judgment as a final judgment.