IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

The plaintiffs and defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities plc, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, together with the defined affiliates and subsidiaries referred to in the judgment as JPMorgan, agreed to settle all claims asserted against JPMorgan in the action. The agreement was set out in a settlement stipulation dated April 15, 2022, and required the court’s approval.

The court had previously granted preliminary approval, ordered notice to the proposed settlement class, allowed class members to object or exclude themselves, and scheduled a final-approval hearing. The court held that hearing on April 19, 2024.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class includes people and entities that purchased or sold one or more European Government Bonds in the United States directly from a defendant, a defendant’s direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division, or an alleged co-conspirator, during the period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2012.

The judgment defines European Government Bonds as euro-denominated sovereign debt or bonds issued by European governments. It excludes the defendants and their specified related entities, the United States government, judicial officers and related personnel connected to the action, and people or entities that timely and validly exclude themselves. Investment Vehicles are not excluded under the class definition.

The court found that the class members were sufficiently numerous, shared common factual or legal questions, and had claims typical of the plaintiffs’ claims. It also found that the plaintiffs and class counsel would adequately represent the class, that common questions predominated, and that a class action was superior to other methods for resolving the action. The court emphasized that this certification applies only to the settlement and cannot be used as binding or persuasive authority for a later request to certify a litigation class.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Victor Marrero found that the notice provided to class members was the best practicable under the circumstances, reasonably informed class members about the settlement and related rights, and satisfied Rule 23 and constitutional due-process requirements. The court also found that the Class Action Fairness Act notice requirements had been satisfied.

The court fully and finally approved the settlement, including its settlement amount, releases, and dismissal of the claims against JPMorgan. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and the factors identified in the cited precedent. The court ordered that all claims asserted against JPMorgan by the plaintiffs and other settlement class members be dismissed with prejudice. The parties were to bear their own costs and expenses except as otherwise provided in the settlement stipulation.

The judgment makes the settlement binding on JPMorgan, the other released parties, the plaintiffs, and the settling class parties, including class members who do not submit a claim form or seek a distribution. Upon the settlement’s effective date, the settling plaintiffs and class members release the defined settled claims against JPMorgan and the released parties and are barred from pursuing those claims. The releases do not bar actions to enforce or carry out the settlement or judgment.

The judgment states that neither the settlement nor the judgment is an admission of liability, wrongdoing, the validity or invalidity of the claims or defenses, or the amount that could have been recovered at trial. The court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over settlement administration and enforcement, the settlement fund, distribution issues, and related attorney-fee and litigation-expense requests. The judgment also provides that if the settlement is terminated or never becomes effective, the judgment will be vacated and the parties will return to their positions as specified in the stipulation. The Clerk was directed to enter the judgment immediately as a final judgment.