IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 19, 2024·No. 1:19-cv-02601·Unknown

Opinion

SUINI DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:___ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | DATE FILED: _419/2024 □□

IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT Case No. 1:19 Civ. 2601 (VM) BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 IB.E.W., and San Bermardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement Class, and Defendants State Street Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company together with their affiliates and subsidiaries (“State Street,” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) have determined to settle all claims asserted against State Street and its predecessors, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates, in this Action with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with State Street Corporation (the “Stipulation”), subject to approval of this Court (the “Settlement”); WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined in this Judgment, the capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as they have in the Stipulation; WHEREAS, by Order dated June 16, 2021 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), this Court: (i) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (11) ordered that notice of the proposed Settlement be provided to the Settlement Class; (111) provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement; (v) provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; and (iv) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement; WHEREAS, due and adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class;

WHEREAS, the Court conducted a hearing on April 19, 2024 (the “Settlement Hearing”) to consider, among other things, (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should therefore be approved; and (ii) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against State Street; and

WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. Jurisdiction – The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, and all matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all of the Parties and each of the Settlement Class Members. 2. CAFA Notice – The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1715, have been satisfied.

3. Incorporation of Settlement Documents – This Judgment incorporates and makes a part hereof: (i) the Stipulation filed with the Court on June 15, 2021; and (ii) the Notice and the Publication Notice, both of which were filed with the Court on November 11, 2022. 4. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and based on the record before the Court, the Court certifies, for the purposes of settlement only the following Settlement Class: All persons or entities who or which purchased or sold one or more European Government Bond(s) in the United States directly from a Defendant or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant, or any of their conspirators, from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2012 (the “Settlement Class Period”). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Defendants; past and present direct or indirect parents (including holding companies), subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, or divisions of Defendants; the United States government; and any judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members of his or her immediate family and judicial staff and any juror assigned to this Action; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the definition of “Settlement Class” or “Class.” Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any person or entity who or which properly excludes himself, herself, or itself by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice and whose request is accepted by the Court. 5. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied for settlement purposes as follows: a. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the Court determines that the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable. b. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2), the Court determines that there are one or more questions of fact or law common to the Settlement Class. c. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class. d. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court determines that Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs are certified as class representatives of the Settlement Class. e. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members. f. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this Action. g. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Co-Lead Counsel are certified as class counsel for the Settlement Class. 6. The Court’s certification of the Settlement Class, and certification of Plaintiffs as class representatives of the Settlement Class, as provided herein is without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to contest any other request by Plaintiffs to certify a class. The Court’s findings in this Judgment shall have no effect on the Court’s ruling on any motion to certify any class or appoint class representatives in this litigation, and no party may cite or refer to the Court’s approval of the Settlement Class as binding or persuasive authority with respect to any motion to certify such class or appoint class representatives.

7. Settlement Notice – The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice and the publication of the Publication Notice: (i) were implemented in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order; (ii) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (iii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Settlement Class Members of (a) the effect of the proposed Settlement (including the Releases to be provided thereunder), (b) their right to object to any aspect of the Settlement, and (c) their right to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (iv) constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to receive notice of the proposed Settlement; and (v) satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related