Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Bank Of America Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 17, 2025·No. 1:15-cv-09319·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK

IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2704 Master Docket No. 16 MD 2704 (JPO) FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF This Document Pertains To: DISMISSAL REGARDING THE CREDITSUISSE DEFENDANTS ALL CLASS ACTIONS Hon. J. Paul Oetken This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to Plaintiffs’1application for final approval of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; and Credit Suisse International (collectively, “Credit Suisse”), dated January 21, 2022 (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Court has considered all papers filed and proceedings held herein and is fully informed of these matters. For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ANDDECREEDthat: 1. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement Agreement. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement ClassMembers.

1 Plaintiffs are the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago. 3. The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1715, have been satisfied. 4. Based on the record before the Court, including the Preliminary Approval Order, the submissions in support of the settlement between Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of each Settlement Class Member in the Action, and Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit

Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; and Credit Suisse International (“Settling Defendants” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Settling Parties”) and any objections and responses thereto, pursuant Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedurethe Court hereby certifies solely for settlement purposes the following SettlementClass: all Persons or entities who, directly or through an agent, entered into one or more U.S. IRS Transactions2with any Defendant3during the Settlement Class Period.4 Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their co-conspirators, should any exist, whether or not named in the Amended Complaint, and their officers, directors, management, employees, and current subsidiaries or affiliates. Also excluded are any entities registered as “swap” dealers with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) during the Class Period, the United States Government,

2 “U.S. IRS Transaction” means a fixed-for-floating, floating-for-fixed, or floating-for- floating interest rate swap, forward rate agreement, single-currency basis swap, or overnight index swap executed in the United States or its territories. 3 “Defendants” means any and all parties named as defendants in the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, dated March 22, 2019, and/or in any further amended complaint or pleading filed in this Action. 4 “Settlement Class Period” means the period January 1, 2008 through the Execution Date of the Settlement Agreement. and all of the Released Credit Suisse Parties,5provided, however, that Investment Vehicles6shall not be excluded from the definition of the Settlement Class. 5. The requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied, solely for settlement purposes, as follows: (a) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the Settlement Class in the Action is impracticable; (b) questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any individual questions; (c) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claimsof the Settlement Class; (d) Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the Settlement Class; and (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering (i) the interests of members of the Settlement Class in individually controlling the prosecution of

separate actions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by members of the Settlement Class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of these claims in this particular forum; and (iv) the likely difficulties in managing this Action as a class action.

5 “Released Credit Suisse Parties” mean Settling Defendants and each of their respective past or present direct and indirect parents (including holding companies), subsidiaries, affiliates, associates (all as defined in SEC Rule 12b-2, promulgated pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended), divisions, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, and each of their respective past, present and future officers, directors, managers, members, partners, shareholders, insurers, employees, agents, attorneys, legal or other representatives, trustees, heirs, executors, administrators, advisors, and assigns, and the predecessors, successors, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of each of the foregoing. 6 “Investment Vehicles” means any investment company or pooled investment fund, including, but not limited to: (i) mutual fund families, exchange-traded funds, fund of funds and hedge funds, in which a Defendant has or may have a direct or indirect interest, or as to which its affiliates may act as an investment advisor, but of which a Defendant or its respective affiliates is not a majority owner or does not hold a majority beneficial interest, and (ii) any Employee Benefit Plan as to which a Defendant or its affiliates acts as an investment advisor or otherwise may be a fiduciary. 6. The law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, are appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. 7. Plaintiffs the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago are appointed, solely for

settlement purposes, as class representatives for the SettlementClass. 8. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all Settlement Class Members, and is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000)and those in Moses v. N.Y. Times Company, 79 F.4th 235, 242-46 (2d Cir. 2023). Moreover, the Court concludes that:

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

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Bank Of America Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Bank Of America Corporation (Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Bank Of America Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related