P. 1
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's ruling

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's ruling

|Views: 22,635|Likes:
Published by DealBook
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's ruling in re Libor-based Financial Instruments Antritrust Litigation
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's ruling in re Libor-based Financial Instruments Antritrust Litigation

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: DealBook on Apr 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2013

pdf

text

original

subject of a securities fraud action. Here, the predicate acts

of mail and wire fraud underlying plaintiffs’ RICO claimcould

have been the subject of a claim

for securities fraud.

Additionally, RICO applies only domestically, meaning that the

alleged “enterprise” must be a domestic enterprise. However,

the enterprise alleged by plaintiffs is based in England. For

these reasons, plaintiffs’ RICO claimis dismissed.

Finally, plaintiffs’ state-law claims are all dismissed,

some with prejudice and some without. Plaintiffs’ Cartwright

Act claimis dismissed with prejudice for lack of antitrust

injury. The exchange-based plaintiffs’ New York common law

unjust enrichment claimis also dismissed with prejudice, as

plaintiffs have not alleged any relationship between themand

defendants. With regard to the remaining state-law claims, we

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore

dismiss the claims without prejudice.

We recognize that it might be unexpected that we are

dismissing a substantial portion of plaintiffs’ claims, given

that several of the defendants here have already paid penalties

to government regulatory agencies reaching into the billions of

dollars. However, these results are not as incongruous as they

Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 159 of 161

160

might seem. Under the statutes invoked here, there are many

requirements that private plaintiffs must satisfy, but which

government agencies need not. The reason for these differing

requirements is that the focuses of public enforcement and

private enforcement, even of the same statutes, are not

identical. The broad public interests behind the statutes

invoked here, such as integrity of the markets and competition,

are being addressed by ongoing governmental enforcement. While

public enforcement is often supplemented by suits brought by

private parties acting as “private attorneys general,” those

private actions which seek damages and attorney’s fees must be

examined closely to ensure that the plaintiffs who are suing are

the ones properly entitled to recover and that the suit is, in

fact, serving the public purposes of the laws being invoked.

Therefore, although we are fully cognizant of the settlements

that several of the defendants here have entered into with

government regulators, we find that only some of the claims that

plaintiffs have asserted may properly proceed.

Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 160 of 161

161

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
March 29, 2013

L<;i2~~

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-md-02262-NRB Document 286 Filed 03/29/13 Page 161 of 161

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->