Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1153

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Timothy A. Duffy dated 6/14/2013 re: The Non-Dismissed Defendants respectfully request that the Court "so order" the production of these documents by Plaintiffs on the terms set out above. ENDORSEMENT: Request GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to produce the documents referred to above on the terms specified. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 6/17/2013) (lmb)

KIRKLAND &. ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS

JUDGE MARRERO

300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Timothy A. Duffy. P. C.
To Call Writer Direclly:
(312) 862·2445
[e-mail]

Facsimile:
[phone]

[phone]
www.kirkland.com

June 14,2013
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Judge Victor Marrero
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Anwar, et al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al.
Master File No. 09-CV -00118 (VM) (THK)

Dear Judge Marrero:
I write on behalf of my client, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC Canada"), and the
other Non-Dismissed Defendants (PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. ("PwC
Netherlands"), Citco Fund Services (Europe) B.V., Citco (Canada) Inc., Citco Bank Nederland
N.V. Dublin Branch, Citco Global Custody N.V., Citco Fund Services (Bermuda) Limited, The
Citco Group Limited (collectively, the "Citco Defendants"), and GlobeOp Financial Services
LLC ("GlobeOp")) in the Anwar litigation.
As the Court will recall, the Non-Dismissed Defendants objected to a provision in the
Court's Order approving the settlement and dismissal of the claims against the Fairfield
Defendants that prohibited the disclosure of information submitted by settlement claimants
"absent a further order of this Court upon a showing of necessity." Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice at 13 (~29) (Mar. 25,2013) (Rec. Doc. ] 097).
Subsequent to the Court's Order, the Non-Dismissed Defendants served document
requests on the Plaintiffs and the Fairfield Defendants for certain documents related to the
settlement. These requests were designed to provide the Non-Dismissed Defendants with the
following information: (a) the identity (including record and beneficial owner information) of
the settlement class members who had filed proof of claims and settlement class opt-outs; (b) any
information regarding their transactions in the funds; and (c) any amounts received or to be
received from the settlement or other sources on their fund-related claims.
The Plaintiffs and Fairfield Defendants asserted objections in response to these requests
on numerous grouds, including, but not limited to, that the Court's March 25, 2013 Order
Hong Kong

London

Los Angeles

Munich

New York

Palo Alto

San FranCisco

Shanghai

Washington, D.C.

KIRKLAND

~

ELLlS LLP

June 14,2013
Page 2

prohibited them from providing documents submitted by settlement claimants absent a further
order of the Court.
In meet-and-confer sessions discussing these requests, the Non-Dismissed Defendants
explained that they had a "necessity" for this information. First, it would allow the Non­
Dismissed Defendants to identify the likely members of the litigation class, as well as those
excluded from the litigation class as a result of their geographic location. Second, as is typically
the case when there is a partial settlement in a securities case, the claims information and the
transactional data on which it is based provides a unique data set relevant to the calculation of
the remaining litigants' claimed damages. Third, any amounts already received by class
members (or amounts to be received in connection with the settlement) can and should be taken
into accounts in any calculation of plaintiffs claimed damages against the Non-Dismissed
Defendants.
Finally, the Non-Dismissed Defendants pointed out that the concerns of
confidentiality raised by the Settling Parties to justify the restriction in the Court's March 25,
2013 Order could be addressed by treating this information as confidential under the terms of the
Stipulation and Order Governing Confidentiality of Discovery Material, filed November 2, 2010
("Confidentiality Order").
As a result of these discussions, Plaintiffs and the Non-Settling Defendants (reserving
their rights with regard to other document requests or objections thereto) were able to reach the
following agreement: The Plaintiffs would not oppose a request by the Non-Dismissed
Defendants to the Court allowing the production by Plaintiffs to the Non-Dismissed Defendants
of:
(1)

All proof of claim forms and supporting documents concerning any
trading activity in the Fairfield funds submitted by settlement claimants to
the claims administrator; and

(2)

Documents sufficient to identify the opt-outs from the settlement;
provided that

(3)

The Non-Dismissed Defendants treat the foregoing documents and their
contents as "Confidential" under the terms of the Confidentiality Order;
and

(4)

The Non-Dismissed Defendants not use the forgoing documents or their
contents in any other proceeding absent a further Order of the Court.

KIRKLAND &.. ELLIS LLP

June 14,2013
Page 3

Accordingly, the Non-Dismissed Defendants respectfully request that the Court "so
order" the production of these documents by Plaintiffs on the terms set out above. The Plaintiffs
have reviewed this letter and do not oppose this request; the Fairfield Defendants have also
reviewed this letter and do not take a position with respect to this request.

Respectfully,

~(17)~a()
Timothy A. Duffy, P.C.

cc:

Counsel of Record (via e/mail)