Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al
Filing
1238
MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to #1120 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Miguel Lomeli, Morning Mist Holdings Limited USCA Case Number 13-1581. Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 12/20/2013. (nd)
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 1
12/20/2013
1120195
10
N.Y.S.D. Case #
09-cv-0118(VM)
MANDATE
13-1581
Lomeli v. Fairfield Greenwich
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS
BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 26th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
MIGUEL LOMELI, MORNING MIST HOLDINGS
USDC SDNY
LIMITED,
DOCUMENT
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
_________________
DATE FILED:December 20, 2013
______________
AXA PRIVATE MANAGEMENT,
Lead Plaintiff,
PASHA S. ANWAR, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED INVESTORS IN THE GREENWICH
SENTRY, L.P. PRIVATE INVESTMENT
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, JULIA ANWAR, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED INVESTORS IN THE
GREENWICH SENTRY, L.P. PRIVATE
INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET
AL.,
1
MANDATE ISSUED ON 12/20/2013
Case: 13-1581
1
2
3
4
5
Document: 159
Page: 2
12/20/2013
1120195
Plaintiffs,
SHIMON LAOR, ET AL.,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
9
10
ARJAN MOHANDAS BHATIA, ET AL.,
All Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SECURITIES & INVESTMENT COMPANY
BAHRAIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiff-Appellees,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-v.-
13-1581
-v.FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED, A CAYMAN
ISLAND COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees,
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH ADVISORS L.L.C.,
AMIT VIGAYVERGIA, CITCO FUND SERVICES
(EUROPE) B.V.,
Defendants - Consolidated
Defendants - Appellees,
YANKO DELLAW SCHIAVA, ET AL.,
Consolidated Defendants Appellees,
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH CORP.,
Consolidated Counter
Defendant - Appellee,
1-20 JOHN DOES,
Defendants,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
2
10
Case: 13-1581
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Document: 159
Page: 3
12/20/2013
1120195
10
FOR APPELLANT:
ROBERT A. WALLNER, Milberg LLP,
New York, New York (Jennifer L.
Young, Kristi Stahnke McGregor,
Milberg LLP, Stephen Weiss,
Parvin Aminolroaya, Seeger Weiss
LLP, on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellants Miguel
Lomeli and Morning Mist Holdings
Limited.
FOR APPELLEES:
DAVID A. BARRETT, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, New York, New
York (Howard L. Vickery, II,
Stuart H. Singer, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert
C. Finkel, James A. Harrod,
Natalie M. Mackiel, Wolf Popper
LLP, Christopher Lovell, Victor
E. Stewart, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, on the
brief), for PlaintiffsAppellees.
MARK G. CUNHA, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, New York, New York
(Peter E. Kazanoff, Jeffrey L.
Roether, Jeffrey E. Baldwin, and
Nicholas S. Davis, on the
brief), for Fairfield Greenwich
Limited, Fairfield Greenwich
(Bermuda) Limited, Fairfield
Heathcliff Capital LLC,
Fairfield Risk Services Limited,
Lourdes Barreneche, Vianney
d’Hendecourt, Yanko Della
Schiava, Harold Greisman,
Jacqueline Harary, Richard
Landsberger, Daniel E. Lipton,
Julia Luongo, Mark McKeefry,
Charles Murphy, Corina Noel
Piedrahita, Maria Teresa Pulido
Mendoza, Santiago Reyes, Andrew
Smith, Philip Toub, and Amit
Vijayvergiya.
3
Case: 13-1581
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Document: 159
Page: 4
12/20/2013
1120195
10
MARC E. KASOWITZ, Kasowitz Benson
Torres & Friedman LLP, New York,
New York (Daniel J. Fetterman,
on the brief), for Jeffrey H.
Tucker.
BRUCE A. BAIRD, Covington &
Burling LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Gregory Bowes.
ANDREW J. LEVANDER, Dechert LLP,
New York, New York (Neil A.
Steiner, on the brief), for
Andres Piedrahita.
ANDREW HAMMOND, White & Case LLP,
New York, New York (Glenn M.
Kurtz, on the brief), for Walter
M. Noel, Jr.
EDWARD M. SPIRO, Morvillo
Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello
P.C., for David B. Horn and
Robert A. Blum.
SEAN F. O’SHEA, O’Shea Partners
LLP, New York, New York, for
Cornelis Boele.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
AFFIRMED.
Miguel Lomeli and Morning Mist Holdings Limited appeal
38
from the judgment of the United States District Court for
39
the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.), approving a
40
partial class action settlement.
4
The underlying class
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 5
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
action (the “Anwar action”) alleges that the defendants made
2
material misstatements concerning their due diligence while
3
investing with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.
4
During the district court proceedings, the plaintiffs and
5
the Fairfield Greenwich defendants settled on a basis that
6
requires the plaintiffs to release any derivative claims on
7
behalf of the Fairfield Greenwich funds.
8
filed a derivative claim in New York state court on behalf
9
of one of the funds, Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Sentry”)
The appellants
10
(the “Morning Mist action”).
11
Southern District of New York and then remanded back to
12
state court.
13
in the British Virgin Islands, however, and the Morning Mist
14
action therefore has been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court for
15
the Southern district of New York.
16
filed a direct action against the Fairfield Greenwich
17
defendants, also in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
18
District of New York.
19
Fairfield Greenwich Grp., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03800 (Bankr.
20
S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2011).
21
settlement insofar as it requires them to release their
22
derivative claims, and cites deficiencies in the settlement
That action was removed to the
Sentry is undergoing a liquidation proceeding
Additionally, Sentry has
See Fairfield Sentry Ltd. V.
The appellants object to the
5
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 6
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
notice.
2
to reconsider the approval in light of the Supreme Court’s
3
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
4
(2013).
5
underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
6
presented for review.
7
They also appeal the district court’s decision not
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
We review the approval of a class action settlement for
8
abuse of discretion.
9
(2d Cir. 2013).
Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241, 247
“A district court abuses its discretion
10
when its decision rests on an error of law or a clearly
11
erroneous factual finding, or when its decision cannot be
12
located within the range of permissible decisions.”
13
“We review factual findings relating to the settlement for
14
clear error and issues of law de novo.”
15
court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is also
16
reviewed for abuse of discretion.
17
Indus. Corp., 329 F.3d 310, 316 (2d Cir. 2003).
Id.
Id.
A district
RJE Corp. v. Northville
18
1.
19
“[I]n order to achieve a comprehensive settlement that
20
would prevent relitigation of settled questions at the core
21
of a class action, a court may permit the release of a claim
22
. . . even though the claim was not presented and might not
Scope of the Release
6
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 7
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
have been presentable in the class action.”
2
Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456, 460 (2d Cir.
3
1982).
4
limited by the ‘identical factual predicate’ and ‘adequacy
5
of representation’ doctrines.”
6
Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 106 (2d Cir. 2005); see also
7
TBK Partners, 675 F.2d at 460-62.
8
9
TBK Partners,
The “[p]laintiffs’ authority to release claims is
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
The claims in the Anwar action and the derivative
claims in the Morning Mist action share a single factual
10
predicate: the alleged misconduct of the Fairfield Greenwich
11
defendants in failing to conduct adequate due diligence, and
12
misrepresentations regarding their due diligence.
13
district court recognized this identity when it initially
14
agreed to consolidate the two actions.
15
Fairfield Greenwich Grp., No. 1:09-cv-00118,(S.D.N.Y. June
16
9, 2009, ECF No. 167).
17
identity.
18
The
See Anwar v.
The appellants do not contest this
“Adequate representation of a particular claim is
19
established mainly by showing an alignment of interests
20
between class members.”
21
07.
22
in the Fairfield Greenwich funds (including Sentry), every
Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 106-
Since the plaintiff class is composed of equity holders
7
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 8
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
member of the class has an interest in claims that may be
2
made derivatively on behalf of the funds.
3
appellants claim that the release disproportionately affects
4
them relative to other class members.
5
representation exists to release derivative claims that may
6
be pursued by the settling class.
7
Nor do the
Therefore, adequate
We are unpersuaded that Sentry’s absence from the class
8
nullifies the settlement.
9
settling class from bringing a derivative action, an action
The settlement only limits the
10
that belongs to the corporation.
11
Mgmt., L.P., 380 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2004).
12
the settlement limits the ability of Sentry to pursue an
13
action for its benefit or the ability of class members who
14
opt out to pursue derivative claims.
15
appellants’ reliance on National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New
16
York Mercantile Exchange is misplaced: in that case, the
17
factual predicate and adequate representation tests were not
18
satisfied.
19
Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 110-11.
See Scalisi v. Fund Asset
Furthermore, the
660 F.2d 9, 18 n.7, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); see also
20
2.
21
A settlement notice must be reasonable.
22
Nothing in
The Settlement Notice
P. 23(e)(2).
Fed. R. Civ.
“There are no rigid rules to determine whether
8
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 9
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
a settlement notice to the class satisfies constitutional or
2
Rule 23(e) requirements.”
3
Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 438 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Wal-
4
Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 114).
5
must ‘fairly apprise the prospective members of the class of
6
the terms of the proposed settlement and of the options that
7
are open to them in connection with the proceedings.’”
8
9
Masters v. Wilhelmina Model
“[T]he settlement notice
Id.
This notice informed the class members that they would
not be able to participate in any other proceeding against
10
the Fairfield Greenwich defendants in any forum.
11
warned class members to seek counsel if they were involved
12
in any litigation against the defendants, directed them to
13
the stipulation, and explained how to opt out if they wanted
14
to preserve their claims.
15
The notice
The settlement notice here did not specifically refer
16
to the Morning Mist derivative action.
17
encourages settlement notices to include “specific
18
reference[s] to pending actions,” we have never held this to
19
be a requirement.
20
The settlement notice was reasonable and could be
21
“understood by the average class member.”
While this Court
Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 116 n.22.
22
9
Id. at 114.
Case: 13-1581
Document: 159
Page: 10
12/20/2013
1120195
10
1
3.
2
The appellants sought reconsideration of the district
Reconsideration of the Settlement Approval
3
court’s settlement approval in light of the Supreme Court’s
4
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
5
(2013).
6
its discretion in denying reconsideration for the reasons
7
articulated in its decision and order.
8
Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., No. 1:09-cv-00118 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
9
4, 2013, ECF No. 1104).
10
11
We conclude that the district court did not abuse
See Anwar v.
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in the
12
appellants’ other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment
13
of the district court.
14
15
16
17
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?