Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al
Filing
1256
ORDER re: #910 Order, #1253 Endorsed Letter, #1255 Endorsed Letter. The Court received letters from defendants The Citco Group Ltd.; Citco Fund Services (Europe) B.V.; Citco (Canada) Inc.; Citco Global Custody N.V.; Citco Bank Nederland, N.V., Dublin Branch; and Citco Fund Services (Bermuda) Ltd. (collectively, the "Citco Defendants") and from Plaintiffs, respectively dated March 19 and March 24, 2014 (Dkt. Nos. 1253, 1255), seeking clarification of the Court's Decision and Order dated August 6, 2012 (Dkt. No. 910) (the "Order"). The Court provides the following clarification of the Order. The Order dismissed all of Plaintiffs' negligence-based initial investment claims against all of the defendants who were included in the defined term "Defendants" in the Order. (Dkt. No. 910, at 1-2.) These parties are as follows; PwC Canada and PwC Netherlands (together, the "PwC Defendants"); Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.; Fairfield Greenwich Group; Fairfield Heathcliff Capital, LLC; Fairfield Risk Services Ltd.; Greenwich Sentry L. P.; Fairfield Sentry Ltd.; Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda) Ltd.; Fairfield Greenwich Advisors, LLC; Fairfield International Managers, Inc.; and Fairfield Greenwich Corp. (collectively, the "Fairfield Defendants"); GlobeOp Financial Services LLC ("GlobeOp" ); and the Citco Defendants (collectively with the PwC Defendants, the Fairfield Defendants, and GlobeOp, the "Defendants"). The fact that the final page of the Order refers to "the motion... of defendants PwC Canada and PwC Netherlands" (Dkt. No. 910, at 15) is purely ministerial and directs the electronic docketing department to terminate particular motions. That reference therefore should not be construed to imply that the Order applies only to the PwC Defendants. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/27/2014) (kgo)
. ,J" >':' . \
;H)CU~\L:\
r
'
I'! rCTRO\ICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-S!1J!f;;~-1 !
. ! )0(' #: -
x
\~~2~ ~/LF~\#-~Jj(~ I
PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,
09 Civ. 0118 (VM)
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
- against
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------- --- -------X
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
The Court received letters from defendants The Citco
Group
Ltd.;
(Canada)
Citco
Inc.;
Nederland,
(Bermuda)
from Plaintiffs,
(Dkt.
2014
Citco
N.V.,
Ltd.
Nos.
Fund
Services
Global
Dublin
(Europe)
Custody
Branch;
(collectively,
and
the
N.V.;
Citco
Citco
Citco
Fund
Bank
Servics
"Citco Defendants")
1255),
and
seeking clarification of the
Court's Decision and Order dated August 6,
910)
B.V.;
respectively dated March 19 and March 24,
1253,
2012
(Dkt.
No.
(the "Order").
The Court provides the following clarification of the
Order.
based
The Order dismissed all of Plaintiffs' negligenceinitial
defendants
who
investment
were
"Defendants" in the Order.
parties
are as
(together,
follows;
claims
included
against
in
(Dkt. No.
the
910,
all
of
defined
at 1-2.)
the
term
These
PwC Canada and PwC Netherlands
the "PwC Defendants")
-1
i
tl
Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.;
Fairfield
LLC i
Greenwich
Fairfield
Groupi
Fairfield Risk Services Ltd.
Fairfield Sentry Ltd.i
Inc. ;
(collectively,
Financial
the
Services
LLC
Fairfield Defendants,
Greenwich
Defendants")
( "GlobeOp" )
with
(Bermuda)
the
and GlobeOp,
Ltd.j
Fairfield International
"Fairfield
(collectively
Defendants
LLCi
Fairfield
and
Capital,
Greenwich Sentry L. P. ;
i
Fairfield Greenwich
Fairfield Greenwich Advisors,
Managers,
Heathcliff
i
PwC
and
Corp.
GlobeOp
i
the
Citco
Defendants,
the
the "Defendants").
The
fact that the final page of the Order refers to "the motion
. of defendants PwC Canada and PwC Netherlands"
No.
910,
at
electronic
motions.
15)
is
docketing
purely
ministerial
department
to
and
terminate
directs
(Dkt.
the
particular
That reference therefore should not be construed
to imply that the Order applies only to the PwC Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
27 March 2014
Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.
-2
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?