Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1267

ORDER: that Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SCCAC") to reassert negligence-based initial investment claims against 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"). The Citco Defendants may request an extension of the expert discovery deadline upon a sufficient showing of the nature and scope of such expert discovery necessary by reason of Plaintiffs' amendment of the SCCAC at this time. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/13/2014) (tn)

. 'I.JSDC SONY'

;,'

, DOCU~1ENT

. '.

~ LLrCTRONICA:L[tFii~b: :'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Ii DOC #:

----- ----------- ------- --------X

.

.: DATE FfLED­
--,-­
:,--'

,

"

"

,

09 Civ. 0118

PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

against ­
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.

------ --- ---x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

By Order dated March 27,
"2014 Order"),

Order

dated

(Dkt.

2014

No.

1256)

(the

the Court clarified that in the Decision and
August

6,

(Dkt.

2012

No.

(the

910)

"2012

Order"), the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' negligencebased

initial

investment

who

defendants
"Defendants"

were

claims

against
in

included

in the 2012 Order.

the

(Dkt.

No.

all

of

defined
910,

the
term

at 1 2.)

This defined term included defendants The Citco Group Ltd.;
Citco

Fund

Citco

Global

Dublin

Services

(Europe)

Custody

Branch;

and

N.V.;
Citco

B.V.;
Citco

Fund

the

2014

Order

t

Bank

(Canada)

Inc.;

Nederland,

N.V.,

Services

(collectively, the "Citco Defendants
Following

Citco

)

•

the

proposed

pre-motion conference

motion

to

amend

the

1­

Ltd.

ff

Court

letter from Plaintiffs dated April 17, 2014
requesting a

(Bermuda)

received

(Dkt. No. 1260)

to address

Second

the

Plaintiffs'

Consolidated

Class

Action
initial

investments

The Court also

to

("SCCAC" )

Complaint

claims

reassert

against

received letters

the

17,

April

23,

1264,

and

1266,

respectively)

proposed

as

motion,

and April

Plaintiffs dated April 24,

2014

Defendants.

Citco Defendants

24,

2014

(Dkt.

opposing

the

as

well

Citco

from the

dated April
1263

negligence-based

reply

(Dkt.

No.

Nos.

Plaintiffs'
letter

1265)

from

in further

support of Plaintiffs' proposed motion.
The Court's
initial
2012

dismissal of

investment

Order,

the

repled only

if

claims

Court

Plaintiffs'

was

without

noted
fs

Plaint

that
ei ther

members of a certified class fact,

known

to

the

now

propose

showing

amending

Administrators
No.

1260

Plaintiffs'

the

SCCAC

at

2)

to

and

initial

their
to

335(a)-(c).)

amendments

engaged in

Plaintiffs
are

now

lito

11

known

to

the

or as

claim

at

3i

allegations
the

that

Citco

that

to

Citco

including
id.

"the

supported

(Dkt.

prior

Funds,

see

in

Plaintiffs

linking conduct
(Id.

be

initial

investments"

in

strongly

-2

their

clarify

"demonstrate

communications with investors.
~~

the

may

individuals

to

initial

investment

Administrators

claims

910 at 9.)

were

prior

as

prior

(Dkt. No.

Plaintiffs

that

[s] uch

II

In

prejudice.

can show that they were,

Defendants

investment in the Funds."

negligence based

by

Exh.

A

proposed
evidence

obtained

through

Plaintiffs

discovery.

allege

that

prior

Citco received investors'
name,

country of

to

Specifically,

3.}

Plaintiffs'

and various

allegations

investments,

forms

including
of

Plaintiffs

contact

claim

were

The Court

(Dkt. No. 1265 at 2.)

discovery.

established

at

subscription requests,

residence,
which

information

Id.

/I

is persuaded that such facts provide the proper basis for
Plaintiffs to satisfy the conditions for repleading, as set
forth in the 2012 Order.
The Court finds
not

unduly

that an amendment to the SCCAC would

prejudice

the

Citco

Defendants

because

the

proposed amendments are based on operative facts that have
already been the subject of fact discovery.
Citco

Defendants

amendment

of

additional
request

expert

for

discovery

the

an

can

make

SCCAC

at

sufficient

showing

time

give

this

discovery,
extension

demonstrating

supplemental

a

expert

would

Court
of

the

the
nature

discovery

Insofar as the

will

deadl
and

rise

consider
for

scope

necessary

by

that
to
a

expert
of

reason

such
of

Plaintiffs' amendment of the SCCAC at this time.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the

Second

Consolidated

Class

Action

Complaint

("SCCAC")

reassert negligence-based initial investment claims

-3­

to
inst

defendants
(Europe)

The

B. V.

i

Citco

Inc.

N.V.;

Citco Bank Nederland,

Fund

Services

Defendants")

i

ORDERED

extension

of

Citco

Ltd.;

(Canada)

Ci tco

Group

(Bermuda)

N.V.,

Ltd.

i

Fund

Ci tco

Global

Services
Custody

Branch; and Citco

Dubl

(collectively,

the

"Citco

and it is further
that
the

the

Citco

expert

Defendants
discovery

may

request

deadline

upon

an
a

sufficient showing of the nature and scope of such expert
discovery necessary by reason of

Plaintiffs'

amendment of

the SCCAC at this time.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
13 May 2014

Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.

-4­