Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al
Filing
1321
ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Tucker's request to participate in the GlobeOp settlement pro rata with other class members is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 9/11/2014) (lmb)
L :)D\.~
---·----·:
~ l L,; 'l
DOCL'. \ 1L'.'\.l'
ELECTRO~IC:\l.t.Y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
q~~~1#1!1 !ll ?//rt![_
~.. . . . ~-:~ =-~~-=-·- .
-----------------------------------x
s. ANWAR,
PASHA
1·1LED
09-cv-0118 (VM)
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
- against FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
On August 1, 2014, the Class Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Distribution of the GlobeOp Net Settlement Fund,
August 1,
On
2014
August
29,
("Motion for Distribution," Dkt. No.
2014,
Sylvia
Tucker
("Tucker")
dated
1292) .
filed
a
Memorandum of Law in Partial Opposition to the Motion for
Distribution (Dkt. No. 1311), and on September 5, 2014 Class
Plaintiffs filed a response to Tucker's opposition (Dkt. No.
1317).
Tucker is the mother of one of the defendants in this
matter,
Jeffrey Tucker.
barred
from
receiving
She argues that she should not be
a
distribution
in
the
settlement
because she should not fall into the category of defendants'
"immediate family members"
excluded from the terms of the
GlobeOp Stipulation of Settlement.
(Dkt. No.
1184 at 11.)
Accordingly, she asks the Court to allow her to participate
in the GlobeOp settlement distribution pro rata with the other
class
members.
The
Court
has
reviewed
the
parties'
submissions
listed
above
and
does
not
find
Tucker's
opposition meritorious.
The language of the GlobeOp Stipulation of Settlement
defines the "GlobeOp Settlement Class"
to exclude "the FG
Defendants, GlobeOp, and the Non-Settling Defendants,
and
immediate
family
members,
and
successors,
heirs,
(Id.)
subsidiaries and assigns of such Persons."
Tucker
provides the statement of one of the attorneys who represented
the
defendants
in settlement negotiations
that
"[i] n
his
thinking about whose claims would be excluded by the term
'immediate
children."
1310
~
8.)
family members, '
[he]
had in mind spouses and
(Declaration of Mark G.
Cunha,
Esq.,
Dkt.
No.
The Court is aware that there is no reason to
believe Tucker is anything other than an innocent victim.
However,
there
"immediate
is
family
no
explicit
member"
in
the
definition
GlobeOp
of
the
term
Stipulation
of
Settlement and in the absence of a contrary definition, the
term must be construed according to its most common meaning,
which in this case is consistent with its meaning in the
context of securities law.
In securities law, as in common parlance, as Plaintiffs
argue,
C.F.R.
"immediate family"
§
240.16a-1
(For
includes parents.
purposes
of
See,
Section
16
~·
of
17
the
Securities Act of 1934, "The term immediate family shall mean
2
any
grandparent,
son-in-law,
grandchild,
stepchild,
child,
spouse,
sibling, mother-in-law,
daughter-in-law,
stepparent,
parent,
brother-in-law,
father-in-law,
or sister-in-
law, and shall include adoptive relationships."); 17 C.F.R.
§ 229.404 (same definition for required disclosure of related
party
transactions);
Definition
of
"Immediate
Family,"
BusinessDictionary.com,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediatefamily.html
(last visited September 11,
2014)
("Someone's
spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grandchildren,
brothers
and
sisters,
mother
in
law
and
father
in
law,
brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons
in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in
immediate family.").
Therefore, the Court is persuaded that
Tucker, as the mother of a defendant,
is excluded from the
GlobeOp Settlement Class.
The Court notes that Tucker "reserves the right to seek
leave to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and/or seek
to modify the Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60, in the event the Court were to disagree with this
partial opposition and conclude that Mrs.
Tucker should be
excluded from the class as currently defined."
1310 at 2,
n.1.)
(Dkt.
No.
To the extent that any such motion would
rely on the arguments Tucker presents in her Memorandum of
3
Law in Partial Opposition to the Motion for Distribution, the
Court would regard such motion as futile,
as it would be
unlikely to achieve an outcome different from the Court's
ruling herein.
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
Tucker's
request
to
participate in the GlobeOp settlement pro rata with other
class members is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
11 September 2014
Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.
4
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?