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