Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1331

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Laurence E. Curran III dated 10/21/2014 re: The plaintiffs respectfully request a pre-motion conference in this regard. ENDORSEMENT: The SCB defendants are directed to respond by 11-27-14, by letter not to exceed three (3) pages, to the matter set forth above by certain plaintiffs, showing cause why the relief requested should not be granted. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 10/22/2014) (lmb)

10/21/2014

21:31

305--448-1320

PAGE

1533

FEDE>< OFFICE

82

~~~~._~~~~~--

1·

DOCT~!L:\T

f

f!

CURRAN LAW PL
Attorney~

n! Lttw

71l I Brickell ,~ venu<::: - S1.11tc 1550
Miami, Florid;'! 3313 I

I.au rence S. Curran Ill

I

I

#·

~1'~~~·

.

.

Telcphnn1: 305-777-0374
Telerax 305-728-5288
Em~1il [e-mail]

October 21, 2014

Via Teliefa.x (212·805-6382)
Honora.Me Victor Marrero
United States D.istrict Judge

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, \few York 10007·1312
Re:

Anwar. er al. '-'·Fairfield Greenwich Ltd, et al., No. 09-CV·l 18 (S.D.N.Y.) - Standard
Chartered Cases

Dear Judge Marrero:

l am cot.msel to plaintiffs in forty-two of the actions pending against the Standard Chartered
Defend'1nts ("SCB") and now \\trite on behalf of seven plaintiffs in five of those actions to
request a pre-motion conference regarding the contemplated motions of the seven plaintiffs
for permission of the Court to either have them dropped as plaintiffs or to have their cases
dismissed as described herein. I have written to counse.1 for SCB in this regard on October 9
and October l 7 and been advised that SCB does not consent to the requested relief.
The sev·~n plaintiffs can be divided into two categories for these purposes: (1) five plaintiffs
who did not independently bring any actions against SCB but are co-plaintiffs in three
pending acti.ons are seeking perrnission of the Court in accord with Rule 21 of the
Fed.R.Civ.P. to be dropped as plaintiffs; and (2) two plaintiffs who did bring their own
actions 3rc seeking pennission of the Court in accord with Rule 41 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. to
have their ac1ions dismissed.
1.

In the first category regarding dropping five plaintiffs are the following three cases:

a.
Nov Jforizon Developme111 Inc.. et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) /Jd., No. lO-cv-24396. In this action, there are two plaintiffs - New Horizon
Development, Inc. ("NHD'') and Continental Rainbow Group, Inc. ("CRG"). NHD purchased
572.38 Sihares of Fairfield Sentry Ltd. ("Fairfield Sentry") in 2003 and 2005 for $550,000. On
November 19, 2007, NT-ID transferred 343 shares of Fairfield Sentry from its account to the
account of CRG at SCB.
CRG now wishes to drop out as a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 21 of the Fed.R.Civ.P where CRG

1

I

'. ITTRO'.\!C,\LLY rJL[f)
)f)('

--

10/21/2014

21:31

FEDEX OFFICE

305--448-1320

1533

PAGE

did not mak~ any direct investment in Fairfield Sentry and the actual loss attributable to the
purchase of those shares is for the account of NHD.
b. Jst~m !-lo/dings Ltd. el al v. Standard Charle1'ed Bank Jntemationa[ (~m~,:~cas) l.td., No.
1O-cv-24399. In this action, like in the New Horizon case, there are two plamtifts but only one

that purchased shares of Fairfield Sentry. Tston Holdings Ltd. ("lston") purcha5ed 863:5
shares in five investments between March 22, 2005 and December 27, 2007 through its
accoun1 at SCB. On October 18. 2006, lston transferred 550. 96 shares from its account at
SCB to the account of Nemagus Ltd. at SCB.
"l'emagus nnw wishes to drop out as a plaintiff because although it holds 550.96 shares of
Fairfield Sentry in its account at SCB, NemagLL<:; did not make a direct investment in Fairfield
Sentry Ltd. and the actual loss attributable to the purchase of those shares is solely lston's.

Tien·a CV. et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americ:a.'1) Ltd, No. 1Ocv-225(1)3. In this action, there are s.ix plaintiffs and three of the six plaintiffs - Ali Ltd.
("Ali"), Bellwood Ltd. ("Bellwood") and Accent. Group Ltd. ("Accent Group") - wish to drop
out as i:-Iainti ffs because the actual purchasers of shares of Fairfield Sentry Ltd. were plaintiffs
Tierra CV, Oro CV and Bego Inc. ("Bego"). On September 22, 2004, plaintiffs Ali, Belhvood
and Accent Group each received from Bego a tran.<;fer of approximately 91. 7 shares of
Fairfiel.j Sentry from the 275.08 shares that Bcgo had purchased on March 22, 2004.
c.

Ali, Bellwood and Accent Group now wish to drop out as pJajntiffs because although each
company holds shares of Fairfield Sentry in their respective accounts at SCB, none of these
three plaintiffs made any direct investments themselves in Fairfield Sentry.
Tn the second category, where two plaintiffs seek permission to have their cases
djsmissed, are the follo\.ving two cases:

2.

a.

Juan D. Quiroz Stone v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Amehca.s) Limited,

No. l J-cv-22835. In this case, it became apparent basec on holding letters issued by Standard
Chartered in regard to the Anwar - Fairfield settlement regarding the account of Ponciana
Holdi11)i;S Ltd. - a company that is not a plaintiff - that the investment in Fairfield Sentry Ltd.
described in the Complaint was likely made through Ponciana Holdings Ltd. and not by Mr.
Quiroz personally. Mr. Quiroz, who is in his eighties and has not been in the best health. had
bclieveG1 that the investments in Fairfield Sentry were ~11ade through his personal account at
SCB. It too].: some time to clarify this issue with him following receipt of the holding letter
r~gar.ding Ponciana's account at SCB. Mr. Quiroz now wishes to ha,·e his Complaint
d1sm1sscd.
Lyac Venture Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank fntemalional (Americas) Ltd., No.
l 2-cv-24 l4 l 111 ~his case, it has become apparent based on holding letters issued by Standard
Charten~d regarding the account of Lyac Venture Corp. and documents received from another
fina~1cia4 institution) that the. loss incurred by Lyac due to iLi;; investment in Fairfield Sentry
Ltd is small <:ind Lyac thus wishes to have its Complaint dismissed.

b.

2

03

10/21/2014

21:31

1533

FEDE>< OFFICE

305--448-1320

PAGE

The dismissal of these two cases - .Juan D. Quiroz Stone and Lyac Venture Cmp. - as well as
dropping thri.: five plai.ntiffs from the cases of New Horizon Development Inc., Is ton Holdings
Ltd., Tierra CV et al, will not have a.ny impact on the pre-trial proceedings in other cases
pending before this Court a.s part of the Fairfield MDL. The five cases now at issue - New
Horizon Development Inc .. !stem Holdings Ltd.. Tierra CV et al. .Juan D. Quiroz Stone and
Lyac Venture Corp. - are not part of the Summary Judgment Cases but .rather are in the part
covered. by lb.e stipulation to defer discovery.
The requested relief will aid in the efficiency of the litigation because it would reduce the
number of plaintiffs required to be deposed by seven since the five cases at issue are part of
the group of' fotty-two of the cases (the "Stipulating Actions") covered by a Stipulation (Doc.
826) with SCB where, in order to enhance judidal economy and substantially reduce the
burdens of litigation on the parties and the Court, the parties agreed to defer plaintiff-specific
discow:ry, including depositions of plaintiffs, in thirty-six of the Stipulating Actions until the
Court has ruled on disposit.ive motions in the other six Stipulating Actions (the "Summary
Judgment Cases").
Since 11hese ca.c:;es are not for consideration as part of the cases SCB refi:..'!'s to as the 12 Test
Cases regarding SCB" s continuing request for permission to file a summary judgment motion.
l do not believe that the requested relief is in any way prejudicial to that requested relief.
Further, since the Court has previously held that SLUS.A does not apply to the Standard
Chartered cases given various considerations, I do not think that any SLUSA related issue is
relevar,t to the 7 plaint1ffs' respective requests for permission to file a motion to have 2 cases
voluntarily dismissed and 5 plc:iintiffa dropped under Rule 21 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. In re
Aferrili Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Repor1.1· Sec. Litig .. 214 F.R.D. 152, 154 (S.D.N.Y.2003)
(holding that Disu·ict Courts have broad discretion to drop or add parties under Rule 21 "when
doing ~:o would serve the ends of justice and further the prompt and efficient disposition
the
litigation").

or

Also,

~~hould, arguendo, SLUS.A be considered relevant at

this stage of the proceedings
regardi1ng these cases, this Court has found that the possibility of a SLUSA argument by a
defend1nt should not preclude the dismissal from the action of plaintiffs with "no actual
interest in t'he litigation." See Lee v. Marsh & 1\.lclennan Cornpanies, Inc .. et al., 2007 WL
70403: (SD:--JY 2007). That situation covers 6 of the above-described plaintiffs - excepting
Lyac Venture Corp. - as it has become clear that none of them have an interest in this
litigation except that they remain as plaintiffs.
1

For the foregoing reasons, the above-mentioned plaintiffs respectfully request a pre-motion
confere:nce in this regard.

Laure111ce E. Curran TH
SO ORDERED.
cc: Coumsel in Standard Chartered Cases (via email) fO-:J.:;)-/

tj

DATE

3

04