Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1346

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Timothy A. Duffy dated 1/5/2015 re: I write on behalf of my client, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC Canada") and also on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. ("PwC Netherlands"), collectively the "PwC Defendants" in response to Mr. Barrett's letter of December 30, 2014. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the Court by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 1/6/2015) (lmb)

KIRKLAND&.. ELLIS LLP
AND Jl.FflLIATlD Pi\RTNtRSHIPS

300 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60654
Timothy A. Duffy. P.C.
To Call Writer Directly:
[phone]
[e-mail]

[phone]
IMNw

Facsimile
[phone]

kirkland.com

January 5, 2015

VIA FACSIMILE
Judge Victor Marrero
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Anwar, et al. v. Fairfield Gree11wich Limited, et al.
Master File No. 09-CV-00118 (VM) (THK)

Dear Judge Marrero:
I write on behalf of my client, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC Canada") and also on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. ("PwC Netherlands"), collectively the
''PwC Defendants" in response to Mr. Barrett's letter of December 30, 2014.
The PwC Defendants agree with the Citco defendants that plaintiffs' remaining claims in
this case should be dismissed as wholly derivative in nature under any applicable law, including
NY law, as the Second Circuit's recent decision in Elendow Fund, LLC v. Rye Investment
Management, 2014 WL 7090618 (Dec. 16, 2014). makes clear. The Court has dismissed
plaintiffs' initial investment claims against the PwC Defendants and their remaining claims
necessarily reflect only losses they suffered as shareholders in the funds, which losses are
precisely coextensive with the loss in the value of the fonds as a whole. and are therefore
quintessentially derivative in nature.
The PwC Defendants disagree with the plaintiffs' characterization of the class
certification issue pending before the Court. The Second Circuit did not remand the case "for
this Court to explain the basis of its class certification decision." It voided the certified class and
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order, thereby requiring plaintiffs to
identify evidence in the record that would support the certification of new class. As reflected in
the briefa filed by the parties, plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to being any such evidence
to the Court's attention, but nave failed to do so. The PwC defendants see no need for additional
submissions on this issue.

Hong Kong

London

Los Angeles

Munich

New York

Palo Alto

San Francisco

Shanghai

Wa3hinglon, D C.

KIRKLAND ~ ELLIS LLP

January 5, 2015
Page 2

Respectfully,
~

?/Jt2~~

Timothy A. Duffy, P.C.

cc:

Counsel of Record (via e/mail)

,

-77
/