Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1428

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Sharon L. Nelles dated 10/8/2015 re: We write on behalf of the Standard Chartered Defendants ("SCB") in response to the letter submitted yesterday from liaison counsel for the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee regarding the Order of the Court also issued yesterday (Dkt. No. 1425). ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs are directed to respond by 10-14-15, by letter not to exceed three (3) pages, to the matter set forth above by Standard Chartered Defendants. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 10/9/2015) (lmb)

10/08/2015 14 40 FAX

1212 558 33~5~8~~~~S~&~C~LL~P~1~2-5_e_D~2-6F-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@002/003

SULLIVAN Bt CROMWELL LLP
TllL.li:PHONE: 1-212-5:18-4000
l"A~IMll.E: 1•2.12-556-3!88

126Pl3~~

www.11u1.1.e1toM.co111

.A"-' o/~., ..#Y100011-211.98
••AJOl.PUl'T •LONDON• !SARI•

October 8, 2015
By Facsimile
Honorable Victor Marrero,
United States District Judge,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York 10007.
Re:

Anwar v. Fairfield Greerrwich Ltd., No. 09-CV-118 (S.D.N.Y.)Standard Chartered Cases

Dear Judge Marrero:
We write on behalf of the Standard Chartered Defendants ("SCB") in
response to the letter submitted yesterday from liaison counsel for the Standard Chartered
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee regarding the Order of the Court also issued yesterday
(Dkt. No. 1425). Plaintiffs request that the CoUI1 ''promptly schedule a conference to
discuss possible remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and disposition
of' the SCB Cases because "[p]retrial proceedings are concluded." Although plaintiffs'
premise is incorrect, SCB does not disagree with the ultimate conclusion. There remain
several matters that need to be addressed before these cases could be considered "trial
ready." Three of these we believe should be brought to this Court's attention; none of
which, however, should stand in the way of timely remand:

Uniform Neglie:ence Count. Two-and-one-half years ago, this Court
granted certain plaintiffs leave to re-plead negligence claims in the form of "a unifonn
negligence count" with allegations that are consistent with this Court's prior rulings.
(Aug. 22, 2014 Order at 1, Dkt. No. 1309; see also May 8, 2013 Order, Dkt. No. 1137.)
In declaring the conclusion of pretrial and coordinated proceedings in this Coun, SCB
understands that no plaintiff wi II seek to re-plead :such a negligence claim. If this is not
correct, we ask the Court to set a short and firm deadline for the parties to meet and
confer, and, if agreement cannot be reached, bring any dispute to this Court. Otherwise,
this is not an impediment to remand.

Reqyest for Voluntary Dismissa). In its July 29, 2015 Order concerning
the application of SLUSA to these cases, the Coutt denied the request of seven plaintiffs
in the SCB Cases to be dropped from this litigation because of the "strong inference'' that

10/08/2015 14 40 FAX

1212 558 3358

S&C LLP 125 80 28FL

fl] 003/003

.S
4-r~ directed to ~pond
by / t::>-1
~/
. by letter not to exceed ~
__,........._.,.,--,Pages, to the matter set forth above by

..,

c/Jr:e;fy~~--·

SO ORDERED.

Honorable Victor Marrero

/eJ~/T ~_...--/­

DATE

/

-2-

~D.J.

their request was made for the purpose of avoiding SLUSA preclusion. Anwar v.
Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 2015 WL 4610406, * 18-20 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2015). The
Court also made clear in its Order that "SLUSA will apply regardless of those plaintiffs'
continuation in the Standard Chartered Action." id. at •20. Although any issue
regarding these seven plaintiffs remaining in their respective cases should be resolved
prior to remand of those cases, there is no reason the dismissal of these seven plaintiffs
cannot now be expediently addressed.

Individualized Fact Discovery. Plaintiff-specific discovery still remains
to be completed in 45 separate cases. Such discovery was specifically deferred in 42 of
those cases, as so ordered by the Court, when it was expected that the Court would rule
on eleven ''summary judgment cases," thereby clarifying the necessity for, and the scope
of, the deferred discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 826, 1193.) Now that the Court has determined
that there will be no summary judgment practice in these MDL proceedings, any
remaining issues concerning the need for and scopie of plaintiff-specific discovery may be
determined on a case-by-case (or, as may be appropriate, coordinated) basis by the
1
relevant transferor courts. Thus, although pretrial proceedings certainly cannot be
characterized as complete in these cases, this does not require any delay of remand.

*
Subject to the above, it appears that the parties are in agreement that
remand soon will be appropriate.
/

Respectfully submitted,

~~.
Sharon L. Nelles
cc:

Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (by e-mail)

By letter dated August 29, 2014, SCB notified the Court that it intended to move
for summary judgment in eleven SCB Cases, proposed a schedule for briefing the
motion, and requested that the Court schedule a conference to discuss the contemplated
motion or, in the alternative, set SCB's proposed briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 1314.) On
September 12, 2014, plaintiffs submitted a 10-page letter to the Court arguing that "the
Court should deny leave to the SC[B] Defendants to move for summary judgment." The
Court held a conference regarding these submissions on September 29, 2014, following
which there were additional submissions concerning both SLUSA and plaintiffs'
contention that SCB should be precluded from moving for summary judgment.
(Dkt. No. 1329 at 47-48; Dkt. Nos. 1333, 1349.)