Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1551

DECISION AND ORDER denying #1549 Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion of New Greenwich Litigation Trustee, LLC, as Successor Trustee of the Greenwich Sentry and Greenwich Sentry Partners Litigation Trusts ("Trustee") for reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 2, 2016 or, alternatively, a declaration that PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited ( "PwC International") is bound by the Stipulation of Settlement (Dkt. No. 1549) is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 2/16/2016) (lmb)

1·· ..•

. ..

I ~ ., 1 }l
•

'1t i., '.
.1
..

...........

..... f

...

.

. ...

.

--

...

·--·-·

.. ------· .
·-----

1•

'!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------x
PASHA ANWAR, et al. ,

09-cv-0118 (VM)
Plaintiffs,
DECISION AND ORDER

- against FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

On

January

7,

2016,

this

Court

issued

an

order

preliminarily approving a settlement of this action.
No.

1537.)

Settlement")

The

Stipulation

of

Settlement

(Dkt.

("Proposed

PwC

resolves claims asserted by the Representative

Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the Settlement
Class

(collectively,

"Anwar

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Plaintiffs")

LLP

( "PwC

PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V.
and

PricewaterhouseCoopers

against
Canada"),

("PwC Netherlands"),

International

Limited

( "PwC

International") . (Dkt. No. 1533.) By letter dated January 25,
2016,

New Greenwich Litigation Trustee,

LLC,

as Successor

Trustee of the Greenwich Sentry and Greenwich Sentry Partners
Litigation

Trusts

conference

regarding

("Trustee")
the

requested

Trustee's

a

proposed

pre-motion
motion

to

intervene, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure,

for

the

limited

purpose

of

''

. I

objecting

to

the

Proposed PwC Settlement.
February 2,

2016

(Dkt.

No.

1541.)

("February 2 Order")

By Order dated

the Court denied the

request of the Trustee for a pre-motion conference,

having

found that the Trustee failed to demonstrate formal

legal

prejudice under Bhatia v. Piedrahita, 756 F.3d 211, 219
Cir. 2014).

(2d

(Dkt. No. 1547.)

The Trustee, by motion to this Court dated February 9,
2016

("Motion") ,

seeks

February 2 Order or,

reconsideration

alternatively,

of

the

Court's

a declaration that PwC

International is bound by the Proposed PwC Settlement.

(Dkt.

No. 1549.)
Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an
"extraordinary
interests of

remedy

to

be

employed

sparingly

finality and conservation of

scarce

in

the

judicial

resources." In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F.
Supp.

2d 613,

614

(S.D.N.Y.

quotation marks omitted) .
not

designed

to

allow

2000)

"The provision for reargument is
wasteful

already briefed, considered[,]
Serchuk,

742 F.

Supp.

(internal citations and

108,

119

repetition

of

arguments

and decided." Schonberger v.
(S.D.N.Y.

1990).

"The major

grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change
in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'"
Virgin Atl. Airways,

Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.,
2

956 F.2d

1245,

1255

(2d Cir. 1992)

Arthur R.

Miller

&

(quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright,

Edward H.

Procedure§ 4478 at 790

Cooper,

Federal

Practice

&

(2d ed.)). To these ends, a request

for reconsideration under Local Rule 6. 3

("Rule 6. 3") must

point to controlling law or factual matters put before the
court in its decision on the underlying matter that the movant
believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. See
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Rule

6.3

is

intended

to

"'ensure

the

finality

of

decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party .
plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.'"
S.E.C. v. Ashbury Capital Partners, No. 00 Civ. 7898, 2001 WL
604044,

at

Pictures,
1988)).

*1

Inc.

(S.D.N.Y.
v.

Sirota,

May

31,

700 F.

2001)
Supp.

(quoting
169,

170

Carolco
(S.D.N.Y.

A court must narrowly construe and strictly apply

Rule 6. 3 so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously
considered issues and prevent Rule 6. 3 from being used to
advance different

theories

not previously argued or as

a

substitute for appealing a final judgment. See Montanile v.
Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342

(S.D.N.Y. 2002);

Shamis

F.R.D.

v.

Ambassador

Factors

(S.D.N.Y. 1999).

3

Corp.,

187

148,

151

Upon review of the record of this action, including the
Trustee's Motion and the papers submitted in support thereof,
the Court denies the Motion. The Court is not persuaded that
the Trustee has presented any new facts or controlling law
the Court overlooked that might reasonably be expected to
alter the Court's Order. See Local Civil Rule 6.3; Shrader,
70 F.3d at 257; Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255.
Thus, the Court concludes that neither reconsideration nor a
declaration that PwC International is bound by the Proposed
PwC Settlement is warranted.
ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED

Trustee,

LLC,

that

the

motion of

New Greenwich Litigation

as Successor Trustee of the Greenwich Sentry

and Greenwich Sentry Partners Litigation Trusts

("Trustee")

for reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 2,
2016 or, alternatively, a declaration that

4

PricewaterhouseCoopers
International")

International

Limited

is bound by the Stipulation of Settlement

(Dkt. No. 1549) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

( "PwC

New York, New York
16 February 2016

Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.

5