Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 842

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Theodore H Katz from Bradley P Smith dated 3/22/2012 re: The 3/16/2012 Motion for leave to file an amended complaint. ENDORSEMENT: Standard Chartered's opposition to the motions to amend in the Headway and Barbachano actions may be deferred until the Court rules on the motion to amend in the Maridom action. Standard Chartered should be prepared, however, to file its response to the motions expeditiously. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on 3/27/2012) (cd)

03/22/2012 14: 12 FAX

212 558 3708

S&C 125 BD FAX Dept 27

I4J 002/004

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

126[?16~~
"';vew o/~~ JYY'IOOOQ-$1dJ8

TEI.(;PHONE: [phone]
FACSl"ll1..E: 1-212-55IF3SBB
WWW.$UL.Le... Ol.l.COM

*lbJ ING .. t4QNof;

)(ONe: •

TOKYO

March 22, 2012

'\\ '. ,'-'.'.' .

-----

....

•.J

~

lit.· '.
,

.i

,

c~

,

By Facsimile
Honorable Theodore H. Katz,
United States Magistrate Judge,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York 10007.
Re:

Anwar. et al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al.,
No. 09-CV-l18 (YM) CTHK) - Standard Chartered Cases

Dear Judge Katz:

We write on behalf of Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Ltd. ("SCBr'), Standard Chartered International (USA) Ltd. (USCI"). and Standard
Chartered Bank (together. "Standard Chartered") concerning the March 16,2012 motion
for leave to file an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff in Headway Investment Corp.
v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd., et ai. ("Headway"),
The Headway plaintifPs motion is the third motion for leave to amend
recently filed by plaintiffs in the Standard Chartered. Cases. The first motion was filed by
plaintiffs in Maridom, et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd.
("Maridom") on February 9, seeking leave to amend the complaint for a second time.
(Dkt. No. 815.) Standard Chartered. has opposed that motion on procedural as well as
substantive grounds. (Dkt. No. 825.) The second motion was filed on March 7, by
plaintiffs in Barbachano v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd., et at.
("Barbachano"). By letter dated March 14,2012, Standard Chartered asked the Court to
defer the time to respond to that motion until after the Court roles on the motion pending

03/22/2012 14: 12 FAX

212 558 3708

Honorable Theodore H. Katz

S&C 125 80 FAX Dept 27

III 003/004

~2-

in Maridom. 1 Indeed, Maridom plaintiffs warned in their motion papers that "other
Standard Chartered Plaintiffs wi11likewise move to amend their complaints, and that
some if not all will seek to adopt the main substantive allegations against the Defendants
to the extent that [they] apply equally to their own cases." (Okt. No. 815, 7 nA.i Thus,
more motions to amend are likely forthcoming.

Because all of these motion raise, at least, procedural issues already under
consideration by the Court in cOIIDection with Maridom plaintiffs' motion (in particular
whether such motions are procedural1y proper at this time), in the interest of efficiency,
Standard Chartered respectfully requests that the Court defer the time to respond to all
motions for leave to amend filed after Maridom's February 9 motion until after the Court
has had an opportunity to rule on Standard Chartered's objections to Maridom's proposed
amendment Standard Chartered anticipates that the Court's ruling on the Maridom

The Court has not yet ruled on Standard Chartered's request. By letter dated
March 19,2012, plaintiff in Barbachano argued that the Court should not defer
the time to respond because she - unlike the plaintiffs in Maridom has an
«absolute right to amend" her pleading under Rule 15(a)(1 )(B) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. That is not true. The "amendment of a pleading as a
matter of course pursuant to Rule 1S(a) is subject to the: district court's discretion
to limit the time for amendment of the pleadings in a scheduling order issued
under Rule 16(b)." Kassner "'1/. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc., 496 F.3d 229,244 (2d
Cir. 2007). By ordering the parties to refrain from engaging in "duplicative ...
pleading practice on matters already considered," the Court thus placed limits on
the ability ofplaintfffs to amend their pleadings after the point in time when the
CoUIt h~\S ruled on earlier-filed pleadings. (Feb. 3, 2011 Second Amended
Scheduling Order Regarding Standard Chartered Cases 1l15, Okt. No. 609.)
On March 1, Standard Chartered filed its brief in opposition to the Maridom
plaintiffs'motion. (Okt. No. 825.) Standard Chartered opposed the Maridom
plaintiffs' request because (i) the Court-ordered deadline for the Mandom
plaintiffs to amend has expired; (ii) the proposed pleading is duplicative of claims
considered and dismissed in prior orders; and (iii) the proposed amendments are
futile. (Id.)

03/22/2012 14.12 FAX

212 008 3708

S&C 120 80 FAX Dept 27

I4J 004/004

-3­

Honorable Theodore H. Katz

plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend IDay provide guidance to the parties and potentially
eliminate the need to respond to later-filed motions seeking leave to amend pleadings.]

~~~

~yp.smith
cc:

H. Eugene Lindsey III, Esq.
Jorge A. Mestre; Esq.
(by facsimile and e-mail)

Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee

(bye-mail)

3

Should this Court determine that amended pleadings may be filed at this juncture
in the litigation, Standard Chartered would anticipate asking that the Court set a
deadline for any further motions to amend and set a schedule for Standard
Chartered to oppose such motions or move against any amended complaints.