Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 847

JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: (837 in 1:09-cv-00118-VM-THK) MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint.. Document filed by Fairfield Greenwich Advisors L.L.C., Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Walter M. Noel, Jr, Jeffrey H. Tucker, Jeffrey Tucker. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-00118-VM-THK, 1:09-cv-08500-VM(Cunha, Mark)

EXHIBIT A

SmIPs0N

THAGHER&BARTLTT LLP

425 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NwYoix, N.Y. 10017-3954

[phone]
FAOsnImE [phone]
DmEor Dthl. NimiEN
212-455-3475

E-M&xr. A1DRSs

[e-mail]

BY HAND

January 28, 2010
Re:

Anwar, et al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al.,
Master File No. 09 CV 0118 (VM)

Hon. Theodore H. Katz
United States Magistrate Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Dear Judge Katz:
We write as counsel for Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC and certain other Fairfield
defendants concerning the January 25, 2010 letter to the Court from Sharon Nelles, counsel for
the Standard Chartered defendants, and the Proposed Initial Scheduling Order Regarding
Standard Chartered Cases ('Proposed Scheduling Order") attached thereto.
The Proposed Scheduling Order encompasses three cases that have been consolidated
into Anwar. One of those cases, Headway, asserts claims against Fairfield defendants whom we
represent in that case. Through what we assume was inadvertence, we were not consulted on the
Proposed Scheduling Order, and we write to alert the Court that certain aspects of the Proposed
Scheduling Order directly conflict with orders in Anwar, including Your Honor's Civil Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order entered on March ii, 2009 ("CMO"), providing that
defendants are not required to respond to individual complaints in cases that have been
consolidated with Anwar (Docket Entry No. 69). The CMO applies to Headway, which was
consolidated with Anwar on October 14, 2009 (Docket Entry No. 282).'

As noted in our letters to Your Honor dated November 6, 2009 and December 16, 2009
(annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively), a separate schedule for Headway
would not only be contrary to the CMO and the Headway consolidation order, but also
would undermine the purpose behind the decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to centralize Headway and the consolidated Anwar action in this District
pursuant to 28 U.SC. § 1407. See In re Fairfield Greenwich Group Sec. Litig., 655 F.
Supp. 2d 1352, 1353 (J.P,M.L. 2009) (Centralization would "eliminate duplicative
discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel and the judiciary.").

Los ANGEL1S

Pio

ALTO

WASHINGTON, D.C.

BEI,1Lwc3

IIONØ Ko&

LoImoN

Toxo

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

Hon. Theodore H. Katz, Esq.

-2-

January 28, 2010

In response to the January 25 letter and Proposed Scheduling Order, we have initiated
discussions with counsel for the other parties in the cases proposed to be governed by the Order,
and will report promptly to Your Honor regarding the outcome of those discussions. In the
meantime, we respectfully request that the Court not endorse the Proposed Scheduling Order, or
any other scheduling order encompassing Headway, until we have had the opportunity to explore
with other counsel a mutually agreeable resolution of the conflict posed by the Proposed
Scheduling Order as presently written.
Sespectfully submitted,

Mark G. Cunha
cc:

The honorable Victor Marrero (by hand)
Counsel for all parties (by email)