# Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation

> District Court, S.D. New York · September 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662474

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** September 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662474

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM; LOS ANGELES COUNTY No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF-SLC)
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION;
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM; SONOMA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION;
and TORUS CAPITAL, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
FINAL JUDGMENT AND
Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL
REGARDING THE NEWLY
v. SETTLING DEFENDANTS
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED; MERRILL LYNCH
L.P. HOLDINGS, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH
PROFESSIONAL CLEARING CORP.; Hon. Katherine Polk Failla
CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE
FIRST BOSTON NEXT FUND, INC.; CREDIT
SUISSE PRIME SECURITIES SERVICES
(USA) LLC; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC;
GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &
CLEARING, L.P.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN PRIME,
INC.; J.P. MORGAN STRATEGIC
SECURITIES LENDING CORP.; J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC; MORGAN STANLEY
DISTRIBUTION, INC.; PRIME DEALER
SERVICES CORP.; STRATEGIC
INVESTMENTS I INC.; UBS AG; UBS
AMERICAS INC.; UBS SECURITIES LLC;
UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.;
EQUILEND LLC; EQUILEND EUROPE
LIMITED; and EQUILEND HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants.

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to Plaintiffs’1
application for final approval of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the Goldman Sachs defendants (Goldman, Sachs &

Co. LLC; and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (merged into Goldman,
Sachs & Co. LLC as of June 12, 2017)); the JPMorgan defendants (J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Prime, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Strategic Securities Lending
Corp.; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.); the Morgan Stanley defendants (Morgan
Stanley; Morgan Stanley Capital Management, LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC;
Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc.; Prime Dealer Services Corp.; and Strategic
Investments I, Inc); the UBS defendants (UBS AG; UBS Americas Inc.; UBS
Securities LLC; and UBS Financial Services Inc.); and the EquiLend defendants

(EquiLend LLC; EquiLend Europe Limited; and EquiLend Holdings LLC) (all such
defendants together, the “Settling Defendants” herein), (the “Settling Defendants”
and with Plaintiffs the “Settling Parties”), dated August 22, 2023 (the “Settlement
Agreement”). The Court has considered all papers filed and proceedings held
herein and is fully informed of these matters. For good cause shown, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
1. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal incorporates by

reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms
used, but not defined, herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement

1 Plaintiffs are Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System; Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association; Orange County Employees Retirement System;
Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association; and Torus Capital, LLC.
Agreement.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and
over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.
3. The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
§1715, have been satisfied.

4. Based on the record before the Court, including the Preliminary
Approval Order, the submissions in support of the settlement between Plaintiffs,
for themselves individually and on behalf of each Settlement Class Member in the
Action, and the Settling Defendants, and any objections and responses thereto,
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the
Court hereby certifies solely for settlement purposes the following Settlement
Class:
all Persons who, directly or through an agent, entered into Stock Loan
Transactions with the Prime Broker Defendants, direct or indirect
parents, subsidiaries, or divisions of the Prime Broker Defendants in
the United States from January 7, 2009 through the Execution Date
(the “Settlement Class Period”), inclusive. Excluded from the
Settlement Class are Defendants and their employees, affiliates,
parents, and subsidiaries, whether or not named in the Amended
Complaint, entities which previously requested exclusion from any
Class in this Action,2 and the United States Government, provided,
however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the
definition of the Settlement Class.
5. The Court’s certification of the Settlement Class as provided herein is

2 These entities are Citadel LLC, Two Sigma Investments, PDT Partners, Renaissance
Technologies LLC, TGS Management, Voloridge Investment Management, and the D.E.
Shaw Group and their corporate parents, subsidiaries, and wholly owned affiliates (the
“Opt-out Entities”).
without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any non-settling Defendant to
contest certification of any non-settlement class proposed in this Action. The
Court’s findings in this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal shall have no
effect on the Court’s ruling on any motion to certify any class in the Action, or
appoint class representatives, and no party may cite or refer to the Court’s

certification of the Settlement Class as binding or persuasive authority with
respect to any motion to certify such class or appoint class representatives.
6. The requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure have been satisfied, solely for settlement purposes, as follows: (a)
the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all
members of the Settlement Class in the Action is impracticable; (b) questions of
law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any individual
questions; (c) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement

Class; (d) Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately represented
and protected the interests of the Settlement Class; and (e) a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy, considering (i) the interests of members of the Settlement Class in
individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions; (ii) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by members of
the Settlement Class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the
litigation of these claims in this particular forum; and (iv) the likely difficulties in

managing this Action as a class action.
7. The law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, are appointed, solely for settlement
purposes, as Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
8. Plaintiffs Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System; Los Angeles
County Employees Retirement Association; Orange County Employees
Retirement System; Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association; and

Torus Capital, LLC are appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as class
representatives for the Settlement Class.
9. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in the Settlement
Agreement on the basis that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as
to, and in the best interests of, all Settlement Class Members, and is in
compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the factors set

forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974),
abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d
Cir. 2000), and those in Moses v. N.Y. Times Company, 79 F.4th 235, 242-46 (2d
Cir. 2023). Moreover, the Court concludes that:
a. The Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement
was fairly and honestly negotiated by counsel with significant
experience litigating antitrust class actions and other complex
litigation and is the result of vigorous arm’s-length negotiations
undertaken in good faith;
b. This Action involves numerous contested and serious
questions of law and fact, such that the value of an immediate monetary
recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted
and expensive litigation;
c. Success in complex cases such as this one is inherently
uncertain, and there is no guarantee that continued litigation would
yield a superior result; and
d. The Settlement Class Members’ reaction to the Settlement
set forth in the Settlement Agreement is entitled to great weight.
10. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in
Exhibit 1 hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class (“Opt-Outs”), the Action and all claims contained therein, as
well as all of the Released Class Claims, against Settling Defendants and
Released Settling Defendant Parties by the Plaintiffs and Releasing Class Parties
are dismissed with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs,

except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of this
Court.
11. The Opt-Outs identified in Exhibit 1 hereto have timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and are excluded from the
Settlement Class for all purposes, are not bound by this Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal, and may not make any claim or receive any benefit from the
Settlement Agreement or any other settlement that class members were notified
were being jointly administered together in this way from which members of

Settlement Class are entitled to recover.
12. The lone objection made to the Settlement Agreement, docket entry
678, is overruled. It does not meaningfully call into question whether the
settlement should be approved under the standards used in this Circuit.
13. Upon the Effective Date: (i) Plaintiffs and each of the Settlement
Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall
have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged against the
Released Settling Defendant Parties (whether or not such Settlement Class

Member executes and delivers a Proof of Claim and Release form) any and all
Released Class Claims (including, without limitation, Unknown Claims); and (ii)
Plaintiffs and each of the Settlement Class Members and anyone claiming
through or on behalf of them, shall be permanently barred and enjoined from the
commencement, assertion, institution, maintenance, or prosecution of any of the
Released Class Claims against any Released Settling Defendant Parties in any
action or other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal,
administrative forum, or forum of any kind. This Final Judgment and Order of

Dismissal shall not affect in any way the right of Plaintiffs or Releasing Class
Parties to pursue claims, if any, outside the scope of the Released Class Claims.
Claims to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement are not released.
14. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Settling Defendant
Parties: (i) shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment and Order
of Dismissal shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged Plaintiffs, each and all of the Settlement Class Members, and
Plaintiffs’ Counsel from any and all Released Defendants’ Claims (including,

without limitation, Unknown Claims); and (ii) shall be permanently barred and
enjoined from the commencement, assertion, institution, maintenance, or
prosecution against any counsel for Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members in
any action or other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal,
administrative forum, or forum of any kind, asserting any of the Released
Defendants’ Claims. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal shall not affect
in any way the right of Settling Defendants or Releasing Settling Defendant

Parties to pursue claims, if any, outside the scope of the Released Defendants’
Claims. Claims to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement are not
released.
15. Upon the Effective Date, any claims for contribution,
indemnification, or similar claims from other Defendants in the Action against
any of the Released Settling Defendant Parties, arising out of or related to the
Released Class Claims, are barred in the manner and to the fullest extent
permitted under the law of New York or any other jurisdiction that might be

construed or deemed to apply to any claims for contribution, indemnification or
similar claims against any of the Released Settling Defendant Parties.
16. All rights of any Settlement Class Member against (i) any of the other
Defendants currently named in the Action; (ii) any other Person formerly named
in the Action; or (iii) any alleged co-conspirators or any other Person
subsequently added or joined in the Action, other than Settling Defendants and
Released Settling Defendant Parties with respect to Released Class Claims, are
specifically reserved by Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members.

17. The mailing and distribution of the Notice to all members of the
Settlement Class who could be identified through reasonable effort and the
publication of the Summary Notice satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process, constitute the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and constitute due and sufficient notice to
all Persons entitled to notice.
18. The Court’s consideration and approval of the Settlement is

independent of the Court’s consideration and approval of the Plans of Allocation,
the fee awards, the expense awards, and the service awards, except that the
Court has examined Plaintiffs’ proposals for each and determined each
separately and confirmed that the Settlement is fair and reasonable in light of
the Court’s Orders respecting awards and Plans of Allocation filed
contemporaneously herewith. Any appeal or challenge respecting any award or
Plan of Allocation shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of this Final
Judgment.

19. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Settlement contained
therein, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in
furtherance of the Settlement Agreement or the Settlement: (a) is or may be
deemed to be or may be used as an admission or evidence of the validity of any
Released Class Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Released Settling
Defendant Parties; or (b) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an
admission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Released Settling
Defendant Parties in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any

court, administrative agency, or other tribunal. The Settlement Agreement may
be filed in an action to enforce or interpret the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement contained therein, and any other documents executed
in connection with the performance of the Settlement embodied therein. The
Released Settling Defendant Parties may file the Settlement Agreement and/or
this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal in any action that may be brought
against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on the

principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, full faith and credit, release, good
faith settlement, judgment bar, or reduction or any other theory of claim
preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.
20. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in any way, this Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over: (a) implementation of the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
(b) any award, distribution, or disposition of the Settlement Fund, including
interest earned thereon; (c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys’

fees, costs, expenses including expert fees, and incentive awards; and (d) all
Settling Parties, Released Parties, and Releasing Parties for the purpose of
construing, enforcing, and administering the Settlement Agreement.
21. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then this Final Order
and Judgment of Dismissal shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated.
In such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith
shall be null and void, and the Settling Parties shall be deemed to have reverted

to their respective status in the Action as of the Execution Date, and, except as
otherwise expressly provided herein, the Settling Parties shall proceed in all
respects as if the Settlement Agreement and any related orders had not been
entered; provided, however, that in the event of termination of the Settlement,
Paragraphs 8.3, 10.3, 10.4, 12.4, and 12.5 of the Settlement Agreement shall
nonetheless survive and continue to be of effect and have binding force.
22. This Final Order and Judgment incorporates the entire Settlement
Agreement including all Exhibits and the Parties are hereby directed to carry out
the Settlement Agreement in accordance with all of its terms and provisions.
23. Without further Court order, the Settling Parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement
Agreement.
24. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter this Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2024 Kathe Mal fil
New York, New York
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
United States District Judge

10

EXHBIT 1 – PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT
Koniag, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries;
Stefanos Nyktas;
Steven Yagade

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662474. Public record. Not legal advice.