Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Gse Bonds Antitrust Litig.
Citation: 377 F. Supp. 3d 437Docket: 19-CV-1704 (JSR)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois; May 2, 2019; Federal District Court
A consolidated putative class action has been filed against certain banks, alleging collusion to manipulate the market for bonds issued by government-sponsored entities (GSEs). The plaintiffs include various retirement and investment accounts that traded these bonds. During an initial conference, the Court instructed the parties to propose candidates for interim lead counsel, receiving four applications from different law firms. When appointing interim class counsel, the Court considered factors outlined in Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as the counsel’s prior work on potential claims, experience in class actions and complex litigation, knowledge of relevant law, and commitment of resources. All firms seeking appointment were deemed well-qualified, yet the Court emphasized the importance of the lead plaintiff's engagement in the litigation. Ultimately, the Court appointed Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg as lead counsel, noting that they had filed the initial complaint and conducted substantial investigative work, which served as a model for subsequent filings. Additionally, they represent the Treasury of Pennsylvania, which has a significant financial interest in the case, a factor that, while not determinative, was considered persuasive based on legislative intent regarding plaintiff engagement. The Court acknowledged that the Quinn/Robbins complaint was distinct and also backed by a thorough investigation, but found Scott/Lowey's overall contributions and financial alignment with the case more compelling. Christopher Craig, general counsel for the Pennsylvania Treasury, testified at the April 26, 2019 hearing regarding his consultation with other attorneys and law firms for guidance on antitrust matters. The Court believes this enables the Treasury to consult effectively with Scott/Lowey and actively participate in proceedings. While all firms involved could manage the complex discovery, Lowey Dannenberg's established e-discovery infrastructure gives it a slight advantage. Quinn/Robbins conducted substantial preliminary work and has a size advantage, but the Court questions the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund's ability to provide genuine oversight due to its retainer agreement with Robbins Geller, which lacks guarantees for continued representation. The Court is also skeptical about Cohen Milstein's proposal to partner with Quinn Emanuel and Robbins Geller, as it would complicate matters further. Susman Godfrey's limited pre-filing investigation does not support its appointment either. Ultimately, the Court determines that Scott/Lowey are best positioned to represent the class, but expresses concern about their resources and potential delegation of lead counsel work. The Court mandates that no delegation occurs without prior written approval. Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg are appointed as interim co-lead class counsel with these conditions, and the Clerk is directed to close specific docket entries.