Good news for BNY Mellon lawsuit
15 October 2012 New York
Image: Shutterstock
Filed in July 2009, a lawsuit against BNY Mellon looks to drag on even longer after a judge recently denied a motion for class certification.
Three years ago, the Southern California IBEW-NECA Defined Contribution Plan alleged that BNY Mellon failed to invest the plan’s collateral in a prudent manner when they held the collateral under its lending programme in Lehman Brothers.
BNY Mellon was said to have violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by investing securities-lending cash collateral in allegedly risky notes issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings; and by refusing to sell such notes despite alleged warnings about the lack of liquidity in the credit market and declines in the market value of the investments. After Lehman’s bankruptcy filing, the plan lost “almost $3 million,” said the plaintiffs.
In response, the bank stated: “Monday morning quarterbacking cannot overcome the fact that the [Lehman] bankruptcy was a surprise to BNY Mellon as well as to the plaintiff, as shown by the fact that the plaintiff never asked BNY Mellon or any of the plaintiff’s other investment managers to divest the plan’s widely held investments in Lehman.”
A judge in the US District Court for New York recently denied a motion for class certification filed by the board of trustees of the Southern California plan.
A team from Analysis Group, led by Managing Principals Andrew Wong and Keith R. Ugone, and Vice Presidents Steven Saeger and Na Dawson, was retained by Boies Schiller & Flexner on behalf of the defendants to address issues related to class certification.
Ugone stated that a class-wide approach would mask important differences among proposed class members’ individual investment expectations due to differences in the plans’ maturity guidelines, credit-quality guidelines, prohibited investments, and diversification requirements.
Citing Ugone’s report widely in his decision, Judge Richard Berman said the plaintiff’s claims failed to meet conditions of numerosity and commonality, because the plaintiff had not established that “common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues.” He denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
Three years ago, the Southern California IBEW-NECA Defined Contribution Plan alleged that BNY Mellon failed to invest the plan’s collateral in a prudent manner when they held the collateral under its lending programme in Lehman Brothers.
BNY Mellon was said to have violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by investing securities-lending cash collateral in allegedly risky notes issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings; and by refusing to sell such notes despite alleged warnings about the lack of liquidity in the credit market and declines in the market value of the investments. After Lehman’s bankruptcy filing, the plan lost “almost $3 million,” said the plaintiffs.
In response, the bank stated: “Monday morning quarterbacking cannot overcome the fact that the [Lehman] bankruptcy was a surprise to BNY Mellon as well as to the plaintiff, as shown by the fact that the plaintiff never asked BNY Mellon or any of the plaintiff’s other investment managers to divest the plan’s widely held investments in Lehman.”
A judge in the US District Court for New York recently denied a motion for class certification filed by the board of trustees of the Southern California plan.
A team from Analysis Group, led by Managing Principals Andrew Wong and Keith R. Ugone, and Vice Presidents Steven Saeger and Na Dawson, was retained by Boies Schiller & Flexner on behalf of the defendants to address issues related to class certification.
Ugone stated that a class-wide approach would mask important differences among proposed class members’ individual investment expectations due to differences in the plans’ maturity guidelines, credit-quality guidelines, prohibited investments, and diversification requirements.
Citing Ugone’s report widely in his decision, Judge Richard Berman said the plaintiff’s claims failed to meet conditions of numerosity and commonality, because the plaintiff had not established that “common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues.” He denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
