RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND EX REL. POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO v. FXCM INC.

No. 15-CV-3599 (KMW).

RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO ON BEHALF OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC., DROR NIV, and ROBERT LANDE, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 27, 2017.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)ss
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)ss Stockholder Suit
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities/Commodities
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago on Behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ann Kaswan , Scott Scott, L.L.P..

Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust, Movant, represented by Joel B. Strauss , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Luzerne County Retirement System, Movant, represented by Ralph M. Stone , Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP.

Dienger and Weidhorn, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Orlando Police Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Curtis Victor Trinko , Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

Orlando Firefighter's Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Curtis Victor Trinko , Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

FXCM Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul Richard Bessette , King & Spalding LLP & Israel Dahan , King & Spalding LLP.

Dror Niv, Defendant, represented by Paul Richard Bessette , King & Spalding LLP & Israel Dahan , King & Spalding LLP.

Robert Lande, Defendant, represented by Paul Richard Bessette , King & Spalding LLP & Israel Dahan , King & Spalding LLP.

683 Capital Partners, LP, Interested Party, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Shipco Transport Inc., Interested Party, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm P.A..


Opinion and Order

Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs motions for an indicative ruling and relief from this Court's final judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), 15(a), and 62.1(a)(3). On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, on behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, brought a putative class action against FXCM, Dror Niv, and Robert Lande (collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 128-140 [Doc. No. 50]). On August 18, 2016, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege particularized facts sufficient to raise the strong inference of scienter on the part of the Defendants. (Doc. No. 73). Final judgment was entered on October 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 76).

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 30, 2016. (Doc. No. 78). After this Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, and while Plaintiffs appeal was pending, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC") filed two separate enforcement actions against Forex Capital markets, LLC, the U.S. trading subsidiary of FXCM ("FXCM U.S.").

Plaintiff now argues that newly available information relating to the results of the two enforcement actions ("the enforcement evidence") would change this Court's previous assessment with regard to Defendants' scienter. On July 27, 2017, in light of the newly available enforcement evidence, the Second Circuit vacated this Court's previous judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Summary Order. The Second Circuit's Order obviates Plaintiffs request for 62.1(a)(3) and 60(b) relief, and those motions are DENIED. Plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint, which incorporates the enforcement evidence, is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint by August 25, 2017. This order resolves Docket Entry 79.

SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases