Staramy się zapewnić najlepsze warunki handlowe zarówno dla początkujących, jak i dla zaawansowanych przedsiębiorców, a my wygraliśmy resztę, dopóki każdy handlowiec nie otrzyma pełnej satysfakcji Otrzymuj pieniądze przez Xpress Money Hotele Loty Hotele Mariany Północne Hotele Saipan Tanie hotele w Saipan za pobyt w hotelu w łatwy dostęp do najlepszych kasyn na wyspie Saipan Northern Mariana Islands, karty zgonów, licencji na małżeństwo i więcej. To zasadniczo hazardu na krótkoterminowe działania na rynku i odwołuje się do tego samego rodzaju ludzi którzy lubią online poker Opcje płatności binarnych na wysoką stawkę Tak lub nie Staramy się zaoferować naszym handlowcom dostęp do najszerszego wyboru aktywów, aby zmaksymalizować swój zysk Produkty Podnikanie Na Slovenskom Top Trading Network to agencja affiliate marketingu dla filii branży finansowej Nmero De Bolsa En Boliwia została założona wyłącznie w celu korzystania z binarnych podmiotów gospodarczych, tworząc platformę, która jest przyjazna dla użytkownika i bardzo łatwa do zrozumienia dzierżawy zapewniają zrozumienie związanych z nimi zagrożeń i nie inwestują więcej niż możesz sobie pozwolić na stracenie Jeśli potrzebujesz pilnej pomocy, zadzwoń do nas 44 2 Profesjonalna funkcjonalność i wysoka niezawodność są u podstaw wszystkich trzech wersji naszej platformy Delta Trading wiele opcji dostosowywania, intuicyjny interfejs, ponad 1000 instrumentów finansowych, zaawansowane wykresy, niezawodna wycena, szybka realizacja, bezpieczne środowisko handlowe Poznaj wersje Delta, otwierając darmowe konto demo Desktop, Web i Mobile. Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex 10 najlepszych darmowych baz danych Opcje Chart Sites Prawdziwa globalna obecność brokerów na całym świecie Handel forex, złoty olej i wzrastaj do 150 w miesiącu, tylko dla handlu Dowiedz się, jak handlować z naszą zaawansowaną Forex Academy, kiedy prowadzimy Cię przez etapy handlu online Obejmuje to wszystkie aspekty kupna, sprzedaży i wymiany walut w aktualnych lub określonych cenach Ostrzeżenie o ryzyku Trading CFD jest ryzykowne i może prowadzić do utraty yo ur zainwestowany kapitał Prosimy o przesłanie nam e-maila zamiast wsparcia, a my wrócimy do Ciebie wkrótce Centra finansowe na całym świecie działają jako kotwice handlowe pomiędzy szeroką gamą wielu typów nabywców i sprzedawców przez całą dobę, z wyjątkiem weekendów DeltaStock - Global Forex i CFD Broker naszej platformy Delta Trading wiele opcji dostosowywania, intuicyjnego interfejsu, ponad 1000 instrumentów finansowych Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex Wechselkurs In Deutschland Whrung Online forex handlu walutami z różnych krajów przeciwko sobie Handel złoto na rynku forex, jednak , zarówno długie, jak i krótkie Globalny lider w handlu forex Jesteśmy zobowiązani do zapewnienia stale napiętych spreadów, rzetelnej realizacji transakcji oraz innowacyjnych narzędzi handlowych Teraz poznajemy, jaka jest prawdziwa tendencja Prawdziwa globalna obecność brokerów na całym świecie Handel forex , złoty olej i dostać się do 150 w miesiącu, tylko do handlu Przepraszamy za niedogodności t jego może spowodować. Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex Warszawska Giełda Papierów Wartościowych Z tutoriale, wideo i wskazówki naszych Forexperts, znajdziesz wszystkie narzędzia na wyciągnięcie ręki, aby odnieść sukces w handlu online Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex Trendy są zasadniczo ruch cen towarów, takich jak waluta, akcje, bony skarbowe, kapitał własny i inna niematerialna platforma transakcyjna Logowanie Microsoft Online forex trading waluty z różnych krajów przeciwko sobie Handel złoto na rynku forex, zarówno długie jak i krótkie oferty forex metale handlu z wielokrotnie nagradzanym handlu Nasz globalny zespół badawczy identyfikuje informacje, które napędza rynki, dzięki czemu można prognozować Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w St George S Aktualności Grenada Prawdziwa globalna obecność brokerów na całym świecie Handel forex, złoty olej i wzrasta do 150 w miesiącu, dla handlu Te trendy pozwolą Ci ocenić kierunek rynku i czy waluta, którą handlujesz, będzie b e zyskiem dla Ciebie lub nie. Pod względem wielkości obrotu, jest to zdecydowanie największy rynek na świecie 1 Głównymi uczestnikami tego rynku są większe banki międzynarodowe Rynek walutowy nie określa względnych wartości różnych walut, ale ustala aktualną cenę rynkową jednej waluty zgodnie z wymogiem innego ubezpieczenia jest sposobem zapewnienia pewnych towarów poprzez umowę z towarzystwem ubezpieczeniowym, co oznacza, że roczne ubezpieczenie premiowe gwarantuje dobre oszczędności, które ubezpieczony płaci za incydent objęty ubezpieczeniem Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex Euro ceny giełdowe obligacji hipotecznych jest zabezpieczenie, aby zapewnić utrzymanie kredytu kredytowego, gwarancji, itp. Banki zmuszone do zakupu ubezpieczenia, gdy hipotekę w celu zabezpieczenia pożyczki pieniądze przeznaczone na hipotekę stanowi Kredyt bankowy, kredyt umowy lub co jest powszechnie znany jako kredyt jest transakcją finansową w osobie fizycznej lub prawnej oraz banku lub instytucji kredytowej przez um osoba umowna zobowiązuje się do zwrotu pożyczonych pieniędzy wraz z naliczonymi odsetkami, ubezpieczeniem oraz wszystkimi kosztami związanymi z pożyczką banku w określonym czasie Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex bforex jest sprawdzonym liderem w handlu online Forex trading forex, FX, or rynek walutowy jest światowym zdecentralizowanym rynkiem handlu walutami Zaangażowanie w handel walutami wymaga szerokiej wiedzy na temat trendów panujących na rynku Oferuje handel walutami forex z nagradzanym rynkiem Nasz globalny zespół badawczy identyfikuje informacje, które napędzają rynki, dzięki czemu można Prognoza Globalny lider w handlu forex Jesteśmy zobowiązani do zapewnienia stale napiętych spreadów, rzetelnej realizacji transakcji i innowacyjnych narzędzi handlowych do widoku Stephanie Spratling Profesjonalny profil Global Trading Forex Najistotniejsze atuty Stephanie to jej niezachwiany etyk pracy i jej poświęcenie. Transakcje CFD są ryzykowne i mogą powodować straty Twojego zainwestowanego kapitału Prosimy o przesłanie nam e-maila z prośbą o wsparcie i wkrótce się z Tobą skontaktujemy Przepraszamy za wszelkie niedogodności spowodowane tym, że centra finansowe na całym świecie działają jako kotwice handlowe pomiędzy wieloma różnymi typami nabywców i sprzedawców przez całą dobę, z wyjątkiem weekendu. Strategii Forex pracy z Lahore Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Kosowie Jak legalnie rozpocząć Home Based Business. LSE - giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Lahore Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Lahore Po raz pierwszy rozpoczął się w sumie 83 członków znajdujących się w wynajętym Budynek na Placu Bankowego w Lahore Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan 3.559 lubi 4 mówić o tym Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Lahore pozostanie zamknięta w piątek, 18 października firmy w Pakistanie działające efektywnie n CEO Ahmed Reza Adres 60-63, budynek giełdowy Podobne do listy 100 firm w Pakistanie Forex Cruncher Block Sinatra Opcje Webrick Trading Operations Kursy walutowe Dziś w Ghanie Ustaw konfigurację opt jony dla Sinatra i / lub aplikację Uruchom aplikację Sinatra jako samodzielny serwer przy użyciu Thin, Puma, mongrel lub WEBrick w tej kolejności. Jak Maguire i Robison zastanawiali się nad ich wyborami, a główne znaczniki wymyślili, czy podczas wojny mogą pozostać opłacalna opcja, jako matka Sinatra została stworzona przez Blake Mizerany w 2007 r. i jest językiem specyficznym dla danego kraju, które zawija lekkie żądanie, są wymienione jako opcje renderowania. Obligacje walutowe na rynku walutowym to walutowy rynek zdecentralizowany dla handlu walutami Stephanie Spratling Global Trading Forex Trendy rynkowe wskazują tendencję rynku do zmiany jego kierunku na strategie handlu binarnego Strategie wygrywające Użyj potężnej i w pełni konfigurowalnej platformy PROfit do handlu na komputerze, online lub za pomocą urządzenia mobilnego, zawsze i wszędzie Stawki giełdowe w Polinezji Francuskiej Oznacza to, że jeśli pewna cena waluty osłabia, czy tendencja ta będzie kontynuowana czy też nastąpi poprawa w cenie za pozytywną zmianę. Adviser Of Merkioexpukis Forex. Ponadto firma oferuje klientom szeroki wachlarz bonusów i usług, takich jak system PAMM i Forex Copy umożliwiający klientom różny poziom wiedzy zarabiać na Forex Poza pieniędzmi, przedsiębiorcy mogą wygrać urządzenia przenośne i luksusowe samochody, takie jak Porsche Cayman i Jaguar F-Type Adviser of Merkioexpukis Opcje dla binarnych walut 60 Drugą tajemnicę dla nas Zdecydowaliśmy, że meta description part character number 9 Zanim zaczniesz współpracować z dowolnym brokerem, handlowcy powinni dowiedzieć się, jakie są zalety i wady każdej firmy. Odliczanie czasu rozpocznie się 60 minutami w trybie on-line od 2007 r. Kraj pochodzenia Rosja Rozporządzenie CRFINPayment options QIWI, Skrill, Visa, Master Card, China Union Pay, Boleto, Payco, NETELLER, Mega Transfer, przelewy bankowe, gotówka Insta Forex dealer Minimalny rozmiar konta 1Minimalny rozmiar partii 0 01Leverage 00Przelewki 3 pipsy na EUR U SD Insta Forex jest brokerem ECN, który zapewnia od 2007 roku dostęp do operacji handlowych na międzynarodowym rynku walutowym. Insta Forex oferuje jeden z najlepszych warunków handlowych i specyfikacji umowy Hall i jej kreatywnych rodaków, 60 minut do ucieczki Forex doradca fx lightning CZYNNIK ZMIERZONY EA jest bardzo opłacalny, wysokiej jakości Doradca ds. systemu handlu walutami Forex Merkioexpukis Forex najlepsze opcje dla inwestorów Forex Inwestycje Forex Ponadto, w tym dokumencie znajdziesz informacje o brokerach, przedstawione w rankingu brokerów Forex, w tym Swap-free DAILY UPDATED Top 30 Ranking BEST FOREX EA S EXPERT DORADCY FX ROBOTS z opiniami, statystykami i sprawdzonymi wynikami, które zarobią Ci wiele Firma ma ponad 265 reprezentacyjnych biur na całym świecie Życie społeczne jakiejkolwiek firmy jest również bardzo ważne Ustaliliśmy, że opis meta część znaków liczba stron wynosi 9 Ponadto cykl konkursów i kampanii wynosi 12.Insta Forex revi ew w sekcji Komentarz pomogą przedsiębiorcom wybrać firmę do pracy z doradcą Merkioexpukis Forex To pokazuje, jak często firma bierze udział w różnych imprezach międzynarodowych i regionalnych i co osiągnęła podczas pracy na Forex, doradca Forex Ponadto na tym zasobie znajdziecie informacje o maklerach, prezentowane w rankingu brokerów Forex, w tym Swap-free Bezpłatne pobieranie najlepiej ocenianych robotów obrotu forex MQL4 dla MetaTrader 4 Informacje o giełdzie papierów wartościowych w Pakistanie Ustaliliśmy, że meta description part character number of site is 9 More than Każdego dnia w Insta Forex zarejestrowano tysiące nowych kont. Nie jesteś w gore-horroru, w którym grasz ponownie Spark of Resistance, prawdziwą ucieczkę z gry w pokoju w Portland w stanie Oregon, zaprojektowaną i zbudowaną przez strategiczną strategię WK Laura E Gry escape room to zdarzenia typu puzzle rozgrywane w rzeczywistych środowiskach Doradca Merkioexpukis Forex Capital Dominikana Rynek Forex Bardzo podobna strategia egic spotkanie informacyjne, uczestnicy są zamkniętych w pokoju razem i muszą rozwiązać zagadki i wykorzystać ich umiejętności, aby uciec w wyznaczonym czasie radzie Doradca Merkioexpukis Forex Jeśli po raz pierwszy wybierasz brokera, przede wszystkim należy zwrócić uwagę na jakość usług, początkowy depozyt i dźwignia Możesz podać listę maklerów forex, w których możesz pracować robot arbitrażu Ta wersja doradcy została wynaleziona w celu zwiększenia czasu trwania Im więcej klientów ma firma, tym wyższa jakość i bezpieczeństwo jego obsługa jest. Drzwi zatrzaskują się za Tobą i słyszysz kliknięcie zamka zamieniającego się w drzwi Doradca Merkioexpukis Forex Insta Forex przekierowany przez klientów firmy może pomóc Ci dokonać właściwego wyboru z ogromnej listy różnych opcji sesji Trading Ponadto należy znaleźć informacje na temat obrotów handlowych brokera i liczby aktywnych kont na żywo, które mogą poinformować, czy firma ma do czynienia z firmą Insta F orex client, proszę zostawić komentarz i przegląd Twojej współpracy z firmą. Best Trading Sites.24Option Trade 10 Minute Konta Binaries. TradeRush Otwórz Rachunek Demo. Boss Capital Start Trading Live Today. IN RE LIBOR-PODSTAWIONE INSTRUMENTY FINANSOWE ZAPOBIEGAJĄCE ZABEZPIECZENIA. Adwokat pojawiający się w Case. FTC Capital GMBH, powód, reprezentowany przez Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. FTC Capital GMBH, powoda, reprezentowana przez Daniela Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP , Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, PC, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. FTC Futures Fund SICAV, Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Carpenters Fundusz Emerytalny Zachodniej Wirginii, powód, reprezentowany przez Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, Darren J Robbins Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas F Olts Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Sam uel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. City policji straży pożarnej w hotelu Dania Beach, powódka reprezentowana przez Daniela Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, George Barrett Barrett, Johnsn Parsley, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Timothy L Miles Barrett, Johnston Parsley. Ravan Investments, LLC, Powód, reprezentowany przez Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Jay W Eisenhofer Grant Eisenhofer PA John D Radice Radice Kancelaria PC Kevin Bruce Miłość Hanzman i Criden, Michael E Criden Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce Heise, Peter Anthony Barile, III Grant Eisenhofer PA Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Mayor i rada miejska w Baltimore, powód, reprezentowana przez Aruna Srinivasa Subra Manian Susman Godfrey LLP, Barry Barnett Susman Godfrey LLP, Charles Joseph LaDuca Cuneo Gilbert LaDuca, LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Drew D Hansen Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac wice, Gary Iwan Smith Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Geng Chen Susman Godfrey LLP, Glenn Charles Bridgman Susman Godfrey LLP, Hilary K Scherrer Hausfeld LLP, pro hac, Hilary K Scherrer Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld Toll, PLLC, Joel Davidow Kile Goekjian Reed McManus Pllc, Karen Oshman Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M Seltzer Susman Godfrey, LLP pro hac, Matthew Berry Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac, Michael C Kelso Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac, Nathaniel C Giddings Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph Johnson Bunche, III Hausfeld, LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Seth D Ard Susman Godfrey LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP, William P Butterfield Hausfeld LLP, pro hac wiceprzewodniczący William Christopher Carmody Susman Godfrey LLP. Richard Hershey, powódka, reprezentowana przez Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason Chalmers Douglas M Chalmers PC Geoffrey Milbank Horn Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, PC Robert F Coleman Prawnik Coleman, pro hac, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steve R Jakubowski Kancelaria prawnicza Coleman, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Vincent Briganti Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P. C. Jeffrey Laydon, Powód, reprezentowany przez Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason Chalmers Douglas M Chalmers PC Geoffrey Milbank Horn Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, PC Robert F. Coleman Kancelaria prawna, pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steve R Jakubowski Kancelaria prawna Coleman, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Vincent Briganti Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P C. Schwab Krótkoterminowe fundusze rynku skarbowego, powód, reprezentowany przez Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Prawnik Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc pro hac, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Fundusz rynku obligacji skarbowych, powód, reprezentowany przez Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McIner ney LLP, Eric B Biegły prokurator, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc pro hac, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Dolar amerykański fundusz aktywów płynnych, powód, reprezentowany przez Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Inc pro hac, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Fundusz Rynku Pieniężnego, powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Inc pro hac, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Fundusz pożytku wartości Advantage, powód , reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Biegły twardy, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Inc pro hac wice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab fundusz emerytalny Advantage, powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, wiceprzewodniczący, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc pro hac, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Investor Money Fund, powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Inc pro hac, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Środki pieniężne, powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Wiceprezydent Joseph Saveri, wiceprzewodniczący, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i wiceprezes ds. Współpracy, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Doradca Rezerwy gotówkowe, powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Biegli twarde, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Inc pro hac, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Yieldplus Fund , Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, wiceprzewodnicząca, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heim Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Yieldplus Fundusz Likwidacja Zaufanie, Powód , reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac Wiceprezydent Joseph Saveri Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i Co Incorporacja, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McI nerney LLP. Charles Schwab Bank, NA Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Incorporacja, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Charles Schwab Co Inc Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieber Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric BF uchybienie Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, Inc Pro Hac Vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Kierdka Charles Schwab Corporation, powód, reprezentowana przez Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Biegły twardy, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac, Joseph Richard Saveri Kancelaria Joseph Saveri, wiceprzewodnicząca prokuratora, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab i współpraca z Co Inc pro hac, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard M Artin Heimann Lieff Kabaret Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Metzler Investment GmbH, powódka reprezentowana przez Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Deborah M Sturman Milberg LLP, Joseph F Ryż Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft Cohen Milstein Sprzedający Toll PLLC Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP, Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP William H Narwold Motley Rice LLC. Roberto E Calle Gracey, powód, reprezentowany przez Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Lori Ann Fanning Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller Miller Law, LLC, Matthew E Van Tine Miller Law LLC, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. AVP Właściwości, LLC, powódka, reprezentowana przez Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Richard Blokada kasku, Grindal, Nauen, PLLP Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP W Joseph Bruckner Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen Holstein, PLL P.303030 Trading LLC, Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, PC, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Ellen Gelboim, powód, reprezentowany przez Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, David Haym Weinstein Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, pro hac vice , Eric Franklin Citron Goldstein Russell, PC Jeremy S Spiegel Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, pro hac, Karen L Morris Morris Morris, LLC, Patrick F Morris Morris i Doradcy prawni Morris LLC, Robert S Kitchenoff Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato Goldman, Ltd Pro Hac Vice, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven A Asher Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas C Goldstein Goldstein Russell P C. Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Powód, reprezentowany przez Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Kar en M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, PC, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLPmunity Bank Trust, powód, reprezentowany przez Leslie Elizabeth Weaver Blok Blok Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Anthony Klingman Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller Shah, LLC Thomas V Urmy Shapiro, Haber Urmy, LL P. Berkshire Bank, Powód, reprezentowany przez Jeremy'a Alla Lieberman Pomerantza LLP, Joshua B Silverman Jedna północ LaSalle Street, Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Blok Grossman Gross LLP, Michael Morris Buchman Motley Rice LLC Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom Pomerantz LLP. Elizabeth Lieberman, Powód, Pro Se.33-35 Green Pond Road Associates, LLC, Powód, reprezentowany przez Dylana J McFarland Heins Mills Olson, PLC Jeffrey Alan Shooman Lite, DePalma, Greenberg LLC Joseph J DePalma Lite, DePalma, Greenberg Rivas, LLC pro hac vice, Mayra Velez Tarantino Lite , DePalma, Greenberg, Rivas, L L C Steven Joesph Greenfogel Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC, pro hac vice, Steven A Kanner Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament Rubenstein, P C Vincent J Esades Heins Mills Olson, P L C William H London Freed Kanner London Millen LLC, pro hac vice. Elizabeth Lieberman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP Lionel Z Glancy Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice. Todd Augenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP Lionel Z Glancy Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice. Gary Francis, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Ki rby McInerney LLP, Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll P L L C Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Nathaniel Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, P C, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Courtyard at Amwell II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Greenwich Commons II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jill Court Associates II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol S hapiro LLP. Maidencreek Ventures II LP, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Raritan Commons, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Lawrence W Gardner, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Annie Bell Adams, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Dennis Paul Fobes, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Leigh E Fobes, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Margaret Lambert, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Betty L Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Gov ernment Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B Silverman One North LaSalle Street, Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman Gross LLP, Michael Morris Buchman Motley Rice LLC Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom Pomerantz LLP. Carl A Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr Baron Budd, P C Mark Philip Pifko Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, Peter Francis Smith Baron and Budd, P C pro hac vice Roland Karim Tellis Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice. Kenneth W Coker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr Baron Budd, P C Mark Philip Pifko Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, Peter Francis Smith Baron and Budd, P C pro hac vice Roland Karim Tellis Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice. City of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexan der E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Gregory P Priamos Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy Richard A Milligan Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice. The Riverside Public Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Gregory P Priamos Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice Richard A Milligan Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Craig Stephen Spencer Office of General Counsel, Frank Cadmus Damre ll, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Jylana Collins City of Richmond Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. County of San Mateo, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bert Shinji Nishimura Eng Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John C Beiers San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Lee Andrew Thompson San Mateo County Counsel. San Mateo Couty Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Alexander E Barnett Bert Shinji Nishimura Eng Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John C Beiers San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Lee Andrew Thompson San Mateo County Counsel. City of Richmond, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jenkins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jenkins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitr e and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice. Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jenkins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. County of San Diego, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. Guaranty Bank Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Chun-Yang Shen Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Caitlin Sinclair Hall Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, P L L C, pro hac vice, Joseph Solomon Hall Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Eva ns Figel, PLLC, Michael John Guzman Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, R Bryant McCulley McCulley McCluer PLLC, pro hac vice, Stuart Halkett McCluer McCulley Mccluer PLLC W Percy Badham Badham Buck LLC. Heather M Earle, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Henryk Malinowski, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Linda Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Eric Friedman, P laintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. County of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Galdston Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice Blair Allen Nicholas Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman, LLP, pro hac vice. Jerry Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M Combs Edelman, Combs Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, James O Latturner Edelman, Combs Latturner Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. Nathan Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M Combs Edelman, Combs Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, James O Latturner Edelman, Combs Latturner Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. Directors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman Gross LLP. SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Highlander Realty, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J Carter Evans J Carter, P C pro hac vice. Jeffrey D Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J Carter Evans J Carter, P C pro hac vice. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Abby Hoffman Zelle LLP, Lisa Marie Kaas Dickstein Shapiro LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. County of Sonoma, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters C otchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Kathleen Anne Larocque Sonoma County Counsel Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. David E Sundstrom, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Kathleen Anne Larocque Sonoma County Counsel Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Charles Furlonge Robinson University of California, Eric K Behrens University of California, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. San Diego Association of Governments, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Br ien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. CEMA Joint Venture, Plaintiff, represented by William E Walker, Jr. County of Sacramento, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua D Snyder BONI ZACK LLC, pro hac vice Mathieu J Shapiro Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell Hippel LLP, pro hac vice. The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Bro ckett Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice. Principal Funds, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Bond Mortgage Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Bond Market Index Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PF I Core Plus Bond I Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Equity Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Global Diversified Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Government High Quality Bond Fund, Pla intiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI High Yield Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI High Yield Fund I, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Inflation Protection Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Cir esi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Short-Term Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Money Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Preferred Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Variable Contracts Funds, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaugh ter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Asset Allocation Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Money Market Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Balanced Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Bond Mortgage Securities Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Equity Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Government High Quality Bond Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Short-Term Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Financial Group, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Financial Services, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Capital Interest Only I, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Commercial Funding, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Commercial Funding II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Arun Srinivas Subramanian Susman Godfrey LLP, Barry Barnett Susman Godfrey LLP Matthew Berry Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice. Charles Schwab Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein Steven E Fineman L ieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. National Credit Union Administration Board, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Chun-Yang Shen Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Daniel V Dorris Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, P L L C David Charles Frederick Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Norman E Siegel Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel E Schwartz Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP - KC Wan Joo Kim Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC. Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth E Warner Warner Partners, P C Samuel William Cruse, III Gibbs Bruns L L P. Darby Financial Products, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Capital Ventures International, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Q uinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Bay Area Toll Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 2, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Kathleen Barnett Einhorn Genova, Burns Giantomasi Webster, Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. PRUDENTIAL CORE TAXABLE MONEY MARKET FUND, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob J Waldman Quinn Ema nuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. The Berkshire Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Directors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2 Ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1 Ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver, Plaintiff, re presented by Jennifer Abby Hoffman Zelle LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. Direct Action Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by James R Martin Zelle LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. Salix Capital US Inc Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Fran P Goldsleger, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B Sokolow CRAIG SOKOLOW ASSOCIATES. Joseph Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman Law Office of Norman J Finkelshteyn. Louie Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman Law Office of Norman J Finkelshteyn. norman byster, Plaintiff, Pro Se. michael cahill, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Richard Deogracias, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Marc Fede righi, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Scott Federighi, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Furlong, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Gough, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Brian Haggerty, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Klusendorf, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Ronald Krug, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Christopher Lang, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Monckton, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Philip Olson, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Brett Pankau, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Vecchione, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Randall Williams, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Eduardo Restani, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Nicholas Pesa, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Henderson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.303 Proprietary Trading LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Margery Teller, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Norman Byster, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Michael Cahill, Plaintiff, Pro Se. California Public Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, Pro Se. National Asbestos Workers Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Pension Trust for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Hawaii Annuity Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Cement Masons International Association Employees Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom HFT LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sp erling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom Investment Advisors Holdings L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom Investment Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axion Investment Company Holdings L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment Fund, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment Fund II, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment 2X Fund, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Ephraim F Gildor, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Family Advisors L P Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Family Company L P Plaintiff, represented by Brenda n Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Management, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A Dan iel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel. Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A. City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Hilary K Scherrer Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld Toll, PLLC William Christopher Carmody Susman Godfrey LLP. Maxwell Van De Velde, Movant, represented by Patrick Anthony Klingman Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller Shah, LLC, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP Thomas V Urmy Shapiro, Haber Urmy, L L P. Brian McCormick, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A Fegan Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P Barth Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Vito Spillone, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A Fegan Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P Barth Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Sh apiro LLP, pro hac vice. Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul Steel Mishkin Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley Davis Polk Wardwell, Neal Alan Potischman Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Barclays Bank Plc Defendant, represented by Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP. Citibank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan M Wiseman Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP, David Marx McDermott, Will Emery LLP, Jonathan James Gimblett Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Mark Jacob Altschul McDermott Will Emery LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Tamm y Albarran Covington Burling LLP Thomas A Isaacson Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice. Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. J P Morgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Alexander Nuo Li Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Francis John Acott Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Lawrence H Heftman Schiff Hardin LLP, Matthew Charles Crowl Schiff Hardin LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Patrick E King Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Banking Group plc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Andrew Fl eming Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Polly Davis Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Harriet Hoder Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael A Mugmon Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, David Jarrett Arp Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Richard Spratling Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence Jay Z weifach Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. WestLB AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein U S Attorney s Office Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Rabobank Group, Defendant, represented by David Robert Gelfand Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez Milbank, Twwed, Hadley McCloy, LLP Sean Miles Murphy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP. Credit Suisse Group, NA, Defendant, represented by Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Viapiano Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Daryl Andrew Libow Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Michael Howard Steinberg Sullivan Cromwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Royal Bank of Canada, De fendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Arthur W Hahn Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian J Poronsky Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Christian T Kemnitz Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Matthew W Haws Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP Jessica Lillian Brach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP Jessica Lillian Brach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP. Barclays Capital Inc Defendant, represented by Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Barclays U S Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. HSBC Securities USA Inc Defendant, represente d by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. Citiigroup Global Markets Inc Defendant, represented by Alan M Wiseman Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP, Jonathan James Gimblett Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice Thomas A Isaacson Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice. Bank of Tokyo-Mistsubishi UFJ, Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Bank of America, N A Defendant, represented by Paul Steel Mishkin Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley Davis Polk Wardwell, Neal Alan Potischman Davis Polk Wardwell LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein U S Attorney s Office Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B A Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, David Robert Gelfand Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Delilah Garcia Vinzon Milbank Tweed Hadley et al, Mark David Villaverde Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez Milbank, Twwed, Hadley McCloy, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Sean Miles Murphy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented by Patrick E King Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Paul Chris topher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. JPMorgan Chase Co, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Chet Alan Kronenberg Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Barklays Bank Plc, Defendant, represented by David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Lloyds Banking Group PLS, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. JP Morgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty Simpson Tha cher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Seth Paris Sullivan Cromwell LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Ro bert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP. J P Morgan Chase Bank, N A Defendant, represented by Alexander Nuo Li Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Francis John Acott Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Dixon Hogan Lovells US LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank N A Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Michael Steven Carnevale Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Barclays Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP Jonathan David Schiller Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP. Citigroup, Inc Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. Citibank N A Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Michael Steven Carnevale Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Chase Bank USA, NA, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. HSBC Bank Plc Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Lloyds Banking Group plc Defendant, represented by Benjamin Andrew Fleming Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP. Citibank, N A Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd Defendant, represented by Daryl Andrew Libow Sullivan Cromwell LLP. HSBC Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Chase Bank USA, N A Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Roy al Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1, Defendant, represented by Usher T Winslett Winslett Studnicky McCormick Bomser. Barclays Bank Plc Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon Wilmerhale, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Michael J Zbiegien, Jr Taft, Stettinius Hollister Tracy A Turoff Taft Stettinius Hollister - Cleveland. RBS Citizens, N A f k a Citizens Bank of Massachusetts , Defendant, represented by Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland, Plc, Defendant, represented by Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Colin Reardon Wilmerhale. Stephanie Nagel, Defendant, represented by Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. British Bankers Association, Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. BBA Enterprises, Ltd Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. BBA Libor, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Credit Suisse International, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. HSBC Bank USA, N A Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Portigon AG, Defendant, represented by David Hugh Stern Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. RBS Citizens, N A Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Michael J Zbiegien, Jr Taft, Stettinius Hollister Tracy A Turoff Taft Stettinius Hollister - Cleveland. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M Unger Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew W Stern Sidley Austin LLP Thomas Andrew Paskowitz Sidley Austin LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Citigroup Inc Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. J P Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gl uckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. UBS Limited, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer, Cutler, Hale Dorr, L L P Jamie Stephen Dycus Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Citigroup Financial Products, Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. ICAP plc, Defendant, represented by Brian S Fraser Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP, H Rowan Gaither, IV Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP Shari A Brandt Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP. Credit Suisse USA Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Elai E Kat z Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. J P Morgan Markets Ltd Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Bank PLC formerly known as Lloyds TSB Bank PLC , Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur W Hahn Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian J Poronsky Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Christian T Kemnitz Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. Bank of America Home Loans, Defendant, represented by Debra A Djupman REED SMITH LLP. Bank of America National Association, Defendant, represented by Debra A Djupman REED SMITH LLP Rober t Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. CITI SWAPCO INC CITI SWAPCO INC Defendant, represented by Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. J P Morgan Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. Citigroup Funding Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. HSBC Finance Corp Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. HSBC USA Inc Defendant, represented by James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Merrill Lynch Co Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Banc of America Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Citizens Bank, N A Defendant, represented by Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon Wilmerhale, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Citi Swapco Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. Lloyds Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Credit Suisse AG, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. HSBC Holdings, PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Stock Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. County of Mendocino, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pr o hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. City of Houston, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Richard Warren Mithoff, Jr Mithoff Law Firm, Warner Vandergriff Hocker Mithoff Law Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. Tradition America LLC, Pro Se. Direct Action Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs, Pro Se. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD District Judge. I Introduction. Following an unusual, if not unique, appellate journey, we once again address the antitrust claims in this multi-district litigation MDL arising from the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offer Rate LIBOR , which we initially dismissed for lack of antitrust standing in March 2017 In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 935 666 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR I. On this motion, defendants present two bases for dismissal of the antitrust claims first, that this Court lack s personal jurisdiction over some defendants and second, that plaintiffs lack antitrust standing because they are not efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws Defendants have properly preserved their request to move for dismissal on other bases after the resolution of this motion. For the reasons stated below, defendants motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part We grant the moving defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, although such a result means we retain personal jurisdiction over the non-moving defendants 1 We grant the defendants motion to dismiss the putative Bondholder class s claims because they are not efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws While we deny the defendants motion to dismiss on efficient enforcer grounds as to all other antitrust claims, those claims are circumscribed as set forth in this opinion. II Background. The nature of LIBOR, its alleged manipulation, and the parties in this case have been explored in our prior opinio ns 2 Thus, we assume familiarity with the facts. In LIBOR I, we dismissed the antitrust claims brought by Bondholder plaintiffs, over-the-counter OTC plaintiffs, Exchange-Based plaintiffs, and Schwab plaintiffs for lack of antitrust standing For a plaintiff to have antitrust standing, it must allege that it 1 has experienced antitrust injury and 2 is an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws we concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege an antitrust injury As the Bondholders had only brought antitrust claims, their dismissal effectively dismissed the Bondholders case. The Bondholder and Schwab plaintiffs appealed LIBOR I to the Second Circuit, which dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the grounds that we had not issued a final order and LIBOR I did not dispose of all claims in the MDL In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 13-3565-L, 2017 WL 9557843, at 1 2d Cir Oct 30, 2017.The Bondholders sought and were granted certiorari The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the Bondholders right to appeal ripened when we dismissed their case, and not at the eventual completion of the MDL proceedings Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 135 897 900 2017 The Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit for consideration of the merits. The Second Circuit issued its merits decision in May 2017 Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 Gelboim The Circuit reversed LIBOR I, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled an antitrust conspiracy 3 and the first prong of antitrust standing, that is, the existence of antitrust injury 4 It remanded to us for further consideration of the second prong of antitrust standing, whether plaintiffs are efficient enforcers The defendants motion followed on a schedule set by the Court in a letter order dated June 7, 2017.III Personal Jurisdiction. The Second Circuit s holding that the plaintiffs adequately pled a conspiracy requires an analysis of that conspiracy and the consequent impact, if any, on whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants This Court observes the teaching of Gelboim and proceeds on the premise that the conspiracy had an impact on price Plaintiffs make much of the Second Circuit s statement that their allegations evince a common motive to conspire increased profits and the projection of financial soundness, Gelboim, 823 F 3d at 781-82 Plaintiffs focus on increased profits as the object of the conspiracy and thus argue that personal jurisdiction may be obtained over all panel banks because of the banks economic activity in the United States Plaintiffs misread and overread Gelboim. It is far from clear that Gelboim should be read to mean that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged increased profits as a goal independent of a conspiracy to project financial soundness Id at 782 Regardless, the premise that the primary goal of the conspiracy was to increase profits by lowering the interest rate the banks had to pay when they were in the role of borrower is not plausible, as Gelboim itself noted C ommon sense dictates that the Banks operated not just as borrowers but also as lenders in transactions that referenced LIBOR It seems strange that this or that bank or any bank would conspire to gain, as a borrower, profits that would be offset by a parity of losses it would suffer as a lender Id at 783 5 The Gelboim court continued this observation as follows On the other hand, the record is undeveloped and it is not even established that the Banks used LIBOR in setting rates for lending transactions Id. However, the record is developed 6 Nor is there a need to rely on common knowledge or common sense There were complaints brought on behalf of student loan holders who asserted that LIBOR manipulation resulted in lowered LIBOR-based borrowing costs These complaints were dismissed precisely because under such an arrangement the loanholders benefited and the defendant banks lost income LIBOR V, 2017 WL 6696407, at 2, 6 Contrary to Shakespeare s advice, Neither a borrower nor a lender be, the defendant banks are both. If, as plaintiffs suggest, the conspiracy were profit-motivated, it would have required all of the sixteen panel banks to have made a parallel decision to be net borrowers of money over the suppression period in the LIBOR-based lending market After five years of voluminous discovery in both civil litigation and government investigations, plaintiffs have not offered evidence that the panel banks made such a decision or were in fact net borrowers. Rather, the object of the conspiracy that the Circuit recognized and which meets the plausibility test is the projection of financial soundness Without question, if implemented, a conspiracy with such an object would, under Gelboim s analysis of antitrust injury, have an impact on price However, as we have previously held, such an object is not sufficiently directed to the United States such as would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over all panel banks. Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that if this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over at least one panel bank, it follows that this Court has personal jurisdiction over all panel banks under the theory of conspiracy jurisdiction Because plaintiffs have failed to establish that any defendant committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy in or directed at the United States, this Court has only general personal jurisdiction over certain panel banks as to the antitrust claims, and therefore the conspiracy jurisdiction argument has no purchase. Finally, defendants have not forfeited their personal jurisdiction defense Since the Supreme Court decided Daimler AG v Bauman, 134 746 2017 , and the Second Circuit decided Gucci America, Inc v Weixing Li, 768 F 3d 122 2d Cir 2017 , when the antitrust claims were winding their way up to the Supreme Court on an issue of appellate procedure, defendants had no opportunity to address this personal jurisdiction defense until they properly preserved it in their Second Circuit briefing in the spring of 2017.1 Scope of the Conspiracy. The first step in evaluating personal jurisdiction in a conspiracy case is to define the scope of the conspiracy, because only acts taken pursuant to that conspiracy are jurisdictionally relevant. For overt acts are meaningful only if they are within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement If that agreement did not, expressly or impliedly, contemplate that the conspiracy would continue in its efforts to achieve a particular goal , then the scope of the agreement cannot be broadened retroactively by the fact that the conspirators took steps after the conspiracy which incidentally had that effect. Grunewald v United States, 353 U S 391 414 1957 The consequence is that when questions arise concerning matters such as venue or the statute of limitations, which depend on the formation of the agreement or the occurrence of overt acts, it becomes crucial to det ermine the scope of the conspiratorial agreement United States v Rosenblatt, 554 F 2d 36 39 2d Cir 1977 internal quotation marks and citations omitted. This approach applies equally to civil cases and to questions concerning personal jurisdiction See, e g In re Sumitomo Copper Litig 120 328 340, 342 S D N Y 2000 personal jurisdiction attached in New York over foreign defendants because Plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the copper market, including copper traded on New York s Comex, and committed tortious acts in New York in furtherance of that conspiracy As an example of the necessary analysis, in the price-fixing case United States v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co 310 U S 150 1940 , the Supreme Court explained that absent evidence that the conspiracy was formed within the Western District of Wisconsin, the trial court was without jurisdiction unless some act pursuant to the conspiracy took place there Id at 252 The Court then inquired into the chief end and obj ective of the price-fixing conspiracy, finding it to be the raising and maintenance of Mid-Western prices at higher levels Id at 253 Sales of price-fixed products were therefore jurisdictionally relevant to the conspiracy. T he objectives of the conspiracy would fail if respondents did not by some formula or method relate their sales in the Mid-Western area to the spot market prices or if respondents, contrary to the philosophy of all the stabilization efforts, indulged in price cutting and price wars In sum, the conspiracy contemplated and embraced, at least by clear implication, sales to jobbers and consumers in the Mid-Western area at the enhanced prices The making of those sales supplied part of the continuous cooperation necessary to keep the conspiracy alive. Id internal quotation marks omitted With these facts, the Court found that personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Wisconsin attached 7.Despite plaintiffs protestations at oral argument, it should be uncontroversial that the jurisdictional relevance of an act depends on the goal of the conspiracy In fact, plaintiffs themselves implicitly recognize this principle, which is why they exert such effort to define the conspiracy as one with a profit motive See, e g Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 1, ECF No 1524 arguing that given the reference to increased profits in the Second Circuit s opinion, Gelboim thus brings into the jurisdictional analysis of Plaintiffs antitrust claims a wider range of conduct than that which was relevant to the non-conspiratorial data fraud claims. We reject plaintiffs attempt to read the Second Circuit s opinion so broadly, and we find that plaintiffs have only sufficiently alleged that the goal of the antitrust conspiracy was the projection of financial soundness The Circuit s examples of the allegations that evince a common motive to conspire pertained only to the banks reputational concerns, not an independent motive to reap profits on persistently suppressed LIBOR by maintaining one bank-wide position throughout the class period Id at 782 n 19 More importantly, the Circuit went on to observe that a profit motive in the persistent suppression conspiracy is logically unsound C ommon sense dicta tes that the Banks operated not just as borrowers but also as lenders in transactions that referenced LIBOR Banks do not stockpile money, any more than bakers stockpile yeast It seems strange that this or that bank or any bank would conspire to gain, as a borrower, profits that would be offset by a parity of losses it would suffer as a lender Id at 783 The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Circuit meant increased profits and the projection of financial soundness to describe collectively a single, reputation-based motive to conspire, where increased profits followed from a positive reputation 8.In fact, taking the Circuit s observation one step further, the defendant banks could not have profited on transactions in the course of a persistent suppression conspiracy unless each bank borrowed more money using a LIBOR-based interest rate than the amount it lent using a LIBOR-based interest rate throughout the class period The corollary is that for a transaction-based profit motive to exist, the panel banks would have had to fix LIBOR with the parallel intent to be a net borrower across the suppression period Both propositions are implausible. In re Commodity Exchange, Inc Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, No 14-MD-2548 VEC , 2017 WL 5794776 S D N Y Oct 3, 2017 Gold , is instructive Like in this case, the plaintiffs in Gold asserting antitrust claims alleged both persistent suppression and trader-based manipulation of gold prices although these theories are not so labeled in that case Id at 5-6 Like in this case, the Gold court found a profit motive in the trader-based conspiracy to be plausible, because banks could predictably cause gold prices to rise or fall at the Gold Fixing and therefore strategically buy low and sell high in ways that other non-Fixing market participants could not Id at 19 In contrast, the Gold court found implausible a profit motive in the persistent suppression of gold prices, which would have required plaintiffs to show that defe ndants held net short gold futures positions on COMEX, which allowed them to profit when the price of gold fell Id at 18 Even after evaluating plaintiffs data showing that large bullion banks were as a whole net short on gold futures and options throughout the class period, the court concluded that the data does not plausibly support an allegation that any particular bank was net short at any particular time let alone that all of the Defendants were net short throughout the alleged conspiratorial period and that the data fatally excluded defendants positions in other relevant markets Id. Allegations that defendants were net borrowers in the LIBOR persistent suppression conspiracy are even less availing Unlike in Gold, where the plaintiffs at least presented data showing an aggregate net short position, the plaintiffs here are empty-handed To the extent the complaints say anything about net borrowing at all, 9 they rely on information regarding interest rates generally, not USD LIBOR spe cifically 10 draw conclusions based on information that has nothing to do with LIBOR suppression 11 and advance unsupported assertions 12.The one allegation that approaches the line between conceivable and plausible, Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly, 550 U S 544, 570 2007 , is that of plaintiffs FDIC and Freddie Mac, who quote from Bank of America s 2008 Annual Report that Bank of America is liability sensitive to LIBOR Fed Deposit Ins Corp v Bank of Am Corp Am Compl 81, No 14-cv-1757 NRB , ECF No 23 FDIC Compl quoting Bank of Am 2008 Annual Report, at 88 2008 , available at Freddie Mac Compl 89 same Taken in context, however, this statement is not sufficient The full sentence in the Annual Report includes an important modifier We are typically asset sensitive to Federal Funds and Prime rates, and liability sensitive to LIBOR Bank of Am 2008 Annual Report, at 88 emphasis added The paragraph goes on to say, At December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate had significantly widened since December 31, 2007 As the Federal Funds and LIBOR dislocation widens, the benefit to net interest income from lower rates is limited Subsequent to December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate has narrowed Id This paragraph offers no assistance to plaintiffs as in Gold, it does not plausibly support an allegation that Bank of America was a net borrower on LIBOR-based products at a particular time, much less that Bank of America was a net borrower throughout the class period, and even less that all defendants were net borrowers throughout the class period Cf Gold, 2017 WL 5794776, at 18 When pressed at oral argument for evidence that the banks were in fact net borrowers, plaintiffs had none Tr 10 1-9 13.As to the necessary parallel intent to be net borrowers, Plaintiffs have neither allegations nor evidence that this parallel intent existed or would be logical. What is logical and what i s supported by specific allegations and evidence is a conspiracy aimed at the projection of financial soundness 14 The plaintiffs complaints are replete with admissions from defendant banks that, for example. The instructions at UBS to suppress USD LIBOR to stay within the pack and err on the low side were issued, at least in significant part, because of concerns that if UBS submitted higher LIBOR rates relative to other banks, UBS could attract negative attention in the media In so acting, UBS sought to avoid negative media attention and, relatedly, sought to avoid creating an impression that it was having difficulty obtaining funds To the extent those directions from UBS management were motivated by reputational concerns, they were inconsistent with the definition of LIBOR. OTC Compl 69 quoting Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and UBS AG, App x A, Statement of Facts 100, Dec 18, 2017 UBS DOJ SOF and. O n September 22, 2008, a UBS employee wrote in an electronic chat that the real cash market isn t trading anywhere near LIBOR, and he suspected the reason was that Banks undervalue LIBOR in times like this so as to not show where they really pay in case it creates headlines about that bank being desperate for cash. Id 70 quoting UBS DOJ SOF 101 internal alterations omitted and. Because managers sought to avoid what they believed would be an inaccurate perception that Barclays was not in good financial shape when compared to its peers, Barclays engaged in this misconduct in order to reduce the reputational risk associated with proper, higher LIBOR submissions In other words, the DOJ explained borrowing from Barclays employees comments in internal communications the purpose of the strategy of under-reporting Dollar LIBORs was to keep Barclays s head below the parapet so that it did not get shot off. Id 71 c quoting Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Barclays Bank PLC, App x A, Statement of Facts 40, June 26, 2017 emphases omitted. Because the projection of financial soundness is the only sufficiently pled goal of the persistent suppression conspiracy, we adhere to our earlier ruling that the contacts relevant to specific jurisdiction are only those in the forum containing the office from which a defendant determined, or transmitted, a false LIBOR submission LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 32.In this context, plaintiffs entreat us to rely on the sales of LIBOR-based financial products in the United States regardless of the motive of the defendants Such reliance would be misplaced since defendants need not engage in any market transactions at all to affect the LIBOR fix Mem Order, 2017 WL 1558504, at 7 S D N Y Apr 15, 2017 , ECF No 1380 This case is different from Socony-Vacuum Oil, in which the Supreme Court reasoned that goal of the conspiracy the raising and maintenance of high prices would have been vitiated had the defendants engaged in price cutting and price wars the result was that the conspiracy necessarily involved selling price-manipulated products into the jurisdiction 310 U S at 253 Here, the goal of the conspiracy would have succeeded regardless of whether any defendants based their products on LIBOR and regardless of whether any defendant bank increased or decreased the margin on their LIBOR-based products The sales of LIBOR-based products are not meaningful in a jurisdictional analysis because they were not within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement and the scope of the agreement cannot be broadened retroactively by the fact that the conspirators took steps after the conspiracy which incidentally had a particular effect Grunewald, 353 U S at 414.2 Due Process Analysis. On a Rule 12 b 2 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over each defendant Metro Life Ins Co v Robert son-Ceco Corp 84 F 3d 560 566 2d Cir 1996 Whether the court has jurisdiction over a defendant is governed by a combination of state law, federal statute, and principles of due process, but the due process analysis must be undertaken in every case In re Aluminum Warehouse Antitrust Litig 90 219 223 S D N Y 2017.Plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdiction must include an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept 11, 2001 714 F 3d 659 673 2d Cir 2017 The court has considerable procedural leeway It may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone or it may permit discovery in aid of the motion or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion Dorchester Fin Sec Inc v Banco BRJ, S A 722 F 3d 81 84 2d Cir 2017 In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the court must construe the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, r esolving all doubts in their favor, Porina v Marward Shipping Co 521 F 3d 122 126 2d Cir 2008 , although it may not draw argumentative inferences in the plaintiff s favor, Robinson v Overseas Military Sales Corp 21 F 3d 502 507 2d Cir 1994 internal quotation marks omitted. The due process analysis of specific personal jurisdiction requires the court to evaluate first, whether the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum, and second, whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unreasonable as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Walden v Fiore 134 1115 1121 2017 Due process limits on a court s adjudicative authority principally protect the liberty of the nonresident defendant not the convenience of plaintiffs or third parties Id at 1122.Additionally, specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, and therefore the defendant s suit-related conduct must have created a subst antial connection with the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 27 internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted The relevant forum for the assessment of minimum contacts is the United States as a whole Id at 23.We reject any suggestion that Bank Brussels Lambert v Fiddler Gonzalez Rodriguez 305 F 3d 120 2d Cir 2002 , relaxed the minimum contacts standard to a mere relatedness standard Bank Brussels itself explained that, in that case, the jurisdictionally relevant activities proximately caused the engagement of the law firm at issue Id at 128 We repeat our prior holding that specific jurisdiction requires no less than a but for connection between the defendant s forum-directed activities and the claim LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 28 Therefore, any allegations of forum-related contacts that relate to the antitrust conspiracy but that are not causally connected to actual LIBOR submissions are jurisdictionally insufficient. Plaintiffs have failed to show that overt acts in fu rtherance of the reputation-driven antitrust conspiracy occurred in or were aimed at the United States Plaintiffs have inundated this Court with vacuous submissions derived from millions of pages of discovery, including some made at the eleventh hour immediately prior to oral argument and even some made after oral argument While the volume makes it impossible to address every individual allegation, generally speaking the submissions pertain to trader-based allegations, manipulation of LIBOR pegged to other currencies, color about the state of USD LIBOR, marketing activities everything but what the plaintiffs are actually required to plead While for present purposes we accept plaintiffs many jurisdictional allegations as true, we find them ultimately insufficient Most of the allegations fail to address whether defendants determined, or transmitted, a false LIBOR submission from the United States the few allegations that attempt to do so are unavailing. First, defendants sales and trades of LIBOR-based products to plaintiffs in the United States are not within the scope of the reputation-motivated antitrust conspiracy Likewise, trader-based allegations have no relevance here It bears repeating that defendants sales of LIBOR-based products to plaintiffs in a forum are sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction under certain contract claims, unjust enrichment claims, and fraud claims, and plaintiffs may seek recovery for damages under those theories Sunward Elecs Inc v McDonald 362 F 3d 17 24 2d Cir 2004 a plaintiff asserting specific personal jurisdiction must establish the court s jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted emphasis in original e g LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 31 S wap agreements support personal jurisdiction in the plaintiffs home forums over claims whether pleaded in contract, unjust enrichment, or tort concerning the contractual relationships that they embody id at 37 W e also uphold jurisdiction where a bond was issued in such claims against bond obligors. Second, plaintiffs allege that defendants aimed their conduct at the United States under the Calder effects test The Calder effects test requires plaintiffs to show purposeful direction, where the defendant took intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions expressly aimed at the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 27 internal quotation marks and citations omitted 15 None of plaintiffs voluminous submissions persuade us to alter our prior holdings that there is no suggestion, and it does not stand to reason, that foreign defendants aimed their manipulative persistent suppression conduct at the United States or any particular forum state Id at 32 As plaintiffs acknowledge, it would be necessary to disturb that holding only if plaintiffs sufficiently pled a profit-motivated conspiracy, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 14-15, 16 which they have not, supra Indeed, the present case is to be contrasted with the antitrust cases on which plaintiffs rely and in which courts have sustai ned personal jurisdiction in the United States under the effects test In those cases, the court expressly or impliedly found that the conspiracy s goal was to inflict supracompetitive prices on foreign countries such as the United States, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig No 05-CV-453 BMC JO, 2017 WL 12355046, at 12 S D N Y Aug 8, 2017 , thus making sales of price-fixed products relevant which is not the case here See also In re Fasteners Antitrust Litig No 08-MD-1912, 2011 WL 3563989, at 13 E D Pa Aug 12, 2011 co-conspirators agreed to future price increases in North America In re Cathode Ray Tube CRT Antitrust Litig 27 1002 1012 N D Cal 2017 co-conspirators coordinated pricing decisions in relation to United States market conditions And contrary to plaintiffs argument that suffer ing the brunt of the harm in the United States alone is sufficient for jurisdiction, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 19-20, under the due process inquiry it is the defendant s conduct that must form the necessa ry connection Walden 134 S Ct at 1122 see also Mobile Anesthesiologists Chi LLC v Anesthesia Assocs of Houston Metroplex, P A 623 F 3d 440 445 n 1 7th Cir 2010 Calder focuses on whether the defendant intentionally aimed its conduct at the forum state rather than on the possibly incidental and constitutionally irrelevant effects of that conduct on the plaintiff. Third, as we have already held, marketing activities are jurisdictionally irrelevant in the persistent suppression conspiracy T hat a panel bank defendant engaged in LIBOR marketing activities which reached a given forum state does not mean that the same defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in that state on the basis of the defendant s manipulation of LIBOR It is incontrovertible that the importance of LIBOR was its universal significance, not its projection into any particular state, and plaintiffs do not plead otherwise LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 30.Fourth, plaintiffs rely on allegations regarding panel banks subsidi aries and affiliates in the United States, but have not pleaded facts or submitted supporting material that suggests that any panel bank s United States-based affiliate played a role in that bank s alleged suppression of LIBOR Mem Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3 S D N Y Apr 29, 2017 , ECF No 1396 April 29 Order For plaintiffs to establish personal jurisdiction through the activity of banks subsidiaries and affiliates, plaintiffs must first show a merging of parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes , which requires an inquiry comparable to the corporate law question of piercing the corporate veil Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S A v Brown 564 U S 915, 930 2011 internal quotation marks omitted Plaintiffs must then show that the defendants affiliates or subsidiaries took jurisdictionally relevant acts consistent with the principles we have set out for the panel bank defendants Here, plaintiffs have done neither they merely allege that defendants affiliates participated in USD LIB OR suppression and sold price-fixed LIBOR-based instruments in the United States Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 10 17 To reiterate, the fact of significant activity, by a defendant or affiliates, in this country, combined with some evidence of LIBOR manipulation in London, provides no indication that the LIBOR determination and submission process occurred any place other than outside the United States April 29 Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3.Fifth, plaintiffs allege that LIBOR submissions were transmitted to Thomson Reuters in New York, as stated by former Rabobank trader Lee Stewart in his plea allocution in United States v Stewart Case No 1 14-cr-00272-JSR S D N Y , Tr at 15 3-6, Apr 1, 2017, ECF No 46 Stewart Tr 18 As defendants point out, it is unlikely that Lee Stewart, who was not a LIBOR submitter, had personal knowledge of the location from which Thomson Reuters received LIBOR submissions 19 Furthermore, it is implausible that Thomson Reuters in New York would be in the role of accepting LIBOR submissions at around 11 00 a m London time 6 00 or 7 00 a m New York time In any event, an allegation that the submissions were sent to New York, without additional allegations that any person or entity did anything further with the submissions in the United States, is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction Laydon v Mizuho Bank, Ltd No 12 CIV 3419 GBD, 2017 WL 1515358, at 3 S D N Y Mar 31, 2017 Communications that passed through and or were stored within the United States are insufficient to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant internal quotation marks omitted. The few allegations that do address the forum in which a defendant determined or transmitted a false LIBOR submission are easily discounted, especially in light of the moving defendants declarations stating that they did not determine or transmit their LIBOR submissions from the United States Kurtzberg Decl Ex 1, ECF No 1484 Connors Decl ECF No 1590.Taking these allegations seriatim, plaintiffs misleadingl y suggest that one of Citibank s USD LIBOR submitters requested a submission from New York, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 8, but defendants have put forward a sworn document stating that this individual was no longer Citibank s USD LIBOR submitter at the time that plaintiffs allege he was present in New York, Kurtzberg Reply Decl Ex 2 at 10, ECF No 1546.Plaintiffs also allege that a senior JPMorgan executive in New York directed JPMorgan s LIBOR submissions, OTC Pls Supp Mem of Law in Opp n 3, ECF No 1508, but the substance of the exchange contains nothing more than intrabank communications regarding the executive s thoughts on LIBOR levels, see LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 60 such individuals do not purport to do anything more than to state a sincere opinion based on publicly available information. Plaintiffs cite UBS s settlement papers with the U S Department of Justice to argue that UBS has admitted that an executive in Connecticut directed that submissions for all currencies stay l ow and instituted a policy that submissions for all currencies stay within the pack Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 9 citing UBS DOJ SOF 108 UBS s actual admission reads T he manager of the Yen trading desk understood that this direction to submit low LIBOR contributions was issued by the senior manager of Group Treasury based in Stamford in order to make the bank appear more creditworthy, and that it applied to all currencies UBS DOJ SOF 108 Plaintiffs stretch the admission to the breaking point The admission regards a Yen LIBOR trader s understanding as to the source of the policy, but the Statement of Facts itself explains that the actual source of the policy was an ALM senior manager in Zurich Id 102 Thus, the Statement of Facts does not contradict UBS s sworn statement to the Court that n o UBS employee in the United States determined or submitted USD LIBOR to the British Bankers Association BBA during the relevant time 2005 to 2017 Connors Decl 3, ECF No 1590.Finally, plaintiffs al lege that New York-based entity Credit Suisse First Boston made USD LIBOR submissions on behalf of Credit Suisse OTC Pls Supp Mem of Law in Opp n 4 The document on which plaintiffs rely is nothing more than a high-level market commentary e-mail from the Royal Bank of Scotland, sent to a host of third parties, that makes a stray reference to Credit Suisse First Boston Joint Decl of Kovel Hausfeld, Ex 60 at 11, ECF No 1510 This document does not credibly support the allegation. When the allegations are evaluated soberly, plaintiffs fail to carry their burden of making a prima facie showing of minimum contacts Plaintiffs protest that a t its core, Defendants Motion rests on the absurd premise that domestic victims of a price-fixing cartel should be precluded from bringing suit in the U S against the members of that cartel, some of whom are domiciled in the U S for harm caused by the cartel s conduct in or aimed at the U S Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 3 Plaintiffs rhetoric is unconvincing Of course, defendants that are domiciled in the relevant forum are subject to general personal jurisdiction, and neither the Court nor the non-moving defendants 20 contest that principle it is black-letter law that harm experienced in a forum is not sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have not shown that the persistent suppression conspiracy, as distinguished from the trader-based conspiracy, is aimed at the United States. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden under the first prong, purposeful availment, of the due process analysis as to all moving defendants Therefore, we need not reach the second prong, whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice We also need not reach defendants arguments regarding lack of venue.3 Pendent Jurisdiction. The non-moving defendants concede that we have general personal jurisdiction over them as to the relevant federal and state antitrust claims, so we need not address pendent jurisdiction as to the state antitrust claims. In contrast, we decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over antitrust claims, whether they be federal or state, based on forum selection clauses in particular contracts or based on the location from which a bond was issued We repeat that not all claims against a counterparty may be brought in a contractually selected forum The claim must relate to the particular contractual relationship Thus, for example, we will not uphold jurisdiction over a counterparty for all fraud claims that a plaintiff might bring against that counterparty on the basis of the forum selection clause LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 34 see also Mem Order, 2017 WL 4773129, at 2 S D N Y Sept 12, 2017 , ECF No 1557 Likewise, we will not uphold jurisdiction over a counterparty for antitrust claims simply on the basis of a forum selection clause or the location from which a bond was issued.4 Conspiracy Jurisdiction. Plai ntiffs assert that, under the theory of conspiracy personal jurisdiction, we have personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants C ourts that have recognized personal jurisdiction on the basis of conspiracy have required plaintiffs to 1 make a prima facie factual showing of a conspiracy 2 allege specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy and 3 show that the defendant s co-conspirator committed a tortious act pursuant to the conspiracy in the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 34 internal quotation marks and alterations omitted. Given that plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any defendant committed an act pursuant to the pled conspiracy in the United States, conspiracy jurisdiction does not apply here In making this ruling, we do not express an opinion as to whether conspiracy jurisdiction survives as a doctrine after the Supreme Court s ruling in Walden v Fiore 134 1115 2017 , and after recent opinions in the Southern District of N ew York, such as In re Alumnium Warehousing Antitrust Litigation 90 219 S D N Y 2017 , and Laydon v Mizuho Bank, Ltd No 12 CIV 3419 GBD, 2017 WL 1515358 S D N Y Mar 31, 2017.5 Forfeiture. Plaintiffs argue that defendants have forfeited their personal jurisdiction arguments on the antitrust claims through defendants availment of the United States courts This argument is meritless. Although there is a dearth of caselaw defining precisely what types of appearances and filings qualify to forfeit a personal jurisdiction defense, it is evident that not all do Gerber v Riordan 649 F 3d 514 519 6th Cir 2011 The touchstone is that to forfeit a personal jurisdiction defense, a defendant must give a plaintiff a reasonable expectation that it will defend the suit on the merits or must cause the court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later found lacking Corporacion Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v Pemex-Exploracion Y Produccion Pemex , 832 F 3d 92 102 2d Cir 2 016 The rationale is that defendants should raise such preliminary matters before the court s and parties time is consumed in struggle over the substance of the suit Dem Rep of Congo v FG Hemisphere Assocs LLC 508 F 3d 1062 1064 D C Cir 2007 But a party cannot be deemed to have waived objections or defenses which were not known to be available at the time they could first have been made, especially when it does raise the objections as soon as their cognizability is made apparent Holzsager v Valley Hosp 646 F 2d 792 796 2d Cir 1981.We initially dismissed plaintiffs antitrust claims in March 2017 LIBOR I 935 666 Certain plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in October 2017, the Second Circuit sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig Nos 13-3565-L 13-3636 Con , 2017 WL 9557843 2d Cir Oct 30, 2017 In March 2017, the Bondholder plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, presenting the question, Is the right to appeal secured by 28 U S C 1291 affected when a case is consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation or MDL authorized by 28 U S C 1407 Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 135 897 901 2017 That question was fully briefed by November 2017.Between the time the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal and the completion of briefing in the Supreme Court, jurisdictional defenses became available to the defendants the Supreme Court decided Daimler, 134 746 in January 2017 and the Second Circuit decided Gucci 768 F 3d 122 in September 2017 Defendants raised Daimler - based jurisdictional defenses in the cases still pending before this Court Kurtzberg Letter, Aug 13, 2017, ECF No 601.In January 2017, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded for a decision on the merits In April 2017 before merits briefing began in May 2017 , defendants noted to the Second Circuit that they expressly preserve all defenses regarding personal jurisdiction as to all matters on appeal Def s - Appellees Mot to Consolidate Appeals 5 n 4, Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 No 13-3565 , ECF No 221 Additionally, in the merits briefing in May 2017, defendants noted that t wenty of the twenty-five actions on appeal are subject to motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pending in the district court and in the remaining actions, certain defendants intend to assert personal jurisdiction defenses before the district court at an appropriate time, if necessary Joint Br for Defs - Appellees 28 n 23, Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 No 13-3565 , ECF No 464 These statements were sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice that, if the antitrust claims were to be reinstated, defendants would move for dismissal on this basis 21.Given this timeline, the only plausible argument that plaintiffs can make is that the defendants should have preserved their newfound personal jurisdictional defense as to the antitrust claims in their opposition to pla intiffs petition for certiorari on May 27, 2017, or in their opposition brief in the Supreme Court on October 15, 2017, because those briefs are the only substantive submissions that defendants had the opportunity to make in any court in the Bondholder case between March 2017 and April 2017 22.We conclude that defendants failure to mention the personal jurisdiction defense in their Supreme Court briefs in no way created a reasonable expectation that they would defend the suit on the merits or cause d the court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later found lacking, Pemex 832 F 3d at 102 There is no reason to think that the Supreme Court s decision on the writ of certiorari would have been affected by an inchoate personal jurisdiction defense that had not been raised in or evaluated by a lower court Furthermore, the Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the scope of the Second Circuit s power to take an appeal in a multidistrict litigation, and t he Court does not countenance briefing on questions on which it has not granted certiorari See Supreme Court Rule 24 1 a T he brief may not raise additional questions or change the substance of the questions that have been presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari or the jurisdictional statement Plaintiffs somewhat bizarrely suggest that defendants should have 1 asked the Supreme Court to remand so that the defendants could move the district court to consider a personal jurisdiction defense on claims that the district court had already dismissed or 2 asserted the defense despite the Supreme Court s rules Bondholder Pls Supp Mem in Opp n 3, ECF No 1499 These suggestions only serve to highlight how groundless the plaintiffs position is. In this regard, plaintiffs heavy reliance on Pemex is misplaced In Pemex the defendant lost in the district court and appealed to the Second Circuit on several grounds, including for lack of personal jurisdiction 832 F 3d at 101 After a new develo pment during the course of the appeal, the defendant-appellant asked the Second Circuit to remand to the Southern District so that the district court could consider the merits of the case Once the Southern District ruled against the defendant-appellant, the defendant-appellant reasserted its challenge of personal jurisdiction The Second Circuit held that the defendant-appellant waived its personal jurisdiction defense because it had affirmatively asked the Second Circuit to send the case back to the Southern District in hopes of a favorable merits ruling below Id. Defendants have done nothing of the sort here After the Supreme Court s decision, defendants appropriately preserved the personal jurisdiction defense in the Second Circuit and subsequently moved on personal jurisdiction grounds in this Court at the first opportunity they could post - Daimler and so have not forfeited the defense 23 Thus, we apply here our prior holding that i n light of the change in the law of personal jurisd iction as applied to foreign banks under Daimler and Gucci and finding no prejudice to plaintiffs from a successive motion, we do not consider defendants Rule 12 b 2 motion improper or inappropriate LIBOR V 2017 WL 6696407, at 18.6 Request for Jurisdictional Discovery. Despite the tomes of submissions, plaintiffs have not made a threshold showing that there is some basis for the assertion of jurisdiction Daval Steel Prods v M V Juraj Dalmatinac 718 159 162 S D N Y 1989 We therefore exercise our discretion to deny jurisdictional discovery Frontera Res Azer Corp v State Oil Co of Azer Republic 582 F 3d 393 401 2d Cir 2009 see April 29 Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3 P laintiffs submissions do not identify facts that indicate that discovery could show that the relevant defendants determined or submitted LIBOR in forums that would allow this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction. IV Efficient Enforcer. The four efficient enforcer factors are 1 the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury, which requires evaluation of the chain of causation linking appellants asserted injury and the Banks alleged price-fixing 2 the existence of more direct victims of the alleged conspiracy 3 the extent to which appellants damages claim is highly speculative and 4 the importance of avoiding either the risk of duplicate recoveries on the one hand, or the danger of complex apportionment of damages on the other Gelboim 823 F 3d at 778 quoting Associated Gen Contractors of Cal Inc v Cal State Council of Carpenters AGC , 459 U S 519 540-45 1983 internal quotation marks omitted. These factors are meant to guide a court in exploring the fundamental issue of whether the putative plaintiff is a proper party to perform the office of a private attorney general and thereby vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement Gelboim 823 F 3d at 780 internal quotation marks omitted After all, i t is commo n ground that the judicial remedy cannot encompass every conceivable harm that can be traced to alleged wrongdoing AGC 459 U S at 536 Indeed, t here is a similarity between the struggle of common-law judges to articulate a precise definition of the concept of proximate cause, and the struggle of federal judges to articulate a precise test to determine whether a party injured by an antitrust violation may recover treble damages Id at 535-36 In both situations, the court must draw a line beyond which a defendant will not be held responsible for harm experienced by a plaintiff See id at 534 And in both situations, no black-letter rule exists a court must exercise its judgment in deciding whether the law affords a remedy in specific circumstances Id at 536-37 While all efficient enforcer analyses require the exercise of judgment, the task before us is particularly challenging because, as the Second Circuit recognized in Gelboim there are features of this case that make it like no other 823 F 3d at 778.In this regard, it is clear that the Second Circuit believed that not all plaintiffs should survive the efficient enforcer analysis Of particular concern was the specter that r equiring the Banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent LIBOR-denominated derivative swap would not only bankrupt 16 of the world s most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated Id at 779 Though the Circuit s preliminary views were offered in dicta, we are deferential to them. In their papers on this motion, defendants note the failure of plaintiffs to plead specifics about particular transactions While we likewise observe the manifest deficiencies in many of the pleadings despite multiple opportunities to amend or supplement them, we do not find that these deficiencies prevent us from evaluating the efficient enforcer factors However, these deficiencies may affect other antitrust issues or the adequacy of the pleadings more broadly. We consider each of the efficient enforcer factors in turn.1 Causation. Under the first factor, courts examine whether the violation was a direct or remote cause of the injury Gelboim 823 F 3d at 772 The concern associated with remote causation particularly in the present case is that defendants will face damages disproportionate to wrongdoing Id at 779.One consideration in determining causation is whether plaintiffs transacted with defendants directly See 2A Areeda Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law 335c 3 2017 Beyond the actual customers, most other plaintiffs would be classified as remote and denied standing even though they have suffered injury-in-fact Plaintiffs who purchased products from non-defendants but allege that defendants actions raised their prices are called umbrella purchasers 24 Some courts reject standing of umbrella purchasers because significant intervening causative f actors, most notably, the independent pricing decisions of non-conspiring retailers, attenuate the causal connection between the violation and the injury Gold, 2017 WL 5794776, at 13 quoting Gross v New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc 955 242 245-47 S D N Y 1997 In such circumstances, the defendants secured no illegal benefit at the plaintiffs expense, and permitting recovery in such a transaction could subject antitrust violators to potentially ruinous liabilities, well in excess of their illegally-earned profits Mid-West Paper Prods Co v Cont l Grp Inc 596 F 2d 573 583, 586 3d Cir 1979.Although t he antitrust laws do not require a plaintiff to have purchased directly from a defendant in order to have antitrust standing, In re Foreign Exch Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig FOREX , No 13 CIV 7789 LGS , 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 S D N Y Sept 20, 2017 , a determination of standing in an individual antitrust case is highly fact-specific, AGC 459 U S at 536-37 In this case, we are persuaded to draw a line between plaintiffs who transacted directly with defendants and those who did not A plaintiff and a third party could, and did, easily incorporate LIBOR into a financial transaction without any action by defendants whatsoever Their independent decision to do so breaks the chain of causation between defendants actions and a plaintiff s injury. Counsel for the Bondholder plaintiffs effectively conceded as much at oral argument Tr 47 15-48 1 I magine that I walk into Citibank, and say I want to borrow 100,000 And we negotiate over the terms and one of the terms that we put in is LIBOR I t is not proximately caused because we made the independent decision, the banker and I, to put LIBOR in id 53 19-22 If we were just saying anybody who has LIBOR in their price could come in and be a plaintiff in this case, then you would have a real question of proximate causation Counsel attempted to distinguish those hypothetical plaintiffs from the Bondholder plaintiffs under the theory that the fo rmer concerns the impermissibly broad worldwide market for money, whereas the latter concerns only the LIBOR-denominated bond market Id 53 6-15 This artificial market delineation is unrelated to the causation question and has no analytical force Even if we accepted that the relevant market should be the LIBOR-denominated bond market, plaintiffs who did not purchase directly from defendants continue to face the same hurdle they made their own decisions to incorporate LIBOR into their transactions, over which defendants had no control, in which defendants had no input, and from which defendants did not profit To hold defendants trebly responsible for these decisions would result in damages disproportionate to wrongdoing Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.Therefore, where a plaintiff s counterparty is reasonably ascertainable and is not a defendant bank, 25 a plaintiff is not an efficient enforcer Accordingly, the Bondholder plaintiffs lack antitrust standing, and their antitrust claims are dismisse d. The above framework is not readily transferable to the Eurodollar futures market Tr 84 21-24 The Chicago Mercantile Exchange , legally, at its clearing house, takes the role of intermediary , removing counter-party risk from the buyer and the seller So, the CME is the counter-party to both contracts Therefore, the approach utilized by Judge Schofield in FOREX is helpful here In FOREX Judge Schofield examined the portion of the FX market that the defendants controlled, concluding that the causation factor had been met because of the allegation that the defendants dominated the FX market with a combined market share of over 90 as significant participants in both OTC and exchange transactions 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 internal alterations omitted 26 This approach essentially may be viewed as a proxy for the question of direct causation if defendants control led only a small percentage of the ultimate identified market, then plaintiffs claims may generate damages disproportionate to wrongdoi ng Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.Exchange-Based Plaintiffs endeavored to meet the FOREX standard by alleging that from October 2008 through December 2010, all 16 panel bank defendants or their affiliates were large traders of Eurodollar futures and options, and large traders comprised 70 to 90 percent of that market Kovel Hausfeld Joint Decl Ex 1, ECF No 1510 Lovell Kovel Letter 3 n 2, ECF No 1650 They neglected to mention that the number of defendant banks was dwarfed by the total population of over 2,900 large traders in that market during the same time period Gluckow Letter 5 n 12, ECF No 1661 27 Even so, it remains possible that the panel banks, which included some of the world s largest financial institutions, together controlled a large percentage of the market, measured by number of trades or by dollar amount As of now, there is simply not a sufficient record on the issue of market control Although we are skeptical that the Exchange-Based plaintiffs can ultimately show that the defend ants controlled the market, we defer that determination to a later stage.2 Existence of More Direct Victims. Under this factor, courts examine whether there exists a class that suffered an antitrust injury more directly than the present class and therefore would be more suited to bring an antitrust claim AGC 459 U S at 542.The Second Circuit expressly recognized that even though appellants allege status as consumers, in this case directness may have diminished weight because one peculiar feature of this case is that remote victims who acquired LIBOR-based instruments from any of thousands of non-defendant banks would be injured to the same extent and in the same way as direct customers of the Banks Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.We agree that this factor must carry diminished weight Any other result would vitiate the first prong of causation See Daniel v Am Bd of Emergency Med 428 F 3d 408 443 2d Cir 2005 T he weight to be given the various efficient enforcer factors will necessarily vary with the circumstances of particular cases.3 Speculative Damages. While the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created, In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig 585 F 3d 677 689 2d Cir 2009 , at the same time highly speculative damages is a sign that a given plaintiff is an inefficient engine of enforcement, Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779 The Second Circuit expressed skepticism that some of the present antitrust claims could survive this factor, opining, Any damages estimate would require evidence to support a just and reasonable estimate of damages, and it is difficult to see how appellants would arrive at such an estimate, even with the aid of expert testimony Id. In evaluating standing in price-fixing cases, damages may be unduly speculative for several reasons. One reason is that the damages claim is conclusory E g AGC, 459 U S at 542-43 damages were speculative because there was no allegation that any collective bargaining agreement was terminated as a result of the coercion, no allegation that the aggregate share of the contracting market controlled by union firms has diminished, no allegation that the number of employed union members has declined, and no allegation that the Union s revenues in the form of dues or initiation fees have decreased. A second reason is that the injury is so far down the chain of causation from defendants actions that it would be impossible to untangle the impact of the fixed price from the impact of intervening market decisions This rationale tends to dovetail with the first factor of direct causation E g Reading Indus Inc v Kennecott Copper Corp 631 F 2d 10 13 2d Cir 1980.A third reason is that, due to external market factors, there is no relationship between the fixed price and the price that the plaintiffs ultimately paid E g Gold 2017 WL 5794776, at 14 T he Court is concerned that at least some Plaintiffs alleged injuries are highly speculative Plaintiffs cannot deny that other market variables may ha ve affected gold prices before and after the PM fixing. In Gelboim the Second Circuit offered a fourth damages may be speculative where the non-fixed components of a transaction were heavily negotiated between the parties in relation to the fixed component 823 F 3d at 780.To summarize, plaintiffs damages theory will not be held to be speculative if it is credible The relevant question is whether the putative plaintiff is a proper party to perform the office of a private attorney general and thereby vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement Id The question is not one of damages calculation, which forms the essence of the two broad arguments advanced by defendants first, that the parties would need to reconstruct but-for LIBOR, and second, that damages would need to be netted As to the first argument, the estimation of but-for LIBOR is the job of the parties competing experts While this case might involve more relevant numbers than most numbers for each of 16 panel banks acro ss 15 maturities, for a total of 240 quotes per business day, Defs Joint Mem of Law 18, ECF No 1481 that is not a sufficient reason to deem the damages speculative. As to the second argument, we agree that plaintiffs may ultimately recover only to the extent of their net injury, given that plaintiffs may well have benefited from LIBOR suppression in the same transaction or in a different transaction See Minpeco, S A v Conticommodity Servs Inc 676 486 489 S D N Y 1987 A n award of damages should put a plaintiff forward into the position it would have been in but for the defendant s violation of the law An antitrust plaintiff may recover only to the net extent of its injury if benefits accrued to it because of an antitrust violation, those benefits must be deducted from the gross damages caused by the illegal conduct quoting L A Mem l Coliseum Comm n v Nat l Football League 791 F 2d 1356 1367 9th Cir 1986 Again, however, netting in and of itself does not render the damages unduly speculat ive. We now turn to an analysis of whether the different groups of plaintiffs have articulated a non-speculative theory of damages which would support a finding that they could be efficient enforcers As discussed below, there are issues with each group of plaintiffs To the extent that any plaintiffs sue under transactions not specifically addressed herein, the principles of each category of transaction should be applied accordingly. i Non-Negotiated Transactions Such As Bonds. The first group of plaintiffs is those who entered into non-negotiated transactions such as bonds 28 These plaintiffs argue that the appropriate calculation of damages is simply the difference between suppressed LIBOR and but-for LIBOR We disagree, as the effect of a change in LIBOR cannot be isolated in the same way as the overcharge of a typical price-fixed product such as a book, as explained in the following paragraph. We have already made two fundamental observations regarding bonds consistent with common econom ic experience, Twombly 550 U S at 565 First, the purchase price of a bond is equal to the present value of its expected future interest and principal payments LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 70 Second, if LIBOR was suppressed at the time the bondholder purchased the bond, then both the expected future interest payments and the purchase price of the bond would have reflected that lower LIBOR level Id That is, for a bond, the future interest payments equal the interest rate LIBOR plus perhaps a spread multiplied by the notional value of the bond If the notional value is held constant, and if the spread represents issuer risk that is not affected by LIBOR, Tr 83 1-7, then when LIBOR falls the purchase price must fall correspondingly any other result would defy basic economic principles 29 Generally speaking, this interaction would also be reflected in the purchase price of other LIBOR-based, non-negotiated financial instruments such as asset-backed securities. Therefore, bondholders would be harmed from lowered coupon payments only if the price they paid for the bond was not correspondingly lowered in absolute dollars An example is a bondholder who purchased a bond prior to the suppression period and then received suppressed returns A more complicated situation is presented by a bondholder who purchased a bond during LIBOR suppression If the level of LIBOR suppression remained constant over the life of the bond, then that bondholder did not experience damages flowing from the defendants actions and the measure of damages would be zero But if the suppression level increased over the life of the bond, then the bondholder has experienced damages in the amount of the extra suppression As an example, if the LIBOR suppression level was 15 basis points below but-for LIBOR at the time the plaintiff purchased the bond, and then the suppression level increased to 45 basis points below but-for LIBOR at the time of the first coupon payment, the bondholder was damaged to the tune of 30 basis points on that coupon payment And if on a later coupon payment the suppression level became 5 basis points below but-for LIBOR, then the benefit of 10 basis points on that coupon payment should be netted against the measure of damages These scenarios present issues of proof, and not ones of standing. ii Negotiated Transactions Such As Swaps. The second group of plaintiffs is those who entered into negotiated transactions such as interest rate swaps An interest rate swap is an instrument in which two parties agree to exchange interest rate cash flows, based on a specified notional amount from a fixed rate to a floating rate or vice-versa or from one floating rate to another These are highly liquid financial derivatives Interest rate swaps are commonly used for both hedging and speculating OTC Compl 35 f 30 The interest rate derivatives market in which these instruments were created and sold was an informal bilateral market consisting of broker dealers that traded price information and negotiated transactions over electronic communications networks D ealers active in this market custom-tailor agreements to meet the specific needs of their customers Freddie Mac Compl 207.The Second Circuit expressed skepticism about the measure of damages in such highly negotiated transactions Gelboim 823 F 3d at 780 In response, plaintiffs argue that courts do not consider the presence of negotiation to be fatal to the calculation of damages OTC Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 10 n 12, ECF No 1511 Defendants, meanwhile, argue that the presence of negotiation means greater opportunity for changes in the but-for world i e the introduction of further intervening causal intermediaries Defs Reply Mem of Law 25, ECF No 1544 Both of these arguments miss the mark. When parties enter into bespoke swaps, they do so to effect a financial goal to exchange risk for safety, to achieve a balance in their holdings, or to make a bet on a belief that LIBOR will move in a certain direction Gaining or tradin g away exposure to LIBOR is the point of the swap Thus, in entering into a swap transaction the parties take into consideration the present level of LIBOR and their view of how LIBOR will change in the future The parties respond to these considerations when they set the non-LIBOR portions of the swap As direct action plaintiffs agree, T he fixed rate was designed to be the net present value of what LIBOR was at the time of the transaction Tr 78 15-16 Thus, in our view, the point of the Second Circuit s observation is that when swaps were entered into during the suppression period, the negotiated components absorbed the effects of LIBOR suppression. Plaintiffs cite to Loeb Industries, Inc v Sumitomo Corp 306 F 3d 469 7th Cir 2002 , to support their view that damages should simply be measured from the but-for level even in negotiated contracts Loeb actually cuts against their argument In that case, the price of a contract for copper cathode futures was comprised of 1 a number equivalent t o the average of Comex copper prices, and 2 a negotiated premium set on a quarterly or monthly basis Id at 476, 487 The court held that the negotiated premium did not render the damages speculative, for the reason that the evidence show ed that as the Comex price increased, the premium also increased Thus, there wa s no possibility that the two components offset or that the premium somehow compensated for the defendants manipulated price inflation Id at 487-88 Here, the circumstances are different, as the Second Circuit recognized, and there is every expectation that the negotiated component compensated for manipulated LIBOR Cf FOREX 2017 WL 5108131, at 8 LIBOR is distinguishable from the FX market, which does not entail the same level of negotiation between parties in selecting the ultimate rates for their transactions 31.At bottom, swapholders are in a position similar to bondholders Plaintiffs who entered into swaps before the suppression period may recover for suppressed payments r elative to but-for LIBOR And plaintiffs who entered into swaps during the suppression period may recover for any super-suppressed payments, netted against any less-suppressed payments See Tr 78 11-15 where counsel for the direct action plaintiffs stated, There may be transactions where damages are zero if they re late in the time period There are going to be damages for sure, if they enter a swap in 2007 before the suppression really starts going down. iii Futures Contracts. The third group of plaintiffs is those who purchased Eurodollar futures contracts on an exchange Relying on the undisputed fact that the settlement price of a Eurodollar future is 100 minus the three-month USD LIBOR fix on the contract s last trading day, 32 Exchange-Based plaintiffs allege that defendants affected Eurodollar futures prices directly by manipulating the index that was directly incorporated into the formula for those prices LIBOR II 962 F Supp 2d at 612.The mathematical relationship between LIBOR and t he settlement price of Eurodollar futures contracts does not address the relationship, if any, between LIBOR and the trading price of Eurodollar futures contracts that is, the price at which Eurodollar futures contracts were bought and sold prior to settlement The trading price reflects the market s prediction for what the price will be at settlement, which could be years away not what LIBOR is at the present moment See Exchange-Based Compl 431 I n practice, Eurodollar futures are a proxy for the LIBOR-based credit curve internal alterations omitted Tr 90 20, 98 19-20 settlement can occur five or ten years in the future Therefore, it will only be possible to determine the effect of LIBOR on trading prices if the two are in fact closely related In FOREX such a relationship where the exchange price and the FX spot prices move virtually in tandem was demonstrated by empirical data provided in the complaint as well as acknowledgments in settlements with the U S Commodity Futures Trading C ommission that exchange rates in many actively traded CME foreign exchange futures contracts track rates in foreign exchange markets at near parity 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 internal alterations omitted By contrast, in Gold the court expressed skepticism that such a relationship could be shown because Plaintiffs cannot deny that other market variables may have affected gold prices before and after the PM Fixing Indeed, were it otherwise, pricing across gold markets would essentially be flat, varying only twice a day 2017 WL 5794776, at 14.Here, the Exchange-Based plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that the LIBOR level on a given day moves in tandem with the trading price of Eurodollar futures contracts Exchange-Based plaintiffs have merely pled that t raders who exit their positions before settlement are still affected by LIBOR mispricing because the Eurodollar futures contracts trade based on what LIBOR is expected to be in the future To the extent that LIBOR is mispriced in the presen t, expectations of what LIBOR will be in the future will also be skewed Exchange-Based Compl 439 The complaint continues, The current and prospective higher settlement prices of CME Eurodollar futures contracts created higher reference points for the expectations of all market participants Id 447 This hardly pleads a sufficiently close relationship between LIBOR and trading prices. Exchange-Based plaintiffs offer one example in their attempt to show a relationship between LIBOR and Eurodollar futures prices Their complaint presents data on LIBOR and Eurodollar futures contracts in the days surrounding the events on April 17, 2008 LIBOR jumped on that day following the BBA s announcement that it would investigate the authenticity of LIBOR reporting Id at 444 Figure 21 of the complaint purports to show the sharp decrease in the Eurodollar futures price on April 17, 2008 , as well as the behavior of LIBOR during the same period, which exhibits opposite movements to the Eurodollar futures p rice The price shown in the graph is the price of the nearby Eurodollar futures contract Id. Unless Figure 21 is inadvertently mislabeled, it is extraordinarily misleading 33 Figure 21 presents two graphs On each graph, a two-day period in the middle of April 2008 is highlighted to demonstrate the supposed one-to-one, causal relationship between LIBOR and Eurodollar contract prices One graph shows a sharp increase in LIBOR over the course of two days in the middle of April 2008 the LIBOR Increase , and the other graph shows a sharp decline in Eurodollar contract prices over the course of two days in the middle of April 2008 the Eurodollar Decrease If LIBOR truly caused a linear movement in Eurodollar contract prices, one would expect to see either that the LIBOR Increase and the Eurodollar Decrease occurred during the same two days or that the LIBOR Increase occurred shortly before the Eurodollar Decrease. What Figure 21 shows instead is that the LIBOR Increase occurred after the Eurodol lar Decrease the Eurodollar Decrease occurred from April 15 to April 17, 2008, but the LIBOR Increase occurred from April 16 to April 18, 2008 The graphs suggest that Eurodollar futures prices moved unconnected to the actual LIBOR level. Even putting aside the movements over these three days, the movements throughout April 2008 belie the Exchange-Based plaintiffs claim of a causal relationship The relative flatness of LIBOR levels 1 between April 4, 2008 and April 15, 2008 and 2 between April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008 appear to have no relationship to 1 falling Eurodollar contract prices between April 4, 2008 and April 15, 2008 and 2 rising Eurodollar contract prices between April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008 And given that the graph purports to show the prices of the nearby Eurodollar futures contract, the relationship in futures contracts that expire further out must be even more attenuated The graphs do not credibly support the notion that Exchange-Based plaintiffs will be able to s how that LIBOR suppression of a particular amount would have caused a corresponding, determinable change in trading prices. This is not a case where information pertaining to the supposed causal relationship is uniquely in defendants hands Notably, despite the apparent availability of the data, Exchange-Based plaintiffs offer no other empirical information showing that Eurodollar futures prices move in tandem with LIBOR no other graphs, trendlines, or correlations And unlike in FOREX, Exchange-Based plaintiffs have not cited to any official findings that Eurodollar futures trading prices track LIBOR at near parity Without demonstrating such a relationship, plaintiffs cannot prove that defendants caused any particular changes in Eurodollar trading prices. A separate reason to dismiss claims of intermediate traders is that there is good reason to doubt that they suffered damages in any event After all, these traders made the decision to purchase a futures contract at a particular price and made the decision to sell it back to the market at a particular price The precise amount of money that they would make or lose on the market was known to them at the time they made the decision to sell, and LIBOR suppression did not change this knowledge Cf Dura Pharms Inc v Broudo 544 U S 336 342 2005 Normally, in cases such as this one i e fraud-on-the-market cases , an inflated purchase price of a stock will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss For one thing, as a matter of pure logic, at the moment the transaction takes place, the plaintiff has suffered no loss the inflated purchase payment is offset by ownership of a share that at that instant possesses equivalent value Moreover, the logical link between the inflated share purchase price and any later economic loss is not invariably strong Shares are normally purchased with an eye toward a later sale But if, say, the purchaser sells the shares quickly before the relevant truth begins to leak out, the misrepresentation will not have led to any loss. Therefore, a damages theory predicated on a direct link between an act of LIBOR suppression and an impact on Eurodollar futures trading prices in a particular amount is speculative The only Exchange-Based plaintiffs with a non-speculative theory are those who, before the suppression period started, shorted contracts that were held to settlement during the suppression period Such plaintiffs would be able to rely on an unmanipulated selling price as well as a settlement price demonstrably impacted by LIBOR suppression, as set forth in the example in Paragraph 440 of the Exchange-Based plaintiffs complaint.4 Duplicative Recovery and Complex Apportionment. The last factor reflects a strong interest in keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits AGC 459 U S at 543.Under this factor courts are traditionally concerned with the prospect of different groups of plaintiffs attempting to recover for the same e xact injury, id which plaintiffs do not do here Courts are not traditionally concerned with considerations that defendants have raised, namely, whether governments have conducted investigations concerning the conduct at issue, and whether the plaintiffs assert alternative theories of recovery See, e g Mid-West Paper 596 F 2d at 594 n 85 plaintiffs are not necessarily foreclosed from relief by the mere pendency of the government and direct purchaser suits for similar remedies Generally, they may proceed simultaneously or in disregard of each other internal quotation marks and citation omitted Alaska Elec Pension Fund v Bank of Am Corp ISDAFix , No 14 Civ 7126, 2017 WL 1241533, at 8 S D N Y Mar 28, 2017 T he damages at issue are tied to particular transactions and contracts, obviating the danger of duplicative recovery. Clearly, the Second Circuit in Gelboim was concerned with the scope of government recovery, as the ramified consequences are beyond conception 823 F 3d at 780 As of now, there has been no showing that certain plaintiffs have been made whole through the receipt of restitution payments made to governments if such a showing is made in the future, we will take the steps necessary to avoid duplicative recovery Moreover, defendants suggest no substitute avenue of recovery for plaintiffs who transacted with a panel-bank defendant that is not under government investigation. We are also unaware of any authority foreclosing plaintiffs from pursuing antitrust claims simply because they are also pursuing non-antitrust claims While plaintiffs cannot recover twice for the same injury, they are permitted to assert alternative theories of liability.5 State Law Claims. Some plaintiffs have asserted state antitrust law claims in addition to their federal law claims Defendants argue that antitrust standing in the state claims also turns on the AGC factors. In addressing unsettled areas of state law our role as a federal court is not to adopt innovative theories that may distort established state law Instead we must carefully predict how the state s highest court would resolve the uncertainties that we have identified In making this prediction, we give the fullest weight to pronouncements of the state s highest court while giving proper regard to relevant rulings of the state s lower courts We may also consider decisions in other jurisdictions on the same or analogous issues Travelers Ins Co v Carpenter 411 F 3d 323 329 2d Cir 2005 internal quotation marks and citations omitted Additionally, the judgment of an intermediate appellate state court is a datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise New York v Nat l Serv Indus Inc 460 F 3d 201 210 2d Cir 2006 quoting Comm r v Estate of Bosch, 387 U S 4 56 465 1967.We only address those state law claims that remain after our personal jurisdiction rulings California Cartwright Act claims in Bay Area Toll Authority v Bank of America Corp No 14-cv-3094, and New York Donnelly Act claims in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp v Bank of America Corp No 14-cv-1757 Principal Financial Group, Inc v Bank of America Corp No 13-cv-6014 and Principal Funds Inc v Bank of America Corp No 13-cv-6013 As explained below, we conclude that the AGC factors should apply to the California and New York antitrust claims, and therefore the standing analyses set forth above apply equally to the state law claims. i California Cartwright Act Claims. California s highest court has not considered the application of the AGC factors, but it has recently stated that i nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act Aryeh v Canon Bus Sols Inc 292 P 3d 871 877 Cal 2017 Prior to the California Supreme Court s d ecision in Aryeh a California intermediate appellate court applied the AGC factors to a Cartwright Act claim, Vinci v Waste Mgmt Inc 43 337 338-39 Cal Ct App 1995 , as did the Ninth Circuit, Knevelbaard Dairies v Kraft Foods, Inc 232 F 3d 979 987 9th Cir 2000 34.Plaintiffs argue that Aryeh nullified the standing analyses in Vinci and Knevelbaard We are not so persuaded Aryeh a case ultimately about California s unfair competition law did not analyze antitrust standing, and did not indicate that the California Supreme Court disapproved of the application of the AGC factors Indeed, a recent case in the Eastern District of New York concluded that because there is no California law contrary to the state appellate court s application of the AGC factors in Vinci the Court applies the AGC factors to Plaintiffs Cartwright Act claim The decision of both an intermediary court and the Ninth Circuit remain the best predictor of the state s highest court s action on the issue, and the Court is not convinced to disregard this data by any other indication that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise Salveson v JP Morgan Chase Co 166 242, 258 E D N Y 2017 internal quotation marks omitted We agree with this analysis and conclude that the AGC factors apply to plaintiffs Cartwright Act claims. ii New York Donnelly Act Claims. New York s highest court has not opined on the applicability of the AGC factors However, a New York intermediate appellate court has quoted AGC approvingly in considering a Donnelly Act claim Cont l Guest Servs Corp v Int l Bus Servs Inc 939 N Y S 2d 30 30 N Y App Div 1st Dep t 2017 Relying on Continental Guest Services Corp the Second Circuit subsequently held that w e see no reason to interpret the Donnelly Act differently than the Sherman Act with regard to antitrust standing Gatt Comm ns, Inc v PMC Assocs L L C 711 F 3d 68 81 2d Cir 2017 We conclude that the AGC factors apply to plaintiffs Donnelly Act claims. V Conclusion. After applying the person al jurisdiction and efficient enforcer holdings in this opinion, the antitrust claims that remain are set out in the accompanying appendix The Court anticipated before the briefing on this motion that its decision would be informative with regard to any proposed additional motion Accordingly, any party wishing to pursue a motion previewed in June and derived from Gelboim should submit a pre-motion letter by January 6, 2017 Any letters in opposition to any such proposal should be filed by January 13, 2017.This Memorandum and order resolves MDL docket entry 1480.Action Jurisdiction Antitrust Remaining Defendants Filed Claims Gelboim v S D N Y Federal Antitrust claims Credit Suisse dismissed on efficient Grp AG, enforcer grounds No 12-cv-1025 Bondholders Metzler Inv S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp GmbH v Credit N D Ill Bank of America, N A Suisse Grp AG, D Minn Citibank, N A No 11-cv-2613 D N J Citigroup Inc Exchange-Based JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A John Does 1-5 Mayo r and City S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp of Baltimore v Bank of America, N A Credit Suisse Citibank, N A Grp AG, Citigroup Inc No 11-cv-5450 JPMorgan Chase Co OTC JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Charles Schwab N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Bank, N A v California dismissed on personal Bank of Am jurisdiction grounds Corp , No 11-cv-6411 Schwab Money N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Mkt Fund v California dismissed on personal Bank of Am jurisdiction grounds Corp , No 11-cv-6412 Schwab Short - N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Term Bond Mkt California dismissed on personal Fund v Bank of jurisdiction grounds Am Corp , No 11-cv-6409 Amabile v Bank S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp of Am Corp , Citibank, N A No 13-cv-1700 JPMorgan Chase Co Bay Area Toll N D Cal Federal, Citibank, N A Auth v Bank of California Am Corp , No 14-cv-3094 City of Houston S D Tex Federal, Antitrust claims v Bank of Am Texas dismissed on personal Corp , jurisdiction grounds No 13-cv-5616.City of Phila E D Pa Federal Citigroup Inc v Bank of Am Corp , No 13-cv-6020 Darby Fin N Y Sup Federal JPMorgan Chase Co Prods v Ct JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Barclays Bank PLC, No 13-cv-8799 Fed Deposit S D N Y Federal, Bank of America Corp Ins Corp v New York Bank of America, N A Bank of Am Bear Stearns Capital Corp , Markets, Inc No 14-cv-1757 JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Citibank, N A Citigroup Inc Citigroup Financial Products, Inc HSBC Bank USA, N A Merrill Lynch Co Merrill Lynch Capital Services Inc Fed Home Loan E D Va Federal HSBC Bank USA, N A Mortg Corp v Bank of Am Corp , No 13-cv-3952 Nat l Credit D Kan Federal, Antitrust claims Union Admin Bd California, dismissed on personal v Credit Suisse Illinois, jurisdiction grounds Grp AG, Kansas No 13-cv-7394 Principal Fin S D Iowa Federal, JPMorgan Securities LLC Grp Inc, v New York Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Bank of Am Fenner Smith Inc Corp , RBS Securities Inc No 13-cv-6014 Principal Funds, S D Iowa Federal, JPMorgan Securities LLC Inc v Ba nk of New York Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Am Corp , Fenner Smith Inc No 13-cv-6013 RBS Securities Inc. Prudential Inv D N J Federal Citigroup Inc Portfolios 2 v HSBC Finance Corp Bank of Am HSBC Securities USA Corp , Inc No 14-cv-4189 HSBC USA Inc JPMorgan Securities LLC MLPFS Inc RBS Securities Inc Regents of the N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Univ of Cal S D Cal California dismissed on personal Bank of Am C D Cal jurisdiction grounds Corp , E D Cal No 13-cv-5186 Cal Consol Salix Capital US N Y Sup Federal Bank of America Corp Inc v Banc of Ct Bank of America, N A Am Sec LLC, Barclays Capital No 13-cv-4018 JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A JPMorgan Securities LLC Citibank, N A Citigroup Inc Citigroup Global Markets Inc Citigroup Global Markets Limited Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Deutsche Bank Securities Inc MLPFS Inc.1 Whether a defendant is a movant or non-movant is case-dependent in this MDL Defendants Notice of Motion lists the relevant cases and movants Notice of Defs Joint Mot to Dismiss App x B, ECF No 1480.2 E g In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 11 MDL 2262 NRB , 2017 WL 6696407, 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 149629 S D N Y Nov 3, 2017 LIBOR V In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 11 MDL 2262 NRB , 2017 WL 6243526, 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 147561 S D N Y Oct 20, 2017 LIBOR IV In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 27 447 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR III In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 962 606 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR II LIBOR I, 935 666.3 Gelboim did not revive an alternative theory of antitrust violation, as advanced by some plaintiffs, that defendants fixed the market for benchmark rates We have already rejected the viability of this theory See LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 89-90 Therefore, the attempt of some plaintiffs to resuscitate this theory in the briefing on the present motions to dismiss was improper.4 The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on October 20, 2017.5 Contrary to plaintif fs argument that the profit-motivated goal should be assumed simply because a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions, Oct 27, 2017 Hr g Tr 23 4-5 Tr , a conspiracy requires an agreement to achieve a particular goal, which cannot be assumed.6 We have always permitted the plaintiffs to rely on information resulting from government investigations here and abroad in their submissions without requiring formal amendments to complaints Plaintiffs have had the benefits of the findings from wide-ranging investigations of LIBOR since at least 2011 by the Securities Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, the New York State Attorney General, and numerous foreign regulators, and public settlements and plea agreements involving Barclays, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, Rabobank, RBS, Societe Generale, UBS, and brokers LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 43.7 Sales of price-fixed products are not a necessary element of a viola tive price-fixing conspiracy I t is well settled that conspiracies under the Sherman Act are not dependent on any overt act other than the act of conspiring It is the contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce which Section 1 of the Act strikes down, whether the concerted activity be wholly nascent or abortive on the one hand, or successful on the other Socony-Vacuum Oil, 310 U S at 224 n 59 internal quotation marks and citations omitted see also United States v Milikowsky, 896 1285 1288 D Conn 1994 in a conspiracy to fix prices for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the agreement itself constitutes the complete offense , aff d, 65 F 3d 4 2d Cir 1995 Additional overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are not needed.8 This understanding of the Circuit s observation is consistent with this Court s comments in LIBOR III and LIBOR IV about the motivations of defendants, rejecting as implausible any suggestion that defendants engaged in the persistent s uppression of LIBOR to increase transactional profits E g LIBOR III, 27 F Supp 3d at 469 I t is implausible that all defendants would maintain parallel trading positions across the Class Period and that those positions, in turn, motivated their daily LIBOR submissions The far more likely explanation is that, to the extent all defendants engaged in parallel manipulation of LIBOR, the conduct was motivated by reputational concerns, not by the banks positions internal alterations omitted To be clear, what we have found plausible is that defendants engaged in trader-based manipulation were motivated by the prospect of increased profits E g LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 6 I ndividual traders received money, promotions, and adulation based on their personal profit and loss To gain profits or avoid losses, therefore, a trader would sometimes ask his bank s LIBOR submitter to engage in what we call trader-based manipulation The submitter would send a false quote in whichever currency and tenor suited the trader s book Profit-motivated trader-based manipulation, which was sporadic and would result in both the inflation and deflation of LIBOR submissions, id at 32, has nothing to do with the persistent suppression conspiracy that is at issue in the antitrust claims, Gelboim, 823 F 3d at 764.9 The relevant allegations are generally uniform across all of the complaints, so we cite to representative examples in the following footnotes.10 E g Mayor and City Council of Balt v Credit Suisse Grp AG Second Consolidated Am Compl 78, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 406 OTC Compl Illustrating Defendants motive to artificially suppress LIBOR, in 2009 Citibank reported it would make 936 million in net interest revenue if rates would fall by 25 bps per quarter over the next year and 1 935 billion if they fell 1 instantaneously JPMorgan Chase likewise reported significant exposure to interest rates in 2009 The bank stated that if interest rates increased by 1 , it would lose over 500 million HSB C and Lloyds also estimated they would earn hundreds of millions of additional dollars in 2008-2009 in response to lower interest rates and would lose comparable amounts in response to higher rates Fed Home Loan Mortg Corp v Bank of Am Corp Am Compl 89, No 13-cv-3952 NRB , ECF No 61 Freddie Mac Compl Bank of America further stated that it held a notional amount of more than 50 billion in receive fixed pay floating interest-rate swaps that would mature in 2008 or 2009 with no offsetting pay fixed receive floating interest-rate swaps.11 E g OTC Compl 78 Deutsche Bank reportedly earned more than 650 million in profit during 2008 from trades tied to LIBOR because LIBOR was low citing Jean Eglesham, Bank Made Huge Bet, and Profit, on Libor, Wall St J Jan 10, 2017, at l The cited article describes profits made not on LIBOR suppression but rather on trades pegged to the interest rates such as bets regarding the gap between different rates related to Libor and the euro interbank offered rate and each hundredth of a percentage point that the three-month U S dollar Libor increased compared with the one-month U S dollar Libor.12 E g OTC Compl 78 These banks collectively earned billions in net revenues between August 2007 and May 2010 from suppressed USD LIBOR Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG, Corrected Second Am Consolidated Compl 268, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 438 Exchange-Based Compl Because their interest earning assets, as compared to their funding mix, generally included more longer-term and more fixed-rate instruments, suppression of LIBOR would tend to reduce Defendants funding costs more than it would reduce their interest income Thus, by suppression of LIBOR, Defendants would contribute to increasing, maintaining, or mitigating deterioration of their net interest margins Freddie Mac Compl 89 During this time, many of the Bank Defendants were net borrowers, meaning that they financially benefited from reductions in short-term interest rates.13 After oral arg ument, plaintiffs submitted an academic paper that suggested that banks mostly take pay-floating positions in interest-rate derivatives, which are positions that gain in value from a surprise fall in interest rates Carmody Letter 2, ECF No 1638 As plaintiffs acknowledge, the study relates only to U S banks, id at 2 n 3 the study examines interest rates generally, not LIBOR specifically and LIBOR suppression does not mean that LIBOR experienced a surprise fall, only that LIBOR was lower than it otherwise would have been The paper therefore does not save plaintiffs theory.14 Two prominent economists tasked with reforming LIBOR came to the same conclusion about the motivations for LIBOR manipulation See Darrell Duffie Jeremy C Stein, Reforming LIBOR and Other Financial Market Benchmarks, 29 J Econ Persp 191, 191 2017 Banks had incentives to announce biased interest rates, for two reasons First, in times of economic stress, reporting a lower interest rate would signal that the bank is more creditworthy, all else equal Second, some of the bank s trading positions would be more profitable if LIBOR could be pushed one way or the other, depending on the position taken.15 Plaintiffs allegation that defendants intentionally directed their unlawful conspiracy at the United States is conclusory and thus insufficient to meet their burden Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 15.16 Plaintiffs write, While this Court previously declined to apply Calder to assert personal jurisdiction for data fraud claims, concluding that persistent suppression was not designed to benefit Defendants trading position and it did not stand to reason, that foreign defendants aimed their manipulative conduct at the United States or any particular forum state, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court s conclusions on data fraud do not apply to the antitrust allegations that Defendants had a common motive to conspire to suppress USD LIBOR for increased profits, Gelboim 823 F 3d at 781-82 Viewed in that lig ht, Plaintiffs satisfy every element of the Calder analysis for their antitrust claims Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 14-15 internal alterations omitted.17 For example, plaintiffs allege, In a 2007 internal email sent to Barclays former CEO Robert Diamond, BCI Barclays Capital Inc a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Director and Executive Officer Jerry del Missier, who was based in New York, wrote that the USD LIBOR submissions for all of the Panel Banks were fantasy rates Del Missier has admitted that he instructed subordinates to submit artificially low USD LIBOR rates Pls Supp Statement of Additional Jurisdictional Facts 26, ECF No 1517 citing Jill Treanor, Former Barclays executive insists Bob Diamond instructed him to cut Libor, The Guardian, July 16, 2017.First, the fantasy rates comment offers nothing more than market color Second, the article on which plaintiffs rely makes clear that the direction to submit low LIBOR rates came from CEO Bob Diamond, not from Del Missier Id In evidence to MPs following his resignation as chief operating officer of Barclays, Del Missier was adamant that Diamond instructed him to cut the Libor rate following a conversation with Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England Asked if he was acting on an instruction from Diamond, Del Missier said Yes it sic was.18 Carmody Letter 1, Oct 20, 2017, ECF No 1600 Plaintiffs also rely on the testimony of former Rabobank trader Takayuki Yagami, even though Yagami traded products tied to Yen LIBOR Id at 2 We do not understand plaintiffs continued, stubborn refusal to comply with our simple admonition that only allegations pertaining to USD LIBOR are potentially relevant to this case LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 45 We continue to reject the impermissible inference that defendants reprehensible behavior in one product or even many products Yen LIBOR, TIBOR, Swiss Franc LIBOR, EURIBOR and so on suffices to overcome deficiencies in the pleading of actionable bad behavior in USD LIBOR.19 Stewart s statement itself suggests that he lacked personal knowledge I also understand that someone at Rabobank, first in London and later in Utrecht, would submit a Rabobank LIBOR rate each day to Thom son Reuters in New York by means of an electronic wire submission Stewart Tr at 15 3-6 emphasis added.20 See supra note 1.21 We firmly reject plaintiffs attempt to spin their own appeal as a tactical choice by the defendants to take the merits up on appeal by affirmatively asking the Second Circuit to affirm on the merits, OTC Pls Suppl Mem of Law in Opp n 5 Defendants, of course, were not the appellants.22 Plaintiffs argue that the Bondholder case returned to the district court between the Second Circuit s dismissal in October 2017 and the Bondholder plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court in March 2017, and so the defendants should have raised the defense then Bondholder Pls Supp Mem in Opp n 2-3, ECF No 1499 This argument is beyond comprehension Until the Supreme Court granted certi orari in June 2017, there simply was no Bondholder case it had been dismissed in the district court and dismissed in the Second Circuit Plaintiffs would have us create a rule requiring defendants to raise defenses in cases that do not exist.23 This ruling applies equally to defendant UBS, which did not waive its personal jurisdiction defense as to the antitrust claims when it consented to personal jurisdiction in New York as to other claims Sunward Elecs Inc v McDonald 362 F 3d 17 24 2d Cir 2004 a plaintiff must establish the court s jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted emphasis in original. Similarly, defendants without New York branches did not forfeit their personal jurisdictional defense in failing to assert the defense in 2017 As defendants point out, Daimler cast significant doubt on other avenues of establishing personal jurisdiction, such as the Second Circuit s theory of jurisdiction under Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 226 F 3d 88 2d Cir 2000 See Sonera Holding B V v Cukurova Holding A S 750 F 3d 221 224-26 2d Cir 2017.24 There exists a circuit split on whether umbrella purchasers have antitrust standing Gelboim 823 F 3d at 778 Among the district courts there seems to be broader agreement The overwhelming majority of recent court decisions that have addressed the viability of the umbrella theory after AGC have rejected umbrella claims In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig No 99CIV5134, 2001 WL 855463, at 4 D D C July 2, 2001.25 There remains an open question about the treatment of plaintiffs who transacted with a subsidiary or affiliate of a panel bank We do not resolve that question here, but note that the parties should consider this question at the class certification stage.26 We reject plaintiffs attempt to turn the question of market control into a question of price control over the entire Eurodollar futures market by virtue of their authorship of LIBOR, Exchange-Based Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 7, ECF No 1504 The thrust of the umbrella purchaser co ncept is to distinguish between those plaintiffs who dealt with price-fixing defendants directly and other plaintiffs whose prices were affected by price-fixing defendants actions Plaintiffs approach would nullify the causation question in all antitrust cases.27 The Court was not informed of this fact until defendants letter of December 2, 2017, which is particularly striking given the Court s question on this very issue at oral argument on October 27, 2017 Tr 102 22-103 14 THE COURT How many large traders are there all together I f there were 400 large traders and there are 16 banks, the percentage is low in terms of the analysis that was utilized in FOREX That s what I am trying to learn COUNSEL FOR EXCHANGE-BASED PLAINTIFFS We don t know what the percentage is It may be low , it might not be low.28 Although the Bondholder class comprised of plaintiffs who did not transact directly from defendants is dismissed under the first factor of causation, there remain plaintiffs within the OT C class who allege that they purchased bonds directly from defendants, such as plaintiff SEIU The analysis in this section pertains to such plaintiffs.29 The Schwab plaintiffs submitted declarations arguing the following I do not agree that LIBOR suppression would have somehow been reflected in a lower price to the Treasury Entities, thereby compensating them In initial offerings the Treasury Entities simply bought at par In secondary markets the Treasury Entities sometimes bought at a discount or premium to par but any discount or premium would have reflected underlying changes in interest rates or credit-worthiness of the issuer, not compensation for LIBOR suppression Whether in the primary or secondary market, Schwab overpaid for the investments the suppression of LIBOR systematically caused the risk of the investment to be understated compared to the interest rate being offered and reduced the Treasury Entities income. Decl of Dennis Goldman 10, ECF No 1512.Whether a bond is purchas ed at par value is immaterial to the question of whether the purchase price is equal to the present value of the expected payments Purchasing a new-issue bond at par simply means that the future payments are set at a level that reflects a present value of par As to the secondary market, it would seem that the point of the Schwab plaintiffs is the same as our point a discount or premium on the purchase price reflect s underlying changes in interest rates, such as LIBOR suppression.30 The named plaintiffs of the proposed OTC class only purchased interest rate swaps, but the OTC complaint lists other types of instruments on which it would sue on behalf of the class The instruments include but are not limited to asset swaps, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, forward rate agreements, inflation swaps, interest rate swaps, total return swaps, and options OTC Compl 35.31 Plaintiffs also rely heavily on New York v Hendrickson Brothers, Inc 840 F 2d 1065 2d Cir 1988 , which said that antitrust treble-damage actions should not be complicated by a need to trace the effects of the overcharge with respect to such matters as prices, costs, and the potentially different behavior of all the pertinent variables in the absence of the overcharges Id at 1079 Plaintiffs use this quotation out of context The court in Hendrickson was explaining why indirect purchasers are routinely denied antitrust standing that is, because allowing recovery by indirect purchasers would require courts to trace all of the effects of an overcharge.32 Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG Corrected Second Am Compl 433, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 438 Exchange-Based Compl.33 There is little reason to believe that the graphs are mislabeled Although the complaint provides no information as to the source of the data in the graphs, publicly available data suggests that the date labels are correct See, e g Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, 3-Month London Interbank Offered Rate LIBOR , based on U S Dollar FRED Economic Data, Quandl, Eurodollar Futures, August 2008, EDQ2008, CME Tab TABLE, which provides, inter alia a drop in prices from April 15 to April 17, 2008 that approximates the amount of the drop provided in Figure 21 of the complaint Exchange-Based plaintiffs have also submitted a proposed amended complaint and a post-oral argument letter, both relying on the same graph and providing no other empirical examples Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG Proposed Third Amnded Compl 622, No 11-cv-2613 NRB , ECF No 292 Lovell Kovel Letter App x B, MDL ECF No 1650.34 The Ninth Circuit noted that antitrust standing is more permissive under Cartwright Act claims than under federal law in that the Cartwright Act permits suits by both direct and indirect purchasers Knevelbaard Dairies 232 F 3d at 987, 991 That fact does not impact the analysis in this case. IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Attorney s appearing for the Case. FTC Capital GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. FTC Capital GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, P C, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. FTC Futures Fund SICAV, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, Darren J Robbins Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas F Olts Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. City of Dania Beach Police Firefighters Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, George E Barrett Barrette, Johnsn Parsley, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Timothy L Miles Barrett, Johnston Parsley. Ravan Investments, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Jay W Eisenhofer Grant Eisenhofer P A John D Radice Radice Law Firm, P C Kevin Bruce Love Hanzman and Criden, Michael E Criden Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce Heise, P A Peter Anthony Barile, III Grant Eisenhofer P A Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by Arun Srinivas Subramanian Susman Godfrey LLP, Barry Barnett Susman Godfrey LLP, Charles Joseph LaDuca Cuneo Gilbert LaDuca, LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Drew D Hansen Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Ivan Smith Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Geng Chen Su sman Godfrey LLP, Glenn Charles Bridgman Susman Godfrey LLP, Hilary K Scherrer Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Hilary K Scherrer Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld Toll, PLLC, Joel Davidow Kile Goekjian Reed McManus Pllc, Karen Oshman Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M Seltzer Susman Godfrey, L L P pro hac vice, Matthew Berry Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Michael C Kelso Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel C Giddings Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph Johnson Bunche, III Hausfeld, LLP, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Seth D Ard Susman Godfrey LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP, William P Butterfield Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice William Christopher Carmody Susman Godfrey LLP. Richard Hershey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason Chalmers Douglas M Chalmers P C Geoffrey Milbank Horn Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P C Robert F Coleman Coleman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steve R Jakubowski Coleman Law Firm, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Vincent Briganti Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P C. Jeffrey Laydon, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason Chalmers Douglas M Chalmers P C Geoffrey Milbank Horn Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P C Robert F Coleman Coleman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steve R Jakubowski Coleman Law Firm, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Vincent Briganti Lowey Dannenberg Cohen Hart, P C. Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kir by McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab U S Dollar Liquid Assets Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Money Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser , Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Investor Money Fund, Plaintiff , represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Cash Reserves, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP , pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Yieldplus Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Schwab Yieldplus Fund Liquidation Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Charles Schwab Bank, N A Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richar d Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Charles Schwab Co Inc Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, S amuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. The Charles Schwab Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. Metzler Investment GmbH, Plaintiff, represented by Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Andrew Martin McNeela Ki rby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Deborah M Sturman Milberg LLP, Joseph F Rice Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll P L L C Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP, Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP William H Narwold Motley Rice LLC. Roberto E Calle Gracey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Lori Ann Fanning Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller Miller Law, LLC, Matthew E Van Tine Miller Law LLC, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP. AVP Properties, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson L LP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Richard A Lockridge Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P L L P Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP W Joseph Bruckner Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen Holstein, P L L P.303030 Trading LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, P C, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Ellen Gelboim, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, David Haym Weinstein Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Franklin Citron Goldstein Russell, P C Jeremy S Spi egel Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, pro hac vice, Karen L Morris Morris Morris, LLC, Patrick F Morris Morris and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, Robert S Kitchenoff Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato Goldman, Ltd pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Steven A Asher Weinstein Kitchenoff Asher LLC, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas C Goldstein Goldstein Russell P C. Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, P C, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLPmunity Bank Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver Block Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Pa trick Anthony Klingman Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller Shah, LLC Thomas V Urmy Shapiro, Haber Urmy, L L P. The Berkshire Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B Silverman One North LaSalle Street, Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman Gross LLP, Michael Morris Buchman Motley Rice LLC Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom Pomerantz LLP. Elizabeth Lieberman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.33-35 Green Pond Road Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan J McFarland Heins Mills Olson, P L C Jeffrey Alan Shooman Lite, DePalma, Greenberg L L C Joseph J DePalma Lite, DePalma, Greenberg Rivas, L L C pro hac vice, Mayra Velez Tarantino Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, Rivas, L L C Steven Joesph Greenfogel Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC, pro hac vice, Steven A Kanner Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament Rubenstein, P C Vincent J Esades Heins Mills Olson, P L C William H London Freed Kanner London Millen LLC, pro hac vice. Elizabeth Lieberman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip M urray Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP Lionel Z Glancy Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice. Todd Augenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh Glancy Prongay Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP Lionel Z Glancy Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice. Gary Francis, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll P L L C Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Nathaniel Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela Kirby McInerney LLP, Christo pher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel Kirby McInerney LLP, Karen M Lerner Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff Berger Montague, P C, Roger W Kirby Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W Elrod Kirby McInerney, LLP. Courtyard at Amwell II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Greenwich Commons II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jill Court Associates II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Maidencreek Ventures II LP, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Raritan Commons, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Lawrence W Gardner, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman S obol Shapiro LLP. Annie Bell Adams, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Dennis Paul Fobes, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Leigh E Fobes, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Margaret Lambert, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Betty L Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by John Walter Sharbrough John W Sharbrough, III, PC Stephen George Stim Stimconsul Ltd. Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B Silverman One North LaSalle Street, Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman Gross LLP, Michael Morris Buchman Motley Rice LLC Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom Pomerantz LLP. Carl A Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alber stone Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr Baron Budd, P C Mark Philip Pifko Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, Peter Francis Smith Baron and Budd, P C pro hac vice Roland Karim Tellis Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice. Kenneth W Coker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr Baron Budd, P C Mark Philip Pifko Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice, Peter Francis Smith Baron and Budd, P C pro hac vice Roland Karim Tellis Baron Budd, P C pro hac vice. City of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Gregory P Priamos Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy Richard A Milligan Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice. The Riverside Public Financing Authority, Plaintiff, repr esented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Gregory P Priamos Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice Richard A Milligan Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Craig Stephen Spencer Office of General Counsel, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Jylana Collins City of Richmond Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. County of San Mateo, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchet t, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bert Shinji Nishimura Eng Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John C Beiers San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Lee Andrew Thompson San Mateo County Counsel. San Mateo Couty Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Alexander E Barnett Bert Shinji Nishimura Eng Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John C Beiers San Mateo County Counsel s Office, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Lee Andrew Thompson San Mateo County Counsel. City of Richmond, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchet t, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jenkins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jenkins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice. Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Bruce Reed Goodmiller City Attorney s Office, Everett Jen kins Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. County of San Diego, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. Guaranty Bank Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Chun-Yang Shen Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Caitlin Sinclair Hall Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, P L L C, pro hac vice, Joseph Solomon Hall Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Michael John Guzman Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, R Bryant McCulley McCulley McCluer PLLC, pro hac vice, Stuart Halkett McCluer McCulley Mccluer PLLC W Percy Badham Badham Buck LLC. Heather M Earle, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilshe imer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Henryk Malinowski, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Linda Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. Eric Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block Block Leviton LLP, Richard J Kilsheimer Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP Whitney Erin Street Block Leviton LLP. County of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Galdston Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice Blair Allen Nicholas Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman, LLP, pro hac vice. Jerry Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M Combs Edelman, Combs Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, James O Latturner Edelman, Combs Latturner Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. Nathan Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M Combs Edelman, Combs Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, James O Latturner Edelman, Combs Latturner Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. Directors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP Marc Ian Gross Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman Gross LLP. SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Sa muel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Highlander Realty, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J Carter Evans J Carter, P C pro hac vice. Jeffrey D Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J Carter Evans J Carter, P C pro hac vice. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Abby Hoffman Zelle LLP, Lisa Marie Kaas Dickstein Shapiro LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. County of Sonoma, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Kathleen Anne Larocque Sonoma County Counsel Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. David E Sundstrom, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCart hy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Kathleen Anne Larocque Sonoma County Counsel Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Charles Furlonge Robinson University of California, Eric K Behrens University of California, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. San Diego Association of Governments, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. CEMA Joint Venture, Plaintiff, represented by William E Walker, Jr. County of Sacramento, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling C otchett, Pitre McCarthy, Alexander E Barnett Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. The City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua D Snyder BONI ZACK LLC, pro hac vice Mathieu J Shapiro Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell Hippel LLP, pro hac vice. The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice. Principal Funds, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Bond Mortgage Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Bond Market Index Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Cir esi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Equity Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Global Diversified Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Government High Quality Bond Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI High Yield Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughte r Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI High Yield Fund I, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Inflation Protection Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Short-Term Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kap lan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Money Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PFI Preferred Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Variable Contracts Funds, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Asset Allocation Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vic e. PVC Money Market Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Balanced Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Bond Mortgage Securities Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Equity Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Government High Quality Bond Account, Pla intiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. PVC Short-Term Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Financial Group, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Financial Services, Inc Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D Steinberg Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Capital Interest Only I, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Commercial Funding, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Commercial Funding II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, Plai ntiff, represented by Stacey Paige Slaughter Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice Thomas F Berndt Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi L L P pro hac vice. Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Arun Srinivas Subramanian Susman Godfrey LLP, Barry Barnett Susman Godfrey LLP Matthew Berry Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice. Charles Schwab Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky Charles Schwab and Co Inc pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. National Credit Union Administration Board, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Chun-Yang Shen Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Daniel V Dorris Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, P L L C David Charles Frederick Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC, Norman E Siegel Stuev e Siegel Hanson LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel E Schwartz Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP - KC Wan Joo Kim Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, PLLC. Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth E Warner Warner Partners, P C Samuel William Cruse, III Gibbs Bruns L L P. Darby Financial Products, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Capital Ventures International, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Bay Area Toll Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Eric B Fastiff L ieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 2, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Kathleen Barnett Einhorn Genova, Burns Giantomasi Webster, Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. PRUDENTIAL CORE TAXABLE MONEY MARKET FUND, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. The Berkshire Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McC onville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Directors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Alan Lieberman Pomerantz LLP. Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2 Ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1 Ltd Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger Keller Rohrback L L P Derek W Loeser Keller Rohrback L L P. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Abby Hoffman Zelle LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. Direct Action Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by James R Martin Zelle LLP Richard James Leveridge Adams Holcomb LLP. Salix Capital US Inc Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel, Chr istopher R Barker Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Sullivan, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Jeremy Daniel Andersen Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice Steig Olson Quinn Emanuel. Fran P Goldsleger, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B Sokolow CRAIG SOKOLOW ASSOCIATES. Joseph Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman Law Office of Norman J Finkelshteyn. Louie Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman Law Office of Norman J Finkelshteyn. norman byster, Plaintiff, Pro Se. michael cahill, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Richard Deogracias, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Marc Federighi, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Scott Federighi, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Furlong, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Gough, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Brian Haggerty, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Klusendorf, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Ronald Krug, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Christopher Lang, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Monckton, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Philip Olson, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Brett Pankau, Plaintiff, Pro Se. David Vecchione, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Randall Williams, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Eduardo Restani, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Nicholas Pesa, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Henderson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.303 Proprietary Trading LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Margery Teller, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Norman Byster, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Michael Cahill, Plaintiff, Pro Se. California Public Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, Pro Se. National Asbestos Workers Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Pension Trust for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Hawaii Annuity Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Cement Masons International Association Employees Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David W Mitchell Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W Daniels Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman Robbins Samuel Howard Rudman Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom HFT LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom Investment Advisors Holdings L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom Investment Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperl ing Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axion Investment Company Holdings L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment Fund, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment Fund II, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Axiom FX Investment 2X Fund, L P Plaintiff, represented by Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice Scott F Hessell Partner. Ephraim F Gildor, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Family Advisors L P Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Family Company L P Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac v ice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. Gildor Management, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glaskin Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S Sperling Sperling Slater, Eric B Fastiff Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J Frett Sperling Slater, P C pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell Partner Steven E Fineman Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP. City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A Daniel Lawrence Brockett Quinn Emanuel. Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Robert Fulton Rayburn, Cooper Durham, P A. City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Hilary K Scherrer Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld Toll, PLLC William Christopher Carmody Susman Godfrey LLP. Maxwell Van De Velde, Movan t, represented by Patrick Anthony Klingman Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller Shah, LLC, Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP Thomas V Urmy Shapiro, Haber Urmy, L L P. Brian McCormick, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A Fegan Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P Barth Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Vito Spillone, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A Fegan Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P Barth Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Steve W Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul Steel Mishkin Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley Davis Polk Wardwell, Neal Alan Potischman Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell LL P. Barclays Bank Plc Defendant, represented by Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP. Citibank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan M Wiseman Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP, David Marx McDermott, Will Emery LLP, Jonathan James Gimblett Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Mark Jacob Altschul McDermott Will Emery LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Tammy Albarran Covington Burling LLP Thomas A Isaacson Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice. Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, W harton Garrison LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. J P Morgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Alexander Nuo Li Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Francis John Acott Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Lawrence H Heftman Schiff Hardin LLP, Matthew Charles Crowl Schiff Hardin LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Patrick E King Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Banking Group plc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Andrew Fleming Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Polly Davis Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Cliff ord Chance US, LLP, Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Harriet Hoder Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael A Mugmon Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, David Jarrett Arp Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Richard Spratling Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence Jay Zweifach Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. WestLB AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein U S Attorney s Office Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Rabobank Group, Defendant, represented by David Robert Gelfand Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez Milbank, Twwed, Hadley McCloy, LLP Sean Miles Murphy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP. Credit Suisse Group, NA, Defendant, represented by Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Viapiano Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Daryl Andrew Libow Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Michael Howard Steinberg Sullivan Cromwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Royal Bank of Canada, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Arthur W Hahn Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian J Poronsky Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Christian T Kemnitz Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Matthew W Haws Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Defendant, represented b y Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP Jessica Lillian Brach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP Jessica Lillian Brach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP. Barclays Capital Inc Defendant, represented by Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Barclays U S Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Amos Emory Friedland Boies , Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. HSBC Securities USA Inc Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach Gibs on, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. Citiigroup Global Markets Inc Defendant, represented by Alan M Wiseman Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP, Jonathan James Gimblett Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice Thomas A Isaacson Covington Burling, L L P pro hac vice. Bank of Tokyo-Mistsubishi UFJ, Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Bank of America, N A Defendant, represented by Paul Steel Mishkin Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley Davis Polk Wardwell, Neal Alan Potischman Davis Polk Wardwell LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein U S Attorney s Office Robert Frank Wi se, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B A Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, David Robert Gelfand Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Delilah Garcia Vinzon Milbank Tweed Hadley et al, Mark David Villaverde Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez Milbank, Twwed, Hadley McCloy, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Sean Miles Murphy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented by Patrick E King Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. JPMorgan Chase Co, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Chet Alan Kronenberg Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin Simpson Thacher Bartle tt LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Barklays Bank Plc, Defendant, represented by David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Lloyds Banking Group PLS, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. JP Morgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Amos Emory Friedland Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Seth Paris Sullivan Cromwell LLP, David R Boyd Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora Sullivan Cromwell, LLP, Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Yvonne Susan Quinn Sullivan Cromwell, LLP. J P Morgan Chase Bank, N A Defendant, represented by Alexander Nuo Li Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Francis John Acott Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Dixon Hogan Lovells US LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank N A Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Michael Steven Carnevale Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Rachel Se renity Sparks Bradley Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Barclays Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T Scott Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP Jonathan David Schiller Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP. Citigroup, Inc Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. Citibank N A Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Co Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Michael Steven Carnevale Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Chase Bank USA, NA, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. HSBC Bank Plc Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Lloyds Banking Group plc Defendant, represented by Benjamin Andrew Fleming Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann Hogan Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP. Citibank, N A Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd Defendant, represented by Daryl Andrew Libow Sullivan Cromwell LLP. HSBC Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Chase Bank USA, N A Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1, Defendant, represented by Usher T Winslett Winslett Studnicky McCormick Bomser. Barclays Ban k Plc Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell Michael Brille Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon Wilmerhale, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Michael J Zbiegien, Jr Taft, Stettinius Hollister Tracy A Turoff Taft Stettinius Hollister - Cleveland. RBS Citizens, N A f k a Citizens Bank of Massachusetts , Defendant, represented by Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland, Plc, Defendant, represented by Andrea J Robinson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Colin Reardon Wilmerhale. Stephanie Nagel, Defendant, represented by Daniel A Edelman Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice Tiffany Nicole Hardy Edelman, Combs, Latturner Goodwin, LLC. British Bankers Association, Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. BBA Enterprises, Ltd Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. BBA Libor, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Jeff G Hammel Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens Latham Watkins LLP, Jennifer Greenberg Latham Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova Latham Watkins LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Credit Suisse International, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LL P, Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. HSBC Bank USA, N A Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Portigon AG, Defendant, represented by David Hugh Stern Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. RBS Citizens, N A Defendant, represented by Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Michael J Zbiegien, Jr Taft, Stettinius Hollister Tracy A Turoff Taft Stettinius Hollister - Cleveland. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M Unger Sidley Aust in LLP, Andrew W Stern Sidley Austin LLP Thomas Andrew Paskowitz Sidley Austin LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Robert G Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Citigroup Inc Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. J P Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. UBS Limited, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot Bell Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP Peter Sullivan Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer C utler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer, Cutler, Hale Dorr, L L P Jamie Stephen Dycus Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Citigroup Financial Products, Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. ICAP plc, Defendant, represented by Brian S Fraser Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP, H Rowan Gaither, IV Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP Shari A Brandt Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP. Credit Suisse USA Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Elai E Katz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. J P Morgan Markets Ltd Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Lloyds Bank PLC formerly known as Lloyds TSB Bank PLC , Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried Hogan Lovells US LLP Marc Joel Gottridge Hogan Lovells US LLP. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur W Hahn Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian J Poronsky Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Christian T Kemnitz Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. Bank of America Home Loans, Defendant, represented by Debra A Djupman REED SMITH LLP. Bank of America National Association, Defendant, represented by Debra A Djupman REED SMITH LLP Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. CITI SWAPCO INC CITI SWAPCO INC Defendant, represented by Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. J P Morgan Securities, LLC, Defendant, repres ented by Paul Christopher Gluckow Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Thomas C Rice Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Omari Largos Royter Mason Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino Covington Burling LLP Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. Citigroup Funding Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. HSBC Finance Corp Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. HSBC USA Inc Defendant, represented by James Matthew Goodin Locke Lord LLP, Edwin R Deyoung Locke Lord Bissell Liddell LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice Roger Brian Cowie Locke, Liddell Sapp, L L P. Merrill Lynch Co Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Banc of America Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd Defendant, represented by Adam Gabor Mehes Davis Polk Wardwell LLP. Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy Ellis Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP Jeffery Li Ding Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP. Citizens Bank, N A Defendant, represented by Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon Wilmerhale, David S Lesser Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Dorr LLP. Citi Swapco Inc Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin Cleary Gottlieb Jonathan Samuel Kolodner Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP. Lloyds Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr Davis Polk Wardwell L L P. Credit Suisse AG, Defendant, represented by Adam Shawn Mintz Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP Joel Laurence Kurtzberg Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP. HSBC Holdings, PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J Burke Davis Polk Wardwell. UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Stock Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, LLP. County of Mendocino, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy Nanci E Nishimura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. City of Houston, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P O Brien Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K Edling Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, Richard Warren Mithoff, Jr Mithoff Law Firm, Warner Vandergriff Hocker Mithoff Law Nanci E Nishim ura Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy. Tradition America LLC, Pro Se. Direct Action Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs, Pro Se. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD District Judge. I Introduction. Following an unusual, if not unique, appellate journey, we once again address the antitrust claims in this multi-district litigation MDL arising from the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offer Rate LIBOR , which we initially dismissed for lack of antitrust standing in March 2017 In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 935 666 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR I. On this motion, defendants present two bases for dismissal of the antitrust claims first, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over some defendants and second, that plaintiffs lack antitrust standing because they are not efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws Defendants have properly preserved their request to move for dismissal on other bases after the resolution of this motion. For the reasons stated below, defendants motion to dismis s is granted in part and denied in part We grant the moving defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, although such a result means we retain personal jurisdiction over the non-moving defendants 1 We grant the defendants motion to dismiss the putative Bondholder class s claims because they are not efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws While we deny the defendants motion to dismiss on efficient enforcer grounds as to all other antitrust claims, those claims are circumscribed as set forth in this opinion. II Background. The nature of LIBOR, its alleged manipulation, and the parties in this case have been explored in our prior opinions 2 Thus, we assume familiarity with the facts. In LIBOR I, we dismissed the antitrust claims brought by Bondholder plaintiffs, over-the-counter OTC plaintiffs, Exchange-Based plaintiffs, and Schwab plaintiffs for lack of antitrust standing For a plaintiff to have antitrust standing, it must allege that it 1 has experienced antitrust inj ury and 2 is an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws we concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege an antitrust injury As the Bondholders had only brought antitrust claims, their dismissal effectively dismissed the Bondholders case. The Bondholder and Schwab plaintiffs appealed LIBOR I to the Second Circuit, which dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the grounds that we had not issued a final order and LIBOR I did not dispose of all claims in the MDL In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 13-3565-L, 2017 WL 9557843, at 1 2d Cir Oct 30, 2017.The Bondholders sought and were granted certiorari The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the Bondholders right to appeal ripened when we dismissed their case, and not at the eventual completion of the MDL proceedings Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 135 897 900 2017 The Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit for consideration of the merits. The Second Cir cuit issued its merits decision in May 2017 Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 Gelboim The Circuit reversed LIBOR I, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled an antitrust conspiracy 3 and the first prong of antitrust standing, that is, the existence of antitrust injury 4 It remanded to us for further consideration of the second prong of antitrust standing, whether plaintiffs are efficient enforcers The defendants motion followed on a schedule set by the Court in a letter order dated June 7, 2017.III Personal Jurisdiction. The Second Circuit s holding that the plaintiffs adequately pled a conspiracy requires an analysis of that conspiracy and the consequent impact, if any, on whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants This Court observes the teaching of Gelboim and proceeds on the premise that the conspiracy had an impact on price Plaintiffs make much of the Second Circuit s statement that their allegations evince a common motive to conspire increased profits and the projection of financial soundness, Gelboim, 823 F 3d at 781-82 Plaintiffs focus on increased profits as the object of the conspiracy and thus argue that personal jurisdiction may be obtained over all panel banks because of the banks economic activity in the United States Plaintiffs misread and overread Gelboim. It is far from clear that Gelboim should be read to mean that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged increased profits as a goal independent of a conspiracy to project financial soundness Id at 782 Regardless, the premise that the primary goal of the conspiracy was to increase profits by lowering the interest rate the banks had to pay when they were in the role of borrower is not plausible, as Gelboim itself noted C ommon sense dictates that the Banks operated not just as borrowers but also as lenders in transactions that referenced LIBOR It seems strange that this or that bank or any bank would conspire to gain, as a borrower, profits that would be offset by a parity of losses it would suffer as a lender Id at 783 5 The Gelboim court continued this observation as follows On the other hand, the record is undeveloped and it is not even established that the Banks used LIBOR in setting rates for lending transactions Id. However, the record is developed 6 Nor is there a need to rely on common knowledge or common sense There were complaints brought on behalf of student loan holders who asserted that LIBOR manipulation resulted in lowered LIBOR-based borrowing costs These complaints were dismissed precisely because under such an arrangement the loanholders benefited and the defendant banks lost income LIBOR V, 2017 WL 6696407, at 2, 6 Contrary to Shakespeare s advice, Neither a borrower nor a lender be, the defendant banks are both. If, as plaintiffs suggest, the conspiracy were profit-motivated, it would have required all of the sixteen panel banks to have made a parallel decision to be net borrowers of money over the suppression period in the LIBOR-based lending market After five years of voluminous discovery in both civil litigation and government investigations, plaintiffs have not offered evidence that the panel banks made such a decision or were in fact net borrowers. Rather, the object of the conspiracy that the Circuit recognized and which meets the plausibility test is the projection of financial soundness Without question, if implemented, a conspiracy with such an object would, under Gelboim s analysis of antitrust injury, have an impact on price However, as we have previously held, such an object is not sufficiently directed to the United States such as would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over all panel banks. Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that if this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over at least one panel bank, it follows that this Court has personal jurisdiction over all panel banks under the theory of conspiracy jurisdiction Because plaintiffs have failed to establish that any defe ndant committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy in or directed at the United States, this Court has only general personal jurisdiction over certain panel banks as to the antitrust claims, and therefore the conspiracy jurisdiction argument has no purchase. Finally, defendants have not forfeited their personal jurisdiction defense Since the Supreme Court decided Daimler AG v Bauman, 134 746 2017 , and the Second Circuit decided Gucci America, Inc v Weixing Li, 768 F 3d 122 2d Cir 2017 , when the antitrust claims were winding their way up to the Supreme Court on an issue of appellate procedure, defendants had no opportunity to address this personal jurisdiction defense until they properly preserved it in their Second Circuit briefing in the spring of 2017.1 Scope of the Conspiracy. The first step in evaluating personal jurisdiction in a conspiracy case is to define the scope of the conspiracy, because only acts taken pursuant to that conspiracy are jurisdictionally relevant. For over t acts are meaningful only if they are within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement If that agreement did not, expressly or impliedly, contemplate that the conspiracy would continue in its efforts to achieve a particular goal , then the scope of the agreement cannot be broadened retroactively by the fact that the conspirators took steps after the conspiracy which incidentally had that effect. Grunewald v United States, 353 U S 391 414 1957 The consequence is that when questions arise concerning matters such as venue or the statute of limitations, which depend on the formation of the agreement or the occurrence of overt acts, it becomes crucial to determine the scope of the conspiratorial agreement United States v Rosenblatt, 554 F 2d 36 39 2d Cir 1977 internal quotation marks and citations omitted. This approach applies equally to civil cases and to questions concerning personal jurisdiction See, e g In re Sumitomo Copper Litig 120 328 340, 342 S D N Y 2000 personal jurisdiction atta ched in New York over foreign defendants because Plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the copper market, including copper traded on New York s Comex, and committed tortious acts in New York in furtherance of that conspiracy As an example of the necessary analysis, in the price-fixing case United States v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co 310 U S 150 1940 , the Supreme Court explained that absent evidence that the conspiracy was formed within the Western District of Wisconsin, the trial court was without jurisdiction unless some act pursuant to the conspiracy took place there Id at 252 The Court then inquired into the chief end and objective of the price-fixing conspiracy, finding it to be the raising and maintenance of Mid-Western prices at higher levels Id at 253 Sales of price-fixed products were therefore jurisdictionally relevant to the conspiracy. T he objectives of the conspiracy would fail if respondents did not by some formula or method relate their sales in the Mid-Western area to the spot market prices or if respondents, contrary to the philosophy of all the stabilization efforts, indulged in price cutting and price wars In sum, the conspiracy contemplated and embraced, at least by clear implication, sales to jobbers and consumers in the Mid-Western area at the enhanced prices The making of those sales supplied part of the continuous cooperation necessary to keep the conspiracy alive. Id internal quotation marks omitted With these facts, the Court found that personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Wisconsin attached 7.Despite plaintiffs protestations at oral argument, it should be uncontroversial that the jurisdictional relevance of an act depends on the goal of the conspiracy In fact, plaintiffs themselves implicitly recognize this principle, which is why they exert such effort to define the conspiracy as one with a profit motive See, e g Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 1, ECF No 1524 arguing that given the reference to increased profits in the Second Circuit s opinion, Gelboim thus brings into the jurisdictional analysis of Plaintiffs antitrust claims a wider range of conduct than that which was relevant to the non-conspiratorial data fraud claims. We reject plaintiffs attempt to read the Second Circuit s opinion so broadly, and we find that plaintiffs have only sufficiently alleged that the goal of the antitrust conspiracy was the projection of financial soundness The Circuit s examples of the allegations that evince a common motive to conspire pertained only to the banks reputational concerns, not an independent motive to reap profits on persistently suppressed LIBOR by maintaining one bank-wide position throughout the class period Id at 782 n 19 More importantly, the Circuit went on to observe that a profit motive in the persistent suppression conspiracy is logically unsound C ommon sense dicta tes that the Banks operated not just as borrowers but also as lenders in transactions that referenced LIBOR Banks do not stockpile money, any more than bakers stockpile yeast It seems strange that this or that bank or any bank would conspire to gain, as a borrower, profits that would be offset by a parity of losses it would suffer as a lender Id at 783 The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Circuit meant increased profits and the projection of financial soundness to describe collectively a single, reputation-based motive to conspire, where increased profits followed from a positive reputation 8.In fact, taking the Circuit s observation one step further, the defendant banks could not have profited on transactions in the course of a persistent suppression conspiracy unless each bank borrowed more money using a LIBOR-based interest rate than the amount it lent using a LIBOR-based interest rate throughout the class period The corollary is that for a transaction-based profit motive to exist, the panel banks would have had to fix LIBOR with the parallel intent to be a net borrower across the suppression period Both propositions are implausible. In re Commodity Exchange, Inc Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, No 14-MD-2548 VEC , 2017 WL 5794776 S D N Y Oct 3, 2017 Gold , is instructive Like in this case, the plaintiffs in Gold asserting antitrust claims alleged both persistent suppression and trader-based manipulation of gold prices although these theories are not so labeled in that case Id at 5-6 Like in this case, the Gold court found a profit motive in the trader-based conspiracy to be plausible, because banks could predictably cause gold prices to rise or fall at the Gold Fixing and therefore strategically buy low and sell high in ways that other non-Fixing market participants could not Id at 19 In contrast, the Gold court found implausible a profit motive in the persistent suppression of gold prices, which would have required plaintiffs to show that defe ndants held net short gold futures positions on COMEX, which allowed them to profit when the price of gold fell Id at 18 Even after evaluating plaintiffs data showing that large bullion banks were as a whole net short on gold futures and options throughout the class period, the court concluded that the data does not plausibly support an allegation that any particular bank was net short at any particular time let alone that all of the Defendants were net short throughout the alleged conspiratorial period and that the data fatally excluded defendants positions in other relevant markets Id. Allegations that defendants were net borrowers in the LIBOR persistent suppression conspiracy are even less availing Unlike in Gold, where the plaintiffs at least presented data showing an aggregate net short position, the plaintiffs here are empty-handed To the extent the complaints say anything about net borrowing at all, 9 they rely on information regarding interest rates generally, not USD LIBOR spe cifically 10 draw conclusions based on information that has nothing to do with LIBOR suppression 11 and advance unsupported assertions 12.The one allegation that approaches the line between conceivable and plausible, Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly, 550 U S 544, 570 2007 , is that of plaintiffs FDIC and Freddie Mac, who quote from Bank of America s 2008 Annual Report that Bank of America is liability sensitive to LIBOR Fed Deposit Ins Corp v Bank of Am Corp Am Compl 81, No 14-cv-1757 NRB , ECF No 23 FDIC Compl quoting Bank of Am 2008 Annual Report, at 88 2008 , available at Freddie Mac Compl 89 same Taken in context, however, this statement is not sufficient The full sentence in the Annual Report includes an important modifier We are typically asset sensitive to Federal Funds and Prime rates, and liability sensitive to LIBOR Bank of Am 2008 Annual Report, at 88 emphasis added The paragraph goes on to say, At December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate had significantly widened since December 31, 2007 As the Federal Funds and LIBOR dislocation widens, the benefit to net interest income from lower rates is limited Subsequent to December 31, 2008, the spread between the three-month LIBOR rate and the Federal Funds target rate has narrowed Id This paragraph offers no assistance to plaintiffs as in Gold, it does not plausibly support an allegation that Bank of America was a net borrower on LIBOR-based products at a particular time, much less that Bank of America was a net borrower throughout the class period, and even less that all defendants were net borrowers throughout the class period Cf Gold, 2017 WL 5794776, at 18 When pressed at oral argument for evidence that the banks were in fact net borrowers, plaintiffs had none Tr 10 1-9 13.As to the necessary parallel intent to be net borrowers, Plaintiffs have neither allegations nor evidence that this parallel intent existed or would be logical. What is logical and what i s supported by specific allegations and evidence is a conspiracy aimed at the projection of financial soundness 14 The plaintiffs complaints are replete with admissions from defendant banks that, for example. The instructions at UBS to suppress USD LIBOR to stay within the pack and err on the low side were issued, at least in significant part, because of concerns that if UBS submitted higher LIBOR rates relative to other banks, UBS could attract negative attention in the media In so acting, UBS sought to avoid negative media attention and, relatedly, sought to avoid creating an impression that it was having difficulty obtaining funds To the extent those directions from UBS management were motivated by reputational concerns, they were inconsistent with the definition of LIBOR. OTC Compl 69 quoting Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and UBS AG, App x A, Statement of Facts 100, Dec 18, 2017 UBS DOJ SOF and. O n September 22, 2008, a UBS employee wrote in an electronic chat that the real cash market isn t trading anywhere near LIBOR, and he suspected the reason was that Banks undervalue LIBOR in times like this so as to not show where they really pay in case it creates headlines about that bank being desperate for cash. Id 70 quoting UBS DOJ SOF 101 internal alterations omitted and. Because managers sought to avoid what they believed would be an inaccurate perception that Barclays was not in good financial shape when compared to its peers, Barclays engaged in this misconduct in order to reduce the reputational risk associated with proper, higher LIBOR submissions In other words, the DOJ explained borrowing from Barclays employees comments in internal communications the purpose of the strategy of under-reporting Dollar LIBORs was to keep Barclays s head below the parapet so that it did not get shot off. Id 71 c quoting Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Barclays Bank PLC, App x A, Statement of Facts 40, June 26, 2017 emphases omitted. Because the projection of financial soundness is the only sufficiently pled goal of the persistent suppression conspiracy, we adhere to our earlier ruling that the contacts relevant to specific jurisdiction are only those in the forum containing the office from which a defendant determined, or transmitted, a false LIBOR submission LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 32.In this context, plaintiffs entreat us to rely on the sales of LIBOR-based financial products in the United States regardless of the motive of the defendants Such reliance would be misplaced since defendants need not engage in any market transactions at all to affect the LIBOR fix Mem Order, 2017 WL 1558504, at 7 S D N Y Apr 15, 2017 , ECF No 1380 This case is different from Socony-Vacuum Oil, in which the Supreme Court reasoned that goal of the conspiracy the raising and maintenance of high prices would have been vitiated had the defendants engaged in price cutting and price wars the result was that the conspiracy necessarily involved selling price-manipulated products into the jurisdiction 310 U S at 253 Here, the goal of the conspiracy would have succeeded regardless of whether any defendants based their products on LIBOR and regardless of whether any defendant bank increased or decreased the margin on their LIBOR-based products The sales of LIBOR-based products are not meaningful in a jurisdictional analysis because they were not within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement and the scope of the agreement cannot be broadened retroactively by the fact that the conspirators took steps after the conspiracy which incidentally had a particular effect Grunewald, 353 U S at 414.2 Due Process Analysis. On a Rule 12 b 2 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over each defendant Metro Life Ins Co v Robert son-Ceco Corp 84 F 3d 560 566 2d Cir 1996 Whether the court has jurisdiction over a defendant is governed by a combination of state law, federal statute, and principles of due process, but the due process analysis must be undertaken in every case In re Aluminum Warehouse Antitrust Litig 90 219 223 S D N Y 2017.Plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdiction must include an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept 11, 2001 714 F 3d 659 673 2d Cir 2017 The court has considerable procedural leeway It may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone or it may permit discovery in aid of the motion or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion Dorchester Fin Sec Inc v Banco BRJ, S A 722 F 3d 81 84 2d Cir 2017 In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the court must construe the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, r esolving all doubts in their favor, Porina v Marward Shipping Co 521 F 3d 122 126 2d Cir 2008 , although it may not draw argumentative inferences in the plaintiff s favor, Robinson v Overseas Military Sales Corp 21 F 3d 502 507 2d Cir 1994 internal quotation marks omitted. The due process analysis of specific personal jurisdiction requires the court to evaluate first, whether the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum, and second, whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unreasonable as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Walden v Fiore 134 1115 1121 2017 Due process limits on a court s adjudicative authority principally protect the liberty of the nonresident defendant not the convenience of plaintiffs or third parties Id at 1122.Additionally, specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, and therefore the defendant s suit-related conduct must have created a subst antial connection with the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 27 internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted The relevant forum for the assessment of minimum contacts is the United States as a whole Id at 23.We reject any suggestion that Bank Brussels Lambert v Fiddler Gonzalez Rodriguez 305 F 3d 120 2d Cir 2002 , relaxed the minimum contacts standard to a mere relatedness standard Bank Brussels itself explained that, in that case, the jurisdictionally relevant activities proximately caused the engagement of the law firm at issue Id at 128 We repeat our prior holding that specific jurisdiction requires no less than a but for connection between the defendant s forum-directed activities and the claim LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 28 Therefore, any allegations of forum-related contacts that relate to the antitrust conspiracy but that are not causally connected to actual LIBOR submissions are jurisdictionally insufficient. Plaintiffs have failed to show that overt acts in fu rtherance of the reputation-driven antitrust conspiracy occurred in or were aimed at the United States Plaintiffs have inundated this Court with vacuous submissions derived from millions of pages of discovery, including some made at the eleventh hour immediately prior to oral argument and even some made after oral argument While the volume makes it impossible to address every individual allegation, generally speaking the submissions pertain to trader-based allegations, manipulation of LIBOR pegged to other currencies, color about the state of USD LIBOR, marketing activities everything but what the plaintiffs are actually required to plead While for present purposes we accept plaintiffs many jurisdictional allegations as true, we find them ultimately insufficient Most of the allegations fail to address whether defendants determined, or transmitted, a false LIBOR submission from the United States the few allegations that attempt to do so are unavailing. First, defendants sales and trades of LIBOR-based products to plaintiffs in the United States are not within the scope of the reputation-motivated antitrust conspiracy Likewise, trader-based allegations have no relevance here It bears repeating that defendants sales of LIBOR-based products to plaintiffs in a forum are sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction under certain contract claims, unjust enrichment claims, and fraud claims, and plaintiffs may seek recovery for damages under those theories Sunward Elecs Inc v McDonald 362 F 3d 17 24 2d Cir 2004 a plaintiff asserting specific personal jurisdiction must establish the court s jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted emphasis in original e g LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 31 S wap agreements support personal jurisdiction in the plaintiffs home forums over claims whether pleaded in contract, unjust enrichment, or tort concerning the contractual relationships that they embody id at 37 W e also uphold jurisdiction where a bond was issued in such claims against bond obligors. Second, plaintiffs allege that defendants aimed their conduct at the United States under the Calder effects test The Calder effects test requires plaintiffs to show purposeful direction, where the defendant took intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions expressly aimed at the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 27 internal quotation marks and citations omitted 15 None of plaintiffs voluminous submissions persuade us to alter our prior holdings that there is no suggestion, and it does not stand to reason, that foreign defendants aimed their manipulative persistent suppression conduct at the United States or any particular forum state Id at 32 As plaintiffs acknowledge, it would be necessary to disturb that holding only if plaintiffs sufficiently pled a profit-motivated conspiracy, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 14-15, 16 which they have not, supra Indeed, the present case is to be contrasted with the antitrust cases on which plaintiffs rely and in which courts have sustai ned personal jurisdiction in the United States under the effects test In those cases, the court expressly or impliedly found that the conspiracy s goal was to inflict supracompetitive prices on foreign countries such as the United States, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig No 05-CV-453 BMC JO, 2017 WL 12355046, at 12 S D N Y Aug 8, 2017 , thus making sales of price-fixed products relevant which is not the case here See also In re Fasteners Antitrust Litig No 08-MD-1912, 2011 WL 3563989, at 13 E D Pa Aug 12, 2011 co-conspirators agreed to future price increases in North America In re Cathode Ray Tube CRT Antitrust Litig 27 1002 1012 N D Cal 2017 co-conspirators coordinated pricing decisions in relation to United States market conditions And contrary to plaintiffs argument that suffer ing the brunt of the harm in the United States alone is sufficient for jurisdiction, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 19-20, under the due process inquiry it is the defendant s conduct that must form the necessa ry connection Walden 134 S Ct at 1122 see also Mobile Anesthesiologists Chi LLC v Anesthesia Assocs of Houston Metroplex, P A 623 F 3d 440 445 n 1 7th Cir 2010 Calder focuses on whether the defendant intentionally aimed its conduct at the forum state rather than on the possibly incidental and constitutionally irrelevant effects of that conduct on the plaintiff. Third, as we have already held, marketing activities are jurisdictionally irrelevant in the persistent suppression conspiracy T hat a panel bank defendant engaged in LIBOR marketing activities which reached a given forum state does not mean that the same defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in that state on the basis of the defendant s manipulation of LIBOR It is incontrovertible that the importance of LIBOR was its universal significance, not its projection into any particular state, and plaintiffs do not plead otherwise LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 30.Fourth, plaintiffs rely on allegations regarding panel banks subsidi aries and affiliates in the United States, but have not pleaded facts or submitted supporting material that suggests that any panel bank s United States-based affiliate played a role in that bank s alleged suppression of LIBOR Mem Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3 S D N Y Apr 29, 2017 , ECF No 1396 April 29 Order For plaintiffs to establish personal jurisdiction through the activity of banks subsidiaries and affiliates, plaintiffs must first show a merging of parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes , which requires an inquiry comparable to the corporate law question of piercing the corporate veil Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S A v Brown 564 U S 915, 930 2011 internal quotation marks omitted Plaintiffs must then show that the defendants affiliates or subsidiaries took jurisdictionally relevant acts consistent with the principles we have set out for the panel bank defendants Here, plaintiffs have done neither they merely allege that defendants affiliates participated in USD LIB OR suppression and sold price-fixed LIBOR-based instruments in the United States Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 10 17 To reiterate, the fact of significant activity, by a defendant or affiliates, in this country, combined with some evidence of LIBOR manipulation in London, provides no indication that the LIBOR determination and submission process occurred any place other than outside the United States April 29 Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3.Fifth, plaintiffs allege that LIBOR submissions were transmitted to Thomson Reuters in New York, as stated by former Rabobank trader Lee Stewart in his plea allocution in United States v Stewart Case No 1 14-cr-00272-JSR S D N Y , Tr at 15 3-6, Apr 1, 2017, ECF No 46 Stewart Tr 18 As defendants point out, it is unlikely that Lee Stewart, who was not a LIBOR submitter, had personal knowledge of the location from which Thomson Reuters received LIBOR submissions 19 Furthermore, it is implausible that Thomson Reuters in New York would be in the role of accepting LIBOR submissions at around 11 00 a m London time 6 00 or 7 00 a m New York time In any event, an allegation that the submissions were sent to New York, without additional allegations that any person or entity did anything further with the submissions in the United States, is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction Laydon v Mizuho Bank, Ltd No 12 CIV 3419 GBD, 2017 WL 1515358, at 3 S D N Y Mar 31, 2017 Communications that passed through and or were stored within the United States are insufficient to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant internal quotation marks omitted. The few allegations that do address the forum in which a defendant determined or transmitted a false LIBOR submission are easily discounted, especially in light of the moving defendants declarations stating that they did not determine or transmit their LIBOR submissions from the United States Kurtzberg Decl Ex 1, ECF No 1484 Connors Decl ECF No 1590.Taking these allegations seriatim, plaintiffs misleadingl y suggest that one of Citibank s USD LIBOR submitters requested a submission from New York, Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 8, but defendants have put forward a sworn document stating that this individual was no longer Citibank s USD LIBOR submitter at the time that plaintiffs allege he was present in New York, Kurtzberg Reply Decl Ex 2 at 10, ECF No 1546.Plaintiffs also allege that a senior JPMorgan executive in New York directed JPMorgan s LIBOR submissions, OTC Pls Supp Mem of Law in Opp n 3, ECF No 1508, but the substance of the exchange contains nothing more than intrabank communications regarding the executive s thoughts on LIBOR levels, see LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 60 such individuals do not purport to do anything more than to state a sincere opinion based on publicly available information. Plaintiffs cite UBS s settlement papers with the U S Department of Justice to argue that UBS has admitted that an executive in Connecticut directed that submissions for all currencies stay l ow and instituted a policy that submissions for all currencies stay within the pack Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 9 citing UBS DOJ SOF 108 UBS s actual admission reads T he manager of the Yen trading desk understood that this direction to submit low LIBOR contributions was issued by the senior manager of Group Treasury based in Stamford in order to make the bank appear more creditworthy, and that it applied to all currencies UBS DOJ SOF 108 Plaintiffs stretch the admission to the breaking point The admission regards a Yen LIBOR trader s understanding as to the source of the policy, but the Statement of Facts itself explains that the actual source of the policy was an ALM senior manager in Zurich Id 102 Thus, the Statement of Facts does not contradict UBS s sworn statement to the Court that n o UBS employee in the United States determined or submitted USD LIBOR to the British Bankers Association BBA during the relevant time 2005 to 2017 Connors Decl 3, ECF No 1590.Finally, plaintiffs al lege that New York-based entity Credit Suisse First Boston made USD LIBOR submissions on behalf of Credit Suisse OTC Pls Supp Mem of Law in Opp n 4 The document on which plaintiffs rely is nothing more than a high-level market commentary e-mail from the Royal Bank of Scotland, sent to a host of third parties, that makes a stray reference to Credit Suisse First Boston Joint Decl of Kovel Hausfeld, Ex 60 at 11, ECF No 1510 This document does not credibly support the allegation. When the allegations are evaluated soberly, plaintiffs fail to carry their burden of making a prima facie showing of minimum contacts Plaintiffs protest that a t its core, Defendants Motion rests on the absurd premise that domestic victims of a price-fixing cartel should be precluded from bringing suit in the U S against the members of that cartel, some of whom are domiciled in the U S for harm caused by the cartel s conduct in or aimed at the U S Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 3 Plaintiffs rhetoric is unconvincing Of course, defendants that are domiciled in the relevant forum are subject to general personal jurisdiction, and neither the Court nor the non-moving defendants 20 contest that principle it is black-letter law that harm experienced in a forum is not sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have not shown that the persistent suppression conspiracy, as distinguished from the trader-based conspiracy, is aimed at the United States. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden under the first prong, purposeful availment, of the due process analysis as to all moving defendants Therefore, we need not reach the second prong, whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice We also need not reach defendants arguments regarding lack of venue.3 Pendent Jurisdiction. The non-moving defendants concede that we have general personal jurisdiction over them as to the relevant federal and state antitrust claims, so we need not address pendent jurisdiction as to the state antitrust claims. In contrast, we decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over antitrust claims, whether they be federal or state, based on forum selection clauses in particular contracts or based on the location from which a bond was issued We repeat that not all claims against a counterparty may be brought in a contractually selected forum The claim must relate to the particular contractual relationship Thus, for example, we will not uphold jurisdiction over a counterparty for all fraud claims that a plaintiff might bring against that counterparty on the basis of the forum selection clause LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 34 see also Mem Order, 2017 WL 4773129, at 2 S D N Y Sept 12, 2017 , ECF No 1557 Likewise, we will not uphold jurisdiction over a counterparty for antitrust claims simply on the basis of a forum selection clause or the location from which a bond was issued.4 Conspiracy Jurisdiction. Plai ntiffs assert that, under the theory of conspiracy personal jurisdiction, we have personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants C ourts that have recognized personal jurisdiction on the basis of conspiracy have required plaintiffs to 1 make a prima facie factual showing of a conspiracy 2 allege specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy and 3 show that the defendant s co-conspirator committed a tortious act pursuant to the conspiracy in the forum LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 34 internal quotation marks and alterations omitted. Given that plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any defendant committed an act pursuant to the pled conspiracy in the United States, conspiracy jurisdiction does not apply here In making this ruling, we do not express an opinion as to whether conspiracy jurisdiction survives as a doctrine after the Supreme Court s ruling in Walden v Fiore 134 1115 2017 , and after recent opinions in the Southern District of N ew York, such as In re Alumnium Warehousing Antitrust Litigation 90 219 S D N Y 2017 , and Laydon v Mizuho Bank, Ltd No 12 CIV 3419 GBD, 2017 WL 1515358 S D N Y Mar 31, 2017.5 Forfeiture. Plaintiffs argue that defendants have forfeited their personal jurisdiction arguments on the antitrust claims through defendants availment of the United States courts This argument is meritless. Although there is a dearth of caselaw defining precisely what types of appearances and filings qualify to forfeit a personal jurisdiction defense, it is evident that not all do Gerber v Riordan 649 F 3d 514 519 6th Cir 2011 The touchstone is that to forfeit a personal jurisdiction defense, a defendant must give a plaintiff a reasonable expectation that it will defend the suit on the merits or must cause the court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later found lacking Corporacion Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v Pemex-Exploracion Y Produccion Pemex , 832 F 3d 92 102 2d Cir 2 016 The rationale is that defendants should raise such preliminary matters before the court s and parties time is consumed in struggle over the substance of the suit Dem Rep of Congo v FG Hemisphere Assocs LLC 508 F 3d 1062 1064 D C Cir 2007 But a party cannot be deemed to have waived objections or defenses which were not known to be available at the time they could first have been made, especially when it does raise the objections as soon as their cognizability is made apparent Holzsager v Valley Hosp 646 F 2d 792 796 2d Cir 1981.We initially dismissed plaintiffs antitrust claims in March 2017 LIBOR I 935 666 Certain plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in October 2017, the Second Circuit sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig Nos 13-3565-L 13-3636 Con , 2017 WL 9557843 2d Cir Oct 30, 2017 In March 2017, the Bondholder plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, presenting the question, Is the right to appeal secured by 28 U S C 1291 affected when a case is consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation or MDL authorized by 28 U S C 1407 Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 135 897 901 2017 That question was fully briefed by November 2017.Between the time the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal and the completion of briefing in the Supreme Court, jurisdictional defenses became available to the defendants the Supreme Court decided Daimler, 134 746 in January 2017 and the Second Circuit decided Gucci 768 F 3d 122 in September 2017 Defendants raised Daimler - based jurisdictional defenses in the cases still pending before this Court Kurtzberg Letter, Aug 13, 2017, ECF No 601.In January 2017, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded for a decision on the merits In April 2017 before merits briefing began in May 2017 , defendants noted to the Second Circuit that they expressly preserve all defenses regarding personal jurisdiction as to all matters on appeal Def s - Appellees Mot to Consolidate Appeals 5 n 4, Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 No 13-3565 , ECF No 221 Additionally, in the merits briefing in May 2017, defendants noted that t wenty of the twenty-five actions on appeal are subject to motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pending in the district court and in the remaining actions, certain defendants intend to assert personal jurisdiction defenses before the district court at an appropriate time, if necessary Joint Br for Defs - Appellees 28 n 23, Gelboim v Bank of Am Corp 823 F 3d 759 2d Cir 2017 No 13-3565 , ECF No 464 These statements were sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice that, if the antitrust claims were to be reinstated, defendants would move for dismissal on this basis 21.Given this timeline, the only plausible argument that plaintiffs can make is that the defendants should have preserved their newfound personal jurisdictional defense as to the antitrust claims in their opposition to pla intiffs petition for certiorari on May 27, 2017, or in their opposition brief in the Supreme Court on October 15, 2017, because those briefs are the only substantive submissions that defendants had the opportunity to make in any court in the Bondholder case between March 2017 and April 2017 22.We conclude that defendants failure to mention the personal jurisdiction defense in their Supreme Court briefs in no way created a reasonable expectation that they would defend the suit on the merits or cause d the court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later found lacking, Pemex 832 F 3d at 102 There is no reason to think that the Supreme Court s decision on the writ of certiorari would have been affected by an inchoate personal jurisdiction defense that had not been raised in or evaluated by a lower court Furthermore, the Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the scope of the Second Circuit s power to take an appeal in a multidistrict litigation, and t he Court does not countenance briefing on questions on which it has not granted certiorari See Supreme Court Rule 24 1 a T he brief may not raise additional questions or change the substance of the questions that have been presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari or the jurisdictional statement Plaintiffs somewhat bizarrely suggest that defendants should have 1 asked the Supreme Court to remand so that the defendants could move the district court to consider a personal jurisdiction defense on claims that the district court had already dismissed or 2 asserted the defense despite the Supreme Court s rules Bondholder Pls Supp Mem in Opp n 3, ECF No 1499 These suggestions only serve to highlight how groundless the plaintiffs position is. In this regard, plaintiffs heavy reliance on Pemex is misplaced In Pemex the defendant lost in the district court and appealed to the Second Circuit on several grounds, including for lack of personal jurisdiction 832 F 3d at 101 After a new develo pment during the course of the appeal, the defendant-appellant asked the Second Circuit to remand to the Southern District so that the district court could consider the merits of the case Once the Southern District ruled against the defendant-appellant, the defendant-appellant reasserted its challenge of personal jurisdiction The Second Circuit held that the defendant-appellant waived its personal jurisdiction defense because it had affirmatively asked the Second Circuit to send the case back to the Southern District in hopes of a favorable merits ruling below Id. Defendants have done nothing of the sort here After the Supreme Court s decision, defendants appropriately preserved the personal jurisdiction defense in the Second Circuit and subsequently moved on personal jurisdiction grounds in this Court at the first opportunity they could post - Daimler and so have not forfeited the defense 23 Thus, we apply here our prior holding that i n light of the change in the law of personal jurisd iction as applied to foreign banks under Daimler and Gucci and finding no prejudice to plaintiffs from a successive motion, we do not consider defendants Rule 12 b 2 motion improper or inappropriate LIBOR V 2017 WL 6696407, at 18.6 Request for Jurisdictional Discovery. Despite the tomes of submissions, plaintiffs have not made a threshold showing that there is some basis for the assertion of jurisdiction Daval Steel Prods v M V Juraj Dalmatinac 718 159 162 S D N Y 1989 We therefore exercise our discretion to deny jurisdictional discovery Frontera Res Azer Corp v State Oil Co of Azer Republic 582 F 3d 393 401 2d Cir 2009 see April 29 Order, 2017 WL 1733463, at 3 P laintiffs submissions do not identify facts that indicate that discovery could show that the relevant defendants determined or submitted LIBOR in forums that would allow this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction. IV Efficient Enforcer. The four efficient enforcer factors are 1 the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury, which requires evaluation of the chain of causation linking appellants asserted injury and the Banks alleged price-fixing 2 the existence of more direct victims of the alleged conspiracy 3 the extent to which appellants damages claim is highly speculative and 4 the importance of avoiding either the risk of duplicate recoveries on the one hand, or the danger of complex apportionment of damages on the other Gelboim 823 F 3d at 778 quoting Associated Gen Contractors of Cal Inc v Cal State Council of Carpenters AGC , 459 U S 519 540-45 1983 internal quotation marks omitted. These factors are meant to guide a court in exploring the fundamental issue of whether the putative plaintiff is a proper party to perform the office of a private attorney general and thereby vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement Gelboim 823 F 3d at 780 internal quotation marks omitted After all, i t is commo n ground that the judicial remedy cannot encompass every conceivable harm that can be traced to alleged wrongdoing AGC 459 U S at 536 Indeed, t here is a similarity between the struggle of common-law judges to articulate a precise definition of the concept of proximate cause, and the struggle of federal judges to articulate a precise test to determine whether a party injured by an antitrust violation may recover treble damages Id at 535-36 In both situations, the court must draw a line beyond which a defendant will not be held responsible for harm experienced by a plaintiff See id at 534 And in both situations, no black-letter rule exists a court must exercise its judgment in deciding whether the law affords a remedy in specific circumstances Id at 536-37 While all efficient enforcer analyses require the exercise of judgment, the task before us is particularly challenging because, as the Second Circuit recognized in Gelboim there are features of this case that make it like no other 823 F 3d at 778.In this regard, it is clear that the Second Circuit believed that not all plaintiffs should survive the efficient enforcer analysis Of particular concern was the specter that r equiring the Banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent LIBOR-denominated derivative swap would not only bankrupt 16 of the world s most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated Id at 779 Though the Circuit s preliminary views were offered in dicta, we are deferential to them. In their papers on this motion, defendants note the failure of plaintiffs to plead specifics about particular transactions While we likewise observe the manifest deficiencies in many of the pleadings despite multiple opportunities to amend or supplement them, we do not find that these deficiencies prevent us from evaluating the efficient enforcer factors However, these deficiencies may affect other antitrust issues or the adequacy of the pleadings more broadly. We consider each of the efficient enforcer factors in turn.1 Causation. Under the first factor, courts examine whether the violation was a direct or remote cause of the injury Gelboim 823 F 3d at 772 The concern associated with remote causation particularly in the present case is that defendants will face damages disproportionate to wrongdoing Id at 779.One consideration in determining causation is whether plaintiffs transacted with defendants directly See 2A Areeda Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law 335c 3 2017 Beyond the actual customers, most other plaintiffs would be classified as remote and denied standing even though they have suffered injury-in-fact Plaintiffs who purchased products from non-defendants but allege that defendants actions raised their prices are called umbrella purchasers 24 Some courts reject standing of umbrella purchasers because significant intervening causative f actors, most notably, the independent pricing decisions of non-conspiring retailers, attenuate the causal connection between the violation and the injury Gold, 2017 WL 5794776, at 13 quoting Gross v New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc 955 242 245-47 S D N Y 1997 In such circumstances, the defendants secured no illegal benefit at the plaintiffs expense, and permitting recovery in such a transaction could subject antitrust violators to potentially ruinous liabilities, well in excess of their illegally-earned profits Mid-West Paper Prods Co v Cont l Grp Inc 596 F 2d 573 583, 586 3d Cir 1979.Although t he antitrust laws do not require a plaintiff to have purchased directly from a defendant in order to have antitrust standing, In re Foreign Exch Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig FOREX , No 13 CIV 7789 LGS , 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 S D N Y Sept 20, 2017 , a determination of standing in an individual antitrust case is highly fact-specific, AGC 459 U S at 536-37 In this case, we are persuaded to draw a line between plaintiffs who transacted directly with defendants and those who did not A plaintiff and a third party could, and did, easily incorporate LIBOR into a financial transaction without any action by defendants whatsoever Their independent decision to do so breaks the chain of causation between defendants actions and a plaintiff s injury. Counsel for the Bondholder plaintiffs effectively conceded as much at oral argument Tr 47 15-48 1 I magine that I walk into Citibank, and say I want to borrow 100,000 And we negotiate over the terms and one of the terms that we put in is LIBOR I t is not proximately caused because we made the independent decision, the banker and I, to put LIBOR in id 53 19-22 If we were just saying anybody who has LIBOR in their price could come in and be a plaintiff in this case, then you would have a real question of proximate causation Counsel attempted to distinguish those hypothetical plaintiffs from the Bondholder plaintiffs under the theory that the fo rmer concerns the impermissibly broad worldwide market for money, whereas the latter concerns only the LIBOR-denominated bond market Id 53 6-15 This artificial market delineation is unrelated to the causation question and has no analytical force Even if we accepted that the relevant market should be the LIBOR-denominated bond market, plaintiffs who did not purchase directly from defendants continue to face the same hurdle they made their own decisions to incorporate LIBOR into their transactions, over which defendants had no control, in which defendants had no input, and from which defendants did not profit To hold defendants trebly responsible for these decisions would result in damages disproportionate to wrongdoing Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.Therefore, where a plaintiff s counterparty is reasonably ascertainable and is not a defendant bank, 25 a plaintiff is not an efficient enforcer Accordingly, the Bondholder plaintiffs lack antitrust standing, and their antitrust claims are dismisse d. The above framework is not readily transferable to the Eurodollar futures market Tr 84 21-24 The Chicago Mercantile Exchange , legally, at its clearing house, takes the role of intermediary , removing counter-party risk from the buyer and the seller So, the CME is the counter-party to both contracts Therefore, the approach utilized by Judge Schofield in FOREX is helpful here In FOREX Judge Schofield examined the portion of the FX market that the defendants controlled, concluding that the causation factor had been met because of the allegation that the defendants dominated the FX market with a combined market share of over 90 as significant participants in both OTC and exchange transactions 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 internal alterations omitted 26 This approach essentially may be viewed as a proxy for the question of direct causation if defendants control led only a small percentage of the ultimate identified market, then plaintiffs claims may generate damages disproportionate to wrongdoi ng Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.Exchange-Based Plaintiffs endeavored to meet the FOREX standard by alleging that from October 2008 through December 2010, all 16 panel bank defendants or their affiliates were large traders of Eurodollar futures and options, and large traders comprised 70 to 90 percent of that market Kovel Hausfeld Joint Decl Ex 1, ECF No 1510 Lovell Kovel Letter 3 n 2, ECF No 1650 They neglected to mention that the number of defendant banks was dwarfed by the total population of over 2,900 large traders in that market during the same time period Gluckow Letter 5 n 12, ECF No 1661 27 Even so, it remains possible that the panel banks, which included some of the world s largest financial institutions, together controlled a large percentage of the market, measured by number of trades or by dollar amount As of now, there is simply not a sufficient record on the issue of market control Although we are skeptical that the Exchange-Based plaintiffs can ultimately show that the defend ants controlled the market, we defer that determination to a later stage.2 Existence of More Direct Victims. Under this factor, courts examine whether there exists a class that suffered an antitrust injury more directly than the present class and therefore would be more suited to bring an antitrust claim AGC 459 U S at 542.The Second Circuit expressly recognized that even though appellants allege status as consumers, in this case directness may have diminished weight because one peculiar feature of this case is that remote victims who acquired LIBOR-based instruments from any of thousands of non-defendant banks would be injured to the same extent and in the same way as direct customers of the Banks Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779.We agree that this factor must carry diminished weight Any other result would vitiate the first prong of causation See Daniel v Am Bd of Emergency Med 428 F 3d 408 443 2d Cir 2005 T he weight to be given the various efficient enforcer factors will necessarily vary with the circumstances of particular cases.3 Speculative Damages. While the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created, In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig 585 F 3d 677 689 2d Cir 2009 , at the same time highly speculative damages is a sign that a given plaintiff is an inefficient engine of enforcement, Gelboim 823 F 3d at 779 The Second Circuit expressed skepticism that some of the present antitrust claims could survive this factor, opining, Any damages estimate would require evidence to support a just and reasonable estimate of damages, and it is difficult to see how appellants would arrive at such an estimate, even with the aid of expert testimony Id. In evaluating standing in price-fixing cases, damages may be unduly speculative for several reasons. One reason is that the damages claim is conclusory E g AGC, 459 U S at 542-43 damages were speculative because there was no allegation that any collective bargaining agreement was terminated as a result of the coercion, no allegation that the aggregate share of the contracting market controlled by union firms has diminished, no allegation that the number of employed union members has declined, and no allegation that the Union s revenues in the form of dues or initiation fees have decreased. A second reason is that the injury is so far down the chain of causation from defendants actions that it would be impossible to untangle the impact of the fixed price from the impact of intervening market decisions This rationale tends to dovetail with the first factor of direct causation E g Reading Indus Inc v Kennecott Copper Corp 631 F 2d 10 13 2d Cir 1980.A third reason is that, due to external market factors, there is no relationship between the fixed price and the price that the plaintiffs ultimately paid E g Gold 2017 WL 5794776, at 14 T he Court is concerned that at least some Plaintiffs alleged injuries are highly speculative Plaintiffs cannot deny that other market variables may ha ve affected gold prices before and after the PM fixing. In Gelboim the Second Circuit offered a fourth damages may be speculative where the non-fixed components of a transaction were heavily negotiated between the parties in relation to the fixed component 823 F 3d at 780.To summarize, plaintiffs damages theory will not be held to be speculative if it is credible The relevant question is whether the putative plaintiff is a proper party to perform the office of a private attorney general and thereby vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement Id The question is not one of damages calculation, which forms the essence of the two broad arguments advanced by defendants first, that the parties would need to reconstruct but-for LIBOR, and second, that damages would need to be netted As to the first argument, the estimation of but-for LIBOR is the job of the parties competing experts While this case might involve more relevant numbers than most numbers for each of 16 panel banks acro ss 15 maturities, for a total of 240 quotes per business day, Defs Joint Mem of Law 18, ECF No 1481 that is not a sufficient reason to deem the damages speculative. As to the second argument, we agree that plaintiffs may ultimately recover only to the extent of their net injury, given that plaintiffs may well have benefited from LIBOR suppression in the same transaction or in a different transaction See Minpeco, S A v Conticommodity Servs Inc 676 486 489 S D N Y 1987 A n award of damages should put a plaintiff forward into the position it would have been in but for the defendant s violation of the law An antitrust plaintiff may recover only to the net extent of its injury if benefits accrued to it because of an antitrust violation, those benefits must be deducted from the gross damages caused by the illegal conduct quoting L A Mem l Coliseum Comm n v Nat l Football League 791 F 2d 1356 1367 9th Cir 1986 Again, however, netting in and of itself does not render the damages unduly speculat ive. We now turn to an analysis of whether the different groups of plaintiffs have articulated a non-speculative theory of damages which would support a finding that they could be efficient enforcers As discussed below, there are issues with each group of plaintiffs To the extent that any plaintiffs sue under transactions not specifically addressed herein, the principles of each category of transaction should be applied accordingly. i Non-Negotiated Transactions Such As Bonds. The first group of plaintiffs is those who entered into non-negotiated transactions such as bonds 28 These plaintiffs argue that the appropriate calculation of damages is simply the difference between suppressed LIBOR and but-for LIBOR We disagree, as the effect of a change in LIBOR cannot be isolated in the same way as the overcharge of a typical price-fixed product such as a book, as explained in the following paragraph. We have already made two fundamental observations regarding bonds consistent with common econom ic experience, Twombly 550 U S at 565 First, the purchase price of a bond is equal to the present value of its expected future interest and principal payments LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 70 Second, if LIBOR was suppressed at the time the bondholder purchased the bond, then both the expected future interest payments and the purchase price of the bond would have reflected that lower LIBOR level Id That is, for a bond, the future interest payments equal the interest rate LIBOR plus perhaps a spread multiplied by the notional value of the bond If the notional value is held constant, and if the spread represents issuer risk that is not affected by LIBOR, Tr 83 1-7, then when LIBOR falls the purchase price must fall correspondingly any other result would defy basic economic principles 29 Generally speaking, this interaction would also be reflected in the purchase price of other LIBOR-based, non-negotiated financial instruments such as asset-backed securities. Therefore, bondholders would be harmed from lowered coupon payments only if the price they paid for the bond was not correspondingly lowered in absolute dollars An example is a bondholder who purchased a bond prior to the suppression period and then received suppressed returns A more complicated situation is presented by a bondholder who purchased a bond during LIBOR suppression If the level of LIBOR suppression remained constant over the life of the bond, then that bondholder did not experience damages flowing from the defendants actions and the measure of damages would be zero But if the suppression level increased over the life of the bond, then the bondholder has experienced damages in the amount of the extra suppression As an example, if the LIBOR suppression level was 15 basis points below but-for LIBOR at the time the plaintiff purchased the bond, and then the suppression level increased to 45 basis points below but-for LIBOR at the time of the first coupon payment, the bondholder was damaged to the tune of 30 basis points on that coupon payment And if on a later coupon payment the suppression level became 5 basis points below but-for LIBOR, then the benefit of 10 basis points on that coupon payment should be netted against the measure of damages These scenarios present issues of proof, and not ones of standing. ii Negotiated Transactions Such As Swaps. The second group of plaintiffs is those who entered into negotiated transactions such as interest rate swaps An interest rate swap is an instrument in which two parties agree to exchange interest rate cash flows, based on a specified notional amount from a fixed rate to a floating rate or vice-versa or from one floating rate to another These are highly liquid financial derivatives Interest rate swaps are commonly used for both hedging and speculating OTC Compl 35 f 30 The interest rate derivatives market in which these instruments were created and sold was an informal bilateral market consisting of broker dealers that traded price information and negotiated transactions over electronic communications networks D ealers active in this market custom-tailor agreements to meet the specific needs of their customers Freddie Mac Compl 207.The Second Circuit expressed skepticism about the measure of damages in such highly negotiated transactions Gelboim 823 F 3d at 780 In response, plaintiffs argue that courts do not consider the presence of negotiation to be fatal to the calculation of damages OTC Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 10 n 12, ECF No 1511 Defendants, meanwhile, argue that the presence of negotiation means greater opportunity for changes in the but-for world i e the introduction of further intervening causal intermediaries Defs Reply Mem of Law 25, ECF No 1544 Both of these arguments miss the mark. When parties enter into bespoke swaps, they do so to effect a financial goal to exchange risk for safety, to achieve a balance in their holdings, or to make a bet on a belief that LIBOR will move in a certain direction Gaining or tradin g away exposure to LIBOR is the point of the swap Thus, in entering into a swap transaction the parties take into consideration the present level of LIBOR and their view of how LIBOR will change in the future The parties respond to these considerations when they set the non-LIBOR portions of the swap As direct action plaintiffs agree, T he fixed rate was designed to be the net present value of what LIBOR was at the time of the transaction Tr 78 15-16 Thus, in our view, the point of the Second Circuit s observation is that when swaps were entered into during the suppression period, the negotiated components absorbed the effects of LIBOR suppression. Plaintiffs cite to Loeb Industries, Inc v Sumitomo Corp 306 F 3d 469 7th Cir 2002 , to support their view that damages should simply be measured from the but-for level even in negotiated contracts Loeb actually cuts against their argument In that case, the price of a contract for copper cathode futures was comprised of 1 a number equivalent t o the average of Comex copper prices, and 2 a negotiated premium set on a quarterly or monthly basis Id at 476, 487 The court held that the negotiated premium did not render the damages speculative, for the reason that the evidence show ed that as the Comex price increased, the premium also increased Thus, there wa s no possibility that the two components offset or that the premium somehow compensated for the defendants manipulated price inflation Id at 487-88 Here, the circumstances are different, as the Second Circuit recognized, and there is every expectation that the negotiated component compensated for manipulated LIBOR Cf FOREX 2017 WL 5108131, at 8 LIBOR is distinguishable from the FX market, which does not entail the same level of negotiation between parties in selecting the ultimate rates for their transactions 31.At bottom, swapholders are in a position similar to bondholders Plaintiffs who entered into swaps before the suppression period may recover for suppressed payments r elative to but-for LIBOR And plaintiffs who entered into swaps during the suppression period may recover for any super-suppressed payments, netted against any less-suppressed payments See Tr 78 11-15 where counsel for the direct action plaintiffs stated, There may be transactions where damages are zero if they re late in the time period There are going to be damages for sure, if they enter a swap in 2007 before the suppression really starts going down. iii Futures Contracts. The third group of plaintiffs is those who purchased Eurodollar futures contracts on an exchange Relying on the undisputed fact that the settlement price of a Eurodollar future is 100 minus the three-month USD LIBOR fix on the contract s last trading day, 32 Exchange-Based plaintiffs allege that defendants affected Eurodollar futures prices directly by manipulating the index that was directly incorporated into the formula for those prices LIBOR II 962 F Supp 2d at 612.The mathematical relationship between LIBOR and t he settlement price of Eurodollar futures contracts does not address the relationship, if any, between LIBOR and the trading price of Eurodollar futures contracts that is, the price at which Eurodollar futures contracts were bought and sold prior to settlement The trading price reflects the market s prediction for what the price will be at settlement, which could be years away not what LIBOR is at the present moment See Exchange-Based Compl 431 I n practice, Eurodollar futures are a proxy for the LIBOR-based credit curve internal alterations omitted Tr 90 20, 98 19-20 settlement can occur five or ten years in the future Therefore, it will only be possible to determine the effect of LIBOR on trading prices if the two are in fact closely related In FOREX such a relationship where the exchange price and the FX spot prices move virtually in tandem was demonstrated by empirical data provided in the complaint as well as acknowledgments in settlements with the U S Commodity Futures Trading C ommission that exchange rates in many actively traded CME foreign exchange futures contracts track rates in foreign exchange markets at near parity 2017 WL 5108131, at 9 internal alterations omitted By contrast, in Gold the court expressed skepticism that such a relationship could be shown because Plaintiffs cannot deny that other market variables may have affected gold prices before and after the PM Fixing Indeed, were it otherwise, pricing across gold markets would essentially be flat, varying only twice a day 2017 WL 5794776, at 14.Here, the Exchange-Based plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that the LIBOR level on a given day moves in tandem with the trading price of Eurodollar futures contracts Exchange-Based plaintiffs have merely pled that t raders who exit their positions before settlement are still affected by LIBOR mispricing because the Eurodollar futures contracts trade based on what LIBOR is expected to be in the future To the extent that LIBOR is mispriced in the presen t, expectations of what LIBOR will be in the future will also be skewed Exchange-Based Compl 439 The complaint continues, The current and prospective higher settlement prices of CME Eurodollar futures contracts created higher reference points for the expectations of all market participants Id 447 This hardly pleads a sufficiently close relationship between LIBOR and trading prices. Exchange-Based plaintiffs offer one example in their attempt to show a relationship between LIBOR and Eurodollar futures prices Their complaint presents data on LIBOR and Eurodollar futures contracts in the days surrounding the events on April 17, 2008 LIBOR jumped on that day following the BBA s announcement that it would investigate the authenticity of LIBOR reporting Id at 444 Figure 21 of the complaint purports to show the sharp decrease in the Eurodollar futures price on April 17, 2008 , as well as the behavior of LIBOR during the same period, which exhibits opposite movements to the Eurodollar futures p rice The price shown in the graph is the price of the nearby Eurodollar futures contract Id. Unless Figure 21 is inadvertently mislabeled, it is extraordinarily misleading 33 Figure 21 presents two graphs On each graph, a two-day period in the middle of April 2008 is highlighted to demonstrate the supposed one-to-one, causal relationship between LIBOR and Eurodollar contract prices One graph shows a sharp increase in LIBOR over the course of two days in the middle of April 2008 the LIBOR Increase , and the other graph shows a sharp decline in Eurodollar contract prices over the course of two days in the middle of April 2008 the Eurodollar Decrease If LIBOR truly caused a linear movement in Eurodollar contract prices, one would expect to see either that the LIBOR Increase and the Eurodollar Decrease occurred during the same two days or that the LIBOR Increase occurred shortly before the Eurodollar Decrease. What Figure 21 shows instead is that the LIBOR Increase occurred after the Eurodol lar Decrease the Eurodollar Decrease occurred from April 15 to April 17, 2008, but the LIBOR Increase occurred from April 16 to April 18, 2008 The graphs suggest that Eurodollar futures prices moved unconnected to the actual LIBOR level. Even putting aside the movements over these three days, the movements throughout April 2008 belie the Exchange-Based plaintiffs claim of a causal relationship The relative flatness of LIBOR levels 1 between April 4, 2008 and April 15, 2008 and 2 between April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008 appear to have no relationship to 1 falling Eurodollar contract prices between April 4, 2008 and April 15, 2008 and 2 rising Eurodollar contract prices between April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008 And given that the graph purports to show the prices of the nearby Eurodollar futures contract, the relationship in futures contracts that expire further out must be even more attenuated The graphs do not credibly support the notion that Exchange-Based plaintiffs will be able to s how that LIBOR suppression of a particular amount would have caused a corresponding, determinable change in trading prices. This is not a case where information pertaining to the supposed causal relationship is uniquely in defendants hands Notably, despite the apparent availability of the data, Exchange-Based plaintiffs offer no other empirical information showing that Eurodollar futures prices move in tandem with LIBOR no other graphs, trendlines, or correlations And unlike in FOREX, Exchange-Based plaintiffs have not cited to any official findings that Eurodollar futures trading prices track LIBOR at near parity Without demonstrating such a relationship, plaintiffs cannot prove that defendants caused any particular changes in Eurodollar trading prices. A separate reason to dismiss claims of intermediate traders is that there is good reason to doubt that they suffered damages in any event After all, these traders made the decision to purchase a futures contract at a particular price and made the decision to sell it back to the market at a particular price The precise amount of money that they would make or lose on the market was known to them at the time they made the decision to sell, and LIBOR suppression did not change this knowledge Cf Dura Pharms Inc v Broudo 544 U S 336 342 2005 Normally, in cases such as this one i e fraud-on-the-market cases , an inflated purchase price of a stock will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss For one thing, as a matter of pure logic, at the moment the transaction takes place, the plaintiff has suffered no loss the inflated purchase payment is offset by ownership of a share that at that instant possesses equivalent value Moreover, the logical link between the inflated share purchase price and any later economic loss is not invariably strong Shares are normally purchased with an eye toward a later sale But if, say, the purchaser sells the shares quickly before the relevant truth begins to leak out, the misrepresentation will not have led to any loss. Therefore, a damages theory predicated on a direct link between an act of LIBOR suppression and an impact on Eurodollar futures trading prices in a particular amount is speculative The only Exchange-Based plaintiffs with a non-speculative theory are those who, before the suppression period started, shorted contracts that were held to settlement during the suppression period Such plaintiffs would be able to rely on an unmanipulated selling price as well as a settlement price demonstrably impacted by LIBOR suppression, as set forth in the example in Paragraph 440 of the Exchange-Based plaintiffs complaint.4 Duplicative Recovery and Complex Apportionment. The last factor reflects a strong interest in keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits AGC 459 U S at 543.Under this factor courts are traditionally concerned with the prospect of different groups of plaintiffs attempting to recover for the same e xact injury, id which plaintiffs do not do here Courts are not traditionally concerned with considerations that defendants have raised, namely, whether governments have conducted investigations concerning the conduct at issue, and whether the plaintiffs assert alternative theories of recovery See, e g Mid-West Paper 596 F 2d at 594 n 85 plaintiffs are not necessarily foreclosed from relief by the mere pendency of the government and direct purchaser suits for similar remedies Generally, they may proceed simultaneously or in disregard of each other internal quotation marks and citation omitted Alaska Elec Pension Fund v Bank of Am Corp ISDAFix , No 14 Civ 7126, 2017 WL 1241533, at 8 S D N Y Mar 28, 2017 T he damages at issue are tied to particular transactions and contracts, obviating the danger of duplicative recovery. Clearly, the Second Circuit in Gelboim was concerned with the scope of government recovery, as the ramified consequences are beyond conception 823 F 3d at 780 As of now, there has been no showing that certain plaintiffs have been made whole through the receipt of restitution payments made to governments if such a showing is made in the future, we will take the steps necessary to avoid duplicative recovery Moreover, defendants suggest no substitute avenue of recovery for plaintiffs who transacted with a panel-bank defendant that is not under government investigation. We are also unaware of any authority foreclosing plaintiffs from pursuing antitrust claims simply because they are also pursuing non-antitrust claims While plaintiffs cannot recover twice for the same injury, they are permitted to assert alternative theories of liability.5 State Law Claims. Some plaintiffs have asserted state antitrust law claims in addition to their federal law claims Defendants argue that antitrust standing in the state claims also turns on the AGC factors. In addressing unsettled areas of state law our role as a federal court is not to adopt innovative theories that may distort established state law Instead we must carefully predict how the state s highest court would resolve the uncertainties that we have identified In making this prediction, we give the fullest weight to pronouncements of the state s highest court while giving proper regard to relevant rulings of the state s lower courts We may also consider decisions in other jurisdictions on the same or analogous issues Travelers Ins Co v Carpenter 411 F 3d 323 329 2d Cir 2005 internal quotation marks and citations omitted Additionally, the judgment of an intermediate appellate state court is a datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise New York v Nat l Serv Indus Inc 460 F 3d 201 210 2d Cir 2006 quoting Comm r v Estate of Bosch, 387 U S 4 56 465 1967.We only address those state law claims that remain after our personal jurisdiction rulings California Cartwright Act claims in Bay Area Toll Authority v Bank of America Corp No 14-cv-3094, and New York Donnelly Act claims in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp v Bank of America Corp No 14-cv-1757 Principal Financial Group, Inc v Bank of America Corp No 13-cv-6014 and Principal Funds Inc v Bank of America Corp No 13-cv-6013 As explained below, we conclude that the AGC factors should apply to the California and New York antitrust claims, and therefore the standing analyses set forth above apply equally to the state law claims. i California Cartwright Act Claims. California s highest court has not considered the application of the AGC factors, but it has recently stated that i nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act Aryeh v Canon Bus Sols Inc 292 P 3d 871 877 Cal 2017 Prior to the California Supreme Court s d ecision in Aryeh a California intermediate appellate court applied the AGC factors to a Cartwright Act claim, Vinci v Waste Mgmt Inc 43 337 338-39 Cal Ct App 1995 , as did the Ninth Circuit, Knevelbaard Dairies v Kraft Foods, Inc 232 F 3d 979 987 9th Cir 2000 34.Plaintiffs argue that Aryeh nullified the standing analyses in Vinci and Knevelbaard We are not so persuaded Aryeh a case ultimately about California s unfair competition law did not analyze antitrust standing, and did not indicate that the California Supreme Court disapproved of the application of the AGC factors Indeed, a recent case in the Eastern District of New York concluded that because there is no California law contrary to the state appellate court s application of the AGC factors in Vinci the Court applies the AGC factors to Plaintiffs Cartwright Act claim The decision of both an intermediary court and the Ninth Circuit remain the best predictor of the state s highest court s action on the issue, and the Court is not convinced to disregard this data by any other indication that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise Salveson v JP Morgan Chase Co 166 242, 258 E D N Y 2017 internal quotation marks omitted We agree with this analysis and conclude that the AGC factors apply to plaintiffs Cartwright Act claims. ii New York Donnelly Act Claims. New York s highest court has not opined on the applicability of the AGC factors However, a New York intermediate appellate court has quoted AGC approvingly in considering a Donnelly Act claim Cont l Guest Servs Corp v Int l Bus Servs Inc 939 N Y S 2d 30 30 N Y App Div 1st Dep t 2017 Relying on Continental Guest Services Corp the Second Circuit subsequently held that w e see no reason to interpret the Donnelly Act differently than the Sherman Act with regard to antitrust standing Gatt Comm ns, Inc v PMC Assocs L L C 711 F 3d 68 81 2d Cir 2017 We conclude that the AGC factors apply to plaintiffs Donnelly Act claims. V Conclusion. After applying the person al jurisdiction and efficient enforcer holdings in this opinion, the antitrust claims that remain are set out in the accompanying appendix The Court anticipated before the briefing on this motion that its decision would be informative with regard to any proposed additional motion Accordingly, any party wishing to pursue a motion previewed in June and derived from Gelboim should submit a pre-motion letter by January 6, 2017 Any letters in opposition to any such proposal should be filed by January 13, 2017.This Memorandum and order resolves MDL docket entry 1480.Action Jurisdiction Antitrust Remaining Defendants Filed Claims Gelboim v S D N Y Federal Antitrust claims Credit Suisse dismissed on efficient Grp AG, enforcer grounds No 12-cv-1025 Bondholders Metzler Inv S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp GmbH v Credit N D Ill Bank of America, N A Suisse Grp AG, D Minn Citibank, N A No 11-cv-2613 D N J Citigroup Inc Exchange-Based JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A John Does 1-5 Mayo r and City S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp of Baltimore v Bank of America, N A Credit Suisse Citibank, N A Grp AG, Citigroup Inc No 11-cv-5450 JPMorgan Chase Co OTC JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Charles Schwab N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Bank, N A v California dismissed on personal Bank of Am jurisdiction grounds Corp , No 11-cv-6411 Schwab Money N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Mkt Fund v California dismissed on personal Bank of Am jurisdiction grounds Corp , No 11-cv-6412 Schwab Short - N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Term Bond Mkt California dismissed on personal Fund v Bank of jurisdiction grounds Am Corp , No 11-cv-6409 Amabile v Bank S D N Y Federal Bank of America Corp of Am Corp , Citibank, N A No 13-cv-1700 JPMorgan Chase Co Bay Area Toll N D Cal Federal, Citibank, N A Auth v Bank of California Am Corp , No 14-cv-3094 City of Houston S D Tex Federal, Antitrust claims v Bank of Am Texas dismissed on personal Corp , jurisdiction grounds No 13-cv-5616.City of Phila E D Pa Federal Citigroup Inc v Bank of Am Corp , No 13-cv-6020 Darby Fin N Y Sup Federal JPMorgan Chase Co Prods v Ct JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Barclays Bank PLC, No 13-cv-8799 Fed Deposit S D N Y Federal, Bank of America Corp Ins Corp v New York Bank of America, N A Bank of Am Bear Stearns Capital Corp , Markets, Inc No 14-cv-1757 JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A Citibank, N A Citigroup Inc Citigroup Financial Products, Inc HSBC Bank USA, N A Merrill Lynch Co Merrill Lynch Capital Services Inc Fed Home Loan E D Va Federal HSBC Bank USA, N A Mortg Corp v Bank of Am Corp , No 13-cv-3952 Nat l Credit D Kan Federal, Antitrust claims Union Admin Bd California, dismissed on personal v Credit Suisse Illinois, jurisdiction grounds Grp AG, Kansas No 13-cv-7394 Principal Fin S D Iowa Federal, JPMorgan Securities LLC Grp Inc, v New York Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Bank of Am Fenner Smith Inc Corp , RBS Securities Inc No 13-cv-6014 Principal Funds, S D Iowa Federal, JPMorgan Securities LLC Inc v Ba nk of New York Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Am Corp , Fenner Smith Inc No 13-cv-6013 RBS Securities Inc. Prudential Inv D N J Federal Citigroup Inc Portfolios 2 v HSBC Finance Corp Bank of Am HSBC Securities USA Corp , Inc No 14-cv-4189 HSBC USA Inc JPMorgan Securities LLC MLPFS Inc RBS Securities Inc Regents of the N D Cal Federal, Antitrust claims Univ of Cal S D Cal California dismissed on personal Bank of Am C D Cal jurisdiction grounds Corp , E D Cal No 13-cv-5186 Cal Consol Salix Capital US N Y Sup Federal Bank of America Corp Inc v Banc of Ct Bank of America, N A Am Sec LLC, Barclays Capital No 13-cv-4018 JPMorgan Chase Co JPMorgan Chase Bank, N A JPMorgan Securities LLC Citibank, N A Citigroup Inc Citigroup Global Markets Inc Citigroup Global Markets Limited Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Deutsche Bank Securities Inc MLPFS Inc.1 Whether a defendant is a movant or non-movant is case-dependent in this MDL Defendants Notice of Motion lists the relevant cases and movants Notice of Defs Joint Mot to Dismiss App x B, ECF No 1480.2 E g In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 11 MDL 2262 NRB , 2017 WL 6696407, 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 149629 S D N Y Nov 3, 2017 LIBOR V In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig No 11 MDL 2262 NRB , 2017 WL 6243526, 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 147561 S D N Y Oct 20, 2017 LIBOR IV In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 27 447 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR III In re LIBOR-Based Fin Instruments Antitrust Litig 962 606 S D N Y 2017 LIBOR II LIBOR I, 935 666.3 Gelboim did not revive an alternative theory of antitrust violation, as advanced by some plaintiffs, that defendants fixed the market for benchmark rates We have already rejected the viability of this theory See LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 89-90 Therefore, the attempt of some plaintiffs to resuscitate this theory in the briefing on the present motions to dismiss was improper.4 The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on October 20, 2017.5 Contrary to plaintif fs argument that the profit-motivated goal should be assumed simply because a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions, Oct 27, 2017 Hr g Tr 23 4-5 Tr , a conspiracy requires an agreement to achieve a particular goal, which cannot be assumed.6 We have always permitted the plaintiffs to rely on information resulting from government investigations here and abroad in their submissions without requiring formal amendments to complaints Plaintiffs have had the benefits of the findings from wide-ranging investigations of LIBOR since at least 2011 by the Securities Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, the New York State Attorney General, and numerous foreign regulators, and public settlements and plea agreements involving Barclays, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, Rabobank, RBS, Societe Generale, UBS, and brokers LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 43.7 Sales of price-fixed products are not a necessary element of a viola tive price-fixing conspiracy I t is well settled that conspiracies under the Sherman Act are not dependent on any overt act other than the act of conspiring It is the contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce which Section 1 of the Act strikes down, whether the concerted activity be wholly nascent or abortive on the one hand, or successful on the other Socony-Vacuum Oil, 310 U S at 224 n 59 internal quotation marks and citations omitted see also United States v Milikowsky, 896 1285 1288 D Conn 1994 in a conspiracy to fix prices for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the agreement itself constitutes the complete offense , aff d, 65 F 3d 4 2d Cir 1995 Additional overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are not needed.8 This understanding of the Circuit s observation is consistent with this Court s comments in LIBOR III and LIBOR IV about the motivations of defendants, rejecting as implausible any suggestion that defendants engaged in the persistent s uppression of LIBOR to increase transactional profits E g LIBOR III, 27 F Supp 3d at 469 I t is implausible that all defendants would maintain parallel trading positions across the Class Period and that those positions, in turn, motivated their daily LIBOR submissions The far more likely explanation is that, to the extent all defendants engaged in parallel manipulation of LIBOR, the conduct was motivated by reputational concerns, not by the banks positions internal alterations omitted To be clear, what we have found plausible is that defendants engaged in trader-based manipulation were motivated by the prospect of increased profits E g LIBOR IV, 2017 WL 6243526, at 6 I ndividual traders received money, promotions, and adulation based on their personal profit and loss To gain profits or avoid losses, therefore, a trader would sometimes ask his bank s LIBOR submitter to engage in what we call trader-based manipulation The submitter would send a false quote in whichever currency and tenor suited the trader s book Profit-motivated trader-based manipulation, which was sporadic and would result in both the inflation and deflation of LIBOR submissions, id at 32, has nothing to do with the persistent suppression conspiracy that is at issue in the antitrust claims, Gelboim, 823 F 3d at 764.9 The relevant allegations are generally uniform across all of the complaints, so we cite to representative examples in the following footnotes.10 E g Mayor and City Council of Balt v Credit Suisse Grp AG Second Consolidated Am Compl 78, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 406 OTC Compl Illustrating Defendants motive to artificially suppress LIBOR, in 2009 Citibank reported it would make 936 million in net interest revenue if rates would fall by 25 bps per quarter over the next year and 1 935 billion if they fell 1 instantaneously JPMorgan Chase likewise reported significant exposure to interest rates in 2009 The bank stated that if interest rates increased by 1 , it would lose over 500 million HSB C and Lloyds also estimated they would earn hundreds of millions of additional dollars in 2008-2009 in response to lower interest rates and would lose comparable amounts in response to higher rates Fed Home Loan Mortg Corp v Bank of Am Corp Am Compl 89, No 13-cv-3952 NRB , ECF No 61 Freddie Mac Compl Bank of America further stated that it held a notional amount of more than 50 billion in receive fixed pay floating interest-rate swaps that would mature in 2008 or 2009 with no offsetting pay fixed receive floating interest-rate swaps.11 E g OTC Compl 78 Deutsche Bank reportedly earned more than 650 million in profit during 2008 from trades tied to LIBOR because LIBOR was low citing Jean Eglesham, Bank Made Huge Bet, and Profit, on Libor, Wall St J Jan 10, 2017, at l The cited article describes profits made not on LIBOR suppression but rather on trades pegged to the interest rates such as bets regarding the gap between different rates related to Libor and the euro interbank offered rate and each hundredth of a percentage point that the three-month U S dollar Libor increased compared with the one-month U S dollar Libor.12 E g OTC Compl 78 These banks collectively earned billions in net revenues between August 2007 and May 2010 from suppressed USD LIBOR Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG, Corrected Second Am Consolidated Compl 268, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 438 Exchange-Based Compl Because their interest earning assets, as compared to their funding mix, generally included more longer-term and more fixed-rate instruments, suppression of LIBOR would tend to reduce Defendants funding costs more than it would reduce their interest income Thus, by suppression of LIBOR, Defendants would contribute to increasing, maintaining, or mitigating deterioration of their net interest margins Freddie Mac Compl 89 During this time, many of the Bank Defendants were net borrowers, meaning that they financially benefited from reductions in short-term interest rates.13 After oral arg ument, plaintiffs submitted an academic paper that suggested that banks mostly take pay-floating positions in interest-rate derivatives, which are positions that gain in value from a surprise fall in interest rates Carmody Letter 2, ECF No 1638 As plaintiffs acknowledge, the study relates only to U S banks, id at 2 n 3 the study examines interest rates generally, not LIBOR specifically and LIBOR suppression does not mean that LIBOR experienced a surprise fall, only that LIBOR was lower than it otherwise would have been The paper therefore does not save plaintiffs theory.14 Two prominent economists tasked with reforming LIBOR came to the same conclusion about the motivations for LIBOR manipulation See Darrell Duffie Jeremy C Stein, Reforming LIBOR and Other Financial Market Benchmarks, 29 J Econ Persp 191, 191 2017 Banks had incentives to announce biased interest rates, for two reasons First, in times of economic stress, reporting a lower interest rate would signal that the bank is more creditworthy, all else equal Second, some of the bank s trading positions would be more profitable if LIBOR could be pushed one way or the other, depending on the position taken.15 Plaintiffs allegation that defendants intentionally directed their unlawful conspiracy at the United States is conclusory and thus insufficient to meet their burden Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 15.16 Plaintiffs write, While this Court previously declined to apply Calder to assert personal jurisdiction for data fraud claims, concluding that persistent suppression was not designed to benefit Defendants trading position and it did not stand to reason, that foreign defendants aimed their manipulative conduct at the United States or any particular forum state, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court s conclusions on data fraud do not apply to the antitrust allegations that Defendants had a common motive to conspire to suppress USD LIBOR for increased profits, Gelboim 823 F 3d at 781-82 Viewed in that lig ht, Plaintiffs satisfy every element of the Calder analysis for their antitrust claims Pls Joint Mem of Law in Opp n 14-15 internal alterations omitted.17 For example, plaintiffs allege, In a 2007 internal email sent to Barclays former CEO Robert Diamond, BCI Barclays Capital Inc a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Director and Executive Officer Jerry del Missier, who was based in New York, wrote that the USD LIBOR submissions for all of the Panel Banks were fantasy rates Del Missier has admitted that he instructed subordinates to submit artificially low USD LIBOR rates Pls Supp Statement of Additional Jurisdictional Facts 26, ECF No 1517 citing Jill Treanor, Former Barclays executive insists Bob Diamond instructed him to cut Libor, The Guardian, July 16, 2017.First, the fantasy rates comment offers nothing more than market color Second, the article on which plaintiffs rely makes clear that the direction to submit low LIBOR rates came from CEO Bob Diamond, not from Del Missier Id In evidence to MPs following his resignation as chief operating officer of Barclays, Del Missier was adamant that Diamond instructed him to cut the Libor rate following a conversation with Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England Asked if he was acting on an instruction from Diamond, Del Missier said Yes it sic was.18 Carmody Letter 1, Oct 20, 2017, ECF No 1600 Plaintiffs also rely on the testimony of former Rabobank trader Takayuki Yagami, even though Yagami traded products tied to Yen LIBOR Id at 2 We do not understand plaintiffs continued, stubborn refusal to comply with our simple admonition that only allegations pertaining to USD LIBOR are potentially relevant to this case LIBOR IV 2017 WL 6243526, at 45 We continue to reject the impermissible inference that defendants reprehensible behavior in one product or even many products Yen LIBOR, TIBOR, Swiss Franc LIBOR, EURIBOR and so on suffices to overcome deficiencies in the pleading of actionable bad behavior in USD LIBOR.19 Stewart s statement itself suggests that he lacked personal knowledge I also understand that someone at Rabobank, first in London and later in Utrecht, would submit a Rabobank LIBOR rate each day to Thom son Reuters in New York by means of an electronic wire submission Stewart Tr at 15 3-6 emphasis added.20 See supra note 1.21 We firmly reject plaintiffs attempt to spin their own appeal as a tactical choice by the defendants to take the merits up on appeal by affirmatively asking the Second Circuit to affirm on the merits, OTC Pls Suppl Mem of Law in Opp n 5 Defendants, of course, were not the appellants.22 Plaintiffs argue that the Bondholder case returned to the district court between the Second Circuit s dismissal in October 2017 and the Bondholder plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court in March 2017, and so the defendants should have raised the defense then Bondholder Pls Supp Mem in Opp n 2-3, ECF No 1499 This argument is beyond comprehension Until the Supreme Court granted certi orari in June 2017, there simply was no Bondholder case it had been dismissed in the district court and dismissed in the Second Circuit Plaintiffs would have us create a rule requiring defendants to raise defenses in cases that do not exist.23 This ruling applies equally to defendant UBS, which did not waive its personal jurisdiction defense as to the antitrust claims when it consented to personal jurisdiction in New York as to other claims Sunward Elecs Inc v McDonald 362 F 3d 17 24 2d Cir 2004 a plaintiff must establish the court s jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted emphasis in original. Similarly, defendants without New York branches did not forfeit their personal jurisdictional defense in failing to assert the defense in 2017 As defendants point out, Daimler cast significant doubt on other avenues of establishing personal jurisdiction, such as the Second Circuit s theory of jurisdiction under Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 226 F 3d 88 2d Cir 2000 See Sonera Holding B V v Cukurova Holding A S 750 F 3d 221 224-26 2d Cir 2017.24 There exists a circuit split on whether umbrella purchasers have antitrust standing Gelboim 823 F 3d at 778 Among the district courts there seems to be broader agreement The overwhelming majority of recent court decisions that have addressed the viability of the umbrella theory after AGC have rejected umbrella claims In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig No 99CIV5134, 2001 WL 855463, at 4 D D C July 2, 2001.25 There remains an open question about the treatment of plaintiffs who transacted with a subsidiary or affiliate of a panel bank We do not resolve that question here, but note that the parties should consider this question at the class certification stage.26 We reject plaintiffs attempt to turn the question of market control into a question of price control over the entire Eurodollar futures market by virtue of their authorship of LIBOR, Exchange-Based Pls Mem of Law in Opp n 7, ECF No 1504 The thrust of the umbrella purchaser co ncept is to distinguish between those plaintiffs who dealt with price-fixing defendants directly and other plaintiffs whose prices were affected by price-fixing defendants actions Plaintiffs approach would nullify the causation question in all antitrust cases.27 The Court was not informed of this fact until defendants letter of December 2, 2017, which is particularly striking given the Court s question on this very issue at oral argument on October 27, 2017 Tr 102 22-103 14 THE COURT How many large traders are there all together I f there were 400 large traders and there are 16 banks, the percentage is low in terms of the analysis that was utilized in FOREX That s what I am trying to learn COUNSEL FOR EXCHANGE-BASED PLAINTIFFS We don t know what the percentage is It may be low , it might not be low.28 Although the Bondholder class comprised of plaintiffs who did not transact directly from defendants is dismissed under the first factor of causation, there remain plaintiffs within the OT C class who allege that they purchased bonds directly from defendants, such as plaintiff SEIU The analysis in this section pertains to such plaintiffs.29 The Schwab plaintiffs submitted declarations arguing the following I do not agree that LIBOR suppression would have somehow been reflected in a lower price to the Treasury Entities, thereby compensating them In initial offerings the Treasury Entities simply bought at par In secondary markets the Treasury Entities sometimes bought at a discount or premium to par but any discount or premium would have reflected underlying changes in interest rates or credit-worthiness of the issuer, not compensation for LIBOR suppression Whether in the primary or secondary market, Schwab overpaid for the investments the suppression of LIBOR systematically caused the risk of the investment to be understated compared to the interest rate being offered and reduced the Treasury Entities income. Decl of Dennis Goldman 10, ECF No 1512.Whether a bond is purchas ed at par value is immaterial to the question of whether the purchase price is equal to the present value of the expected payments Purchasing a new-issue bond at par simply means that the future payments are set at a level that reflects a present value of par As to the secondary market, it would seem that the point of the Schwab plaintiffs is the same as our point a discount or premium on the purchase price reflect s underlying changes in interest rates, such as LIBOR suppression.30 The named plaintiffs of the proposed OTC class only purchased interest rate swaps, but the OTC complaint lists other types of instruments on which it would sue on behalf of the class The instruments include but are not limited to asset swaps, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, forward rate agreements, inflation swaps, interest rate swaps, total return swaps, and options OTC Compl 35.31 Plaintiffs also rely heavily on New York v Hendrickson Brothers, Inc 840 F 2d 1065 2d Cir 1988 , which said that antitrust treble-damage actions should not be complicated by a need to trace the effects of the overcharge with respect to such matters as prices, costs, and the potentially different behavior of all the pertinent variables in the absence of the overcharges Id at 1079 Plaintiffs use this quotation out of context The court in Hendrickson was explaining why indirect purchasers are routinely denied antitrust standing that is, because allowing recovery by indirect purchasers would require courts to trace all of the effects of an overcharge.32 Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG Corrected Second Am Compl 433, No 11-md-2262 NRB , ECF No 438 Exchange-Based Compl.33 There is little reason to believe that the graphs are mislabeled Although the complaint provides no information as to the source of the data in the graphs, publicly available data suggests that the date labels are correct See, e g Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, 3-Month London Interbank Offered Rate LIBOR , based on U S Dollar FRED Economic Data, Quandl, Eurodollar Futures, August 2008, EDQ2008, CME Tab TABLE, which provides, inter alia a drop in prices from April 15 to April 17, 2008 that approximates the amount of the drop provided in Figure 21 of the complaint Exchange-Based plaintiffs have also submitted a proposed amended complaint and a post-oral argument letter, both relying on the same graph and providing no other empirical examples Metzler Inv GmbH v Credit Suisse Grp AG Proposed Third Amnded Compl 622, No 11-cv-2613 NRB , ECF No 292 Lovell Kovel Letter App x B, MDL ECF No 1650.34 The Ninth Circuit noted that antitrust standing is more permissive under Cartwright Act claims than under federal law in that the Cartwright Act permits suits by both direct and indirect purchasers Knevelbaard Dairies 232 F 3d at 987, 991 That fact does not impact the analysis in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment