Annuities asked the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit on Monday to delay
the Dec. 8 oral arguments in NAFA’s
appeal over a federal court’s denial of its
bid to block the fiduciary rule.
Pam Heinrich, NAFA’s general counsel
and director of government affairs, said
that NAFA asked for a delay in the Dec. 8
oral arguments because, “We feel that in
light of the uncertainly surrounding the
proposed delay rule and the uncertainty
regarding any outcome in the litigation in
the other circuits, and for judicial economy
we could wait till we have a little more clarity on the issues affecting NAFA’s appeal.”
NAFA did not ask the court to cancel the hearing completely. Heinrich
explained that NAFA and others are still
awaiting a decision in the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals case against Labor’s
fiduciary rule. That case was brought by
nine plaintiffs, which include the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, SIFMA and the
Financial Services Institute.
“Court watchers had anticipated a
decision already” given that the oral
arguments in that case took place on
July 31, Heinrich said. “A decision in
that circuit could very well effect the
issues before the D.C. Circuit.”
The judge presiding over the Thrivent
case in Minnesota granted in early
November a preliminary injunction in
favor of Thrivent, which has been fighting
to halt the anti-arbitration clause set out in
the rule’s best-interest contract exemption.
The injunction ensures that, at least
until the litigation is concluded, Thrivent
won’t face enforcement actions or excise
taxes for noncompliance with the BIC.
The firm has argued that the anti-arbitration rule would harm its business.
“The Court finds that Thrivent has suf-
ficiently demonstrated the threat of irrep-
arable harm, both now and in the future,”
Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote.
“While monetary loss alone does not war-
rant injunctive relief, the current state of
regulatory limbo threatens Thrivent with
harm that cannot be remedied monetarily.”
Nelson explained: “In order to com-
ply with the anti-arbitration condition’s
applicability date, Thrivent must take
actions now that involve changes to
its business model. In addition to the
expenditure of time and money that
these changes necessitate, undertaking
such changes may irreparably disadvan-
tage Thrivent against its competitors
and with respect to its members.”
Washington Bureau Chief Melanie Waddell
can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If You Owned a U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based
Instrument Between August 2007 and May 2010
You May Be Eligible for a Payment from
a $130 Million Settlement
There is a Settlement with Citibank that
impacts individuals and institutions that
entered into over-the-counter financial
derivative and non-derivative instruments
directly with Citibank, Barclays, or a Non-
Settling Defendant that received payments
tied to U.S. Dollar LIBOR. Citibank,
Barclays, and the Non-Settling Defendants
(Credit Suisse, Bank of America, JPMorgan,
HSBC, Lloyds, WestLB, UBS, RBS,
Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, Norinchukin,
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, HBOS,
SocGen, and RBC) are U.S. Dollar LIBOR
Panel Banks. The instruments include certain
interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements,
asset swaps, collateralized debt obligations,
credit default swaps, inflation swaps, total
return swaps, options, and floating rate notes.
The litigation claims that the banks
manipulated the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate
during the financial crisis, artificially
lowering the rate for their own profit, which
resulted in purchasers receiving less interest
payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments from the banks as they should
have. Plaintiffs assert antitrust, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment claims.
Citibank denies all claims of wrongdoing.
Am I included?
You are included in the Settlement if you
(individual or entity): Directly purchased
certain U. S. Dollar LIBOR-based instruments
from Citibank, Barclays, or any Non-Settling Defendant (or their subsidiaries or
affiliates) in the United States; and owned the
instruments at any time between August 2007
and May 2010.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement will create a $130 million
Settlement Fund that will be used to pay
eligible Class Members who submit valid
claims. Additionally, Citibank will cooperate
with the Plaintiffs in their ongoing litigation
against the Non-Settling Defendants.
How can I get a payment?
You must submit a Proof of Claim to get a
payment. You can submit a Proof of Claim
online or by mail. The deadline to submit a
Proof of Claim is March 29, 2018. You are
entitled to receive a payment if you have a
qualifying transaction with Citibank, Barclays
or a Non-Settling Defendant. At this time, it is
unknown how much each Class Member who
submits a valid claim will receive.
What are my rights?
Even if you do nothing, you will lose your
right to sue Citibank for the alleged conduct
and will be bound by the Court’s decisions
concerning the Settlement. This Settlement
will not result in a release of your claims
against any Non-Settling Defendant, and the
litigation against Non-Settling Defendants is
ongoing. If you want to keep your right to sue
Citibank, you must exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class by January 2, 2018. If you
stay in the Settlement Class, you may object
to the Settlement by January 2, 2018.
The Court will hold a hearing on January
23, 2018 to consider whether to approve
the Settlement and approve Class Counsel’s
request of attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of
the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of
costs and expenses. You or your own lawyer
may appear and speak at the hearing at your