ADR Cases
The Bank of New York Mellon
| CASE CAPTION |
In re The Bank of New York Mellon ADR FX Litigation |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| CASE NUMBER |
16-cv-00212 |
| JUDGE |
Honorable J. Paul Oetken |
| PLAINTIFFS |
David Feige, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 138 Annuity Fund, Annie L. Normand |
| DEFENDANT |
The Bank of New York Mellon |
| CLASS PERIOD |
January 1, 1997 – January 17, 2019 |
Citigroup, Inc.
| CASE CAPTION |
In re Merryman et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al. |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| CASE NUMBER |
15-cv-09185 |
| JUDGE |
Honorable Colleen McMahon |
| PLAINTIFFS |
Benjamin Michael Merryman, Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, B Merryman and A Merryman 4th Generation Remainder Trust |
| DEFENDANT |
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. |
| CLASS PERIOD |
January 1, 1997 – January 17, 2019 |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
| CASE CAPTION |
In re Merryman et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| CASE NUMBER |
15-cv-09188 |
| JUDGE |
Honorable Valerie E. Caproni |
| PLAINTIFFS |
Benjamin Michael Merryman, Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, B Merryman and A Merryman 4th Generation Remainder Trust, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund |
| DEFENDANT |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
| CLASS PERIOD |
November 21, 2010 – July 18, 2018 |
Kessler Topaz served as lead and co-lead counsel on behalf of classes of investors in American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) against three of the largest ADR sponsors and depositary banks, The Bank of New York Mellon, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase (together, the “Banks”). The lawsuits alleged that the Banks systematically deducted impermissible fees for conducting foreign exchange (“FX”) transactions for dividends and/or cash distributions issued by foreign companies, and owed to ADR holders. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the Banks violated the terms of the contractual agreements that governed how such transactions should take place, and obligated the Banks to provide ADR holders with favorable conversion rates. Instead of performing their obligations under the contracts, however, the Banks kept a spread for themselves and passed on less advantageous rates to ADR holders.
All three cases survived motions to dismiss and proceeded through fact and expert discovery. The cases collectively resolved for more than $100 million.