To: bkarp@paulweiss.com, plinden@kmllp.com
Sent: 3/11/2013 8:07:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: In re Citigroup Securities Litigation Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS)
BY US MAIL
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
IN RE CITIGROUP SECURITIES Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS)
LITIGATION
:::::
ECF CASE
To the Honorable United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
I am not a member of the plaintiff class.
The enclosure is denominated an amicus objection.
The enclosure bears two case designations, one designation being for the above captioned Citigroup case and the second designation being for IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC), which is also pending in the Southern District of New York.
The enclosure was previously sent by US mail on December 11, 2012 to the Court and also to counsel in the Citigroup Securities Litigation. Further, the below email (with an electronic link to the enclosure) was sent to counsel in both cases on December 13, 2012:
From: RDShatt@aol.comThe enclosure was originally posted on the Internet in November 2012 at URL http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2012/11/bank-of-america-draft-objection.html. The posting underwent revision, but it has been in its present form (the form of the enclosure) since the aforesaid mailing to the Court on December 11, 2012.
To: bkarp@paulweiss.com, plinden@kmllp.com, gcastaldo@ktmc.com, mwb@blbglaw.com, rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
Sent: 12/13/2012 11:28:09 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Amicus curiae objection in Citigroup and Bank of America cases
To: Plaintiffs' counsel, Citigroup Inc. counsel and Bank of America Corp. counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION
IN RE CITIGROUP INC. Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS)
SECURITIES LITIGATION
AMICUS CURIAE OBJECTION OF ROBERT SHATTUCK TO SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS FEES
Please be advised that a paper copy of this amicus curiae objection was mailed on December 11, 2012 to the Clerk of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel and Citicorp counsel in the above Citigroup litigation and will be mailed in due course to the Clerk of the Court, plaintiff's' counsel and Bank of America counsel in the above Bank of America litigation.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
This is in the nature of an amicus letter or amicus objection to the Court, which I would understand the Court has no obligation to read or consider.
If the Court should choose to consider the enclosure, I would like to make the following brief points in this transmittal letter:
First, does this class action lawsuit and its settlement have any deterrent value and is it counter productive to the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing?
I have done extensive solicitation of regulators, state attorneys general, prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance professionals, defense lawyers, and tort reform organizations, among others, to try to obtain their views on the foregoing question and for such views to be submitted to the Court. To my knowledge, none of the persons or organizations I have solicited have submitted or are going to submit their views to the Court.
Second, I would like to raise a new issue that came to my mind since December 11th, and that concerns the adequacy of the disclosure in the Notice, relative to two points. Point one is that the Notice is not very explicit, and can be fairly called opaque, in describing how untold (and unknown) numbers of selling shareholders are walking away with windfall gains in an untold (and unknown) aggregate amount and are being allowed to keep the windfall gains, and the settlement in substance is largely an arbitrary shifting around of the corresponding losses experienced by purchasing shareholders. . Point two is, if I was a purchasing shareholder, and I had a loss, I would find it objectionable if the substance of the settlement was that my loss was being arbitrarily increased because my loss was less than the loss of other purchasing shareholders, and part of their greater loss is in substance getting arbitrarily shifted to me. As to this point two as well, the Notice is not very explicit and can be fairly be called opaque, in order for members of the plaintiff class ito decide to make an objection to the settlement or not.
Third, I make the suggestion to the Court that the Court request briefs from the plaintiffs and defendants addressing the issues raised in the enclosure and also the foregoing new issue.
Since this letter and the enclosure have no legal standing for recognition by the Court, and the Court has unfettered power to consider the same, or not, at this time, I am sending this letter and enclosure by US mail only to the Court and am sending this letter by email to counsel specified in the Notice (per the above email addresses), which email has the above Internet link to the posted form of the enclosure.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Shattuck
Birmingham, AL
From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: mwb@blbglaw.com, steven@blbglaw.com, rkaplan@kaplanfox.com, ffox@kaplanfox.com, dkessler@ktmc.com, gcastaldo@ktmc.com, bkarp@paulweiss.com, dkramer@paulweiss.com, asoloway@paulweiss.com
Sent: 3/11/2013 8:08:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Bank of America Corp., SDNY Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
BY US MAIL
United States District Court
To: mwb@blbglaw.com, steven@blbglaw.com, rkaplan@kaplanfox.com, ffox@kaplanfox.com, dkessler@ktmc.com, gcastaldo@ktmc.com, bkarp@paulweiss.com, dkramer@paulweiss.com, asoloway@paulweiss.com
Sent: 3/11/2013 8:08:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Bank of America Corp., SDNY Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
BY US MAIL
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION
:::::
ECF CASE
To the Honorable United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
I am not a member of the plaintiff class.
The enclosure is denominated an amicus objection.
The enclosure bears two case designations, one designation being for the above captioned Bank of America case and the second designation being for In re Citigroup Securities Litigation Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS), which is also pending in the Southern District of New York.
The enclosure was previously sent by US mail on December 11, 2012 to the Court and also to counsel in the Citigroup Securities Litigation. Further, the below email (with an electronic link to the enclosure) was sent to counsel in both cases on December 13, 2012:
This is in the nature of an amicus letter or amicus objection to the Court, which I would understand the Court has no obligation to read or consider.
If the Court should choose to consider the enclosure, I would like to make the following brief points in this transmittal letter:
First, does this class action lawsuit and its settlement have any deterrent value and is it counter productive to the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing?
I have done extensive solicitation of regulators, state attorneys general, prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance professionals, defense lawyers, and tort reform organizations, among others, to try to obtain their views on the foregoing question and for such views to be submitted to the Court. To my knowledge, none of the persons or organizations I have solicited have submitted or are going to submit their views to the Court.
Second, I would like to raise a new issue that came to my mind since December 11th, and that concerns the adequacy of the disclosure in the Notice, relative to two points. Point one is that the Notice is not very explicit, and can be fairly called opaque, in describing how untold (and unknown) numbers of selling shareholders are walking away with windfall gains in an untold (and unknown) aggregate amount and are being allowed to keep the windfall gains, and the settlement in substance is largely an arbitrary shifting around of the corresponding losses experienced by purchasing shareholders. . Point two is, if I was a purchasing shareholder, and I had a loss, I would find it objectionable if the substance of the settlement was that my loss was being arbitrarily increased because my loss was less than the loss of other purchasing shareholders, and part of their greater loss is in substance getting arbitrarily shifted to me. As to this point two as well, the Notice is not very explicit and can be fairly be called opaque, in order for members of the plaintiff class ito decide to make an objection to the settlement or not.
Third, I make the suggestion to the Court that the Court request briefs from the plaintiffs and defendants addressing the issues raised in the enclosure and also the foregoing new issue.
Since this letter and the enclosure have no legal standing for recognition by the Court, and the Court has unfettered power to consider the same, or not, at this time, I am sending this letter and enclsoure by US mail only to the Court and am sending this letter by email to counsel specified in the Notice (per the above email addresses), which email has the above Internet link to the posted form of the enclosure
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Shattuck
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION
:::::
ECF CASE
To the Honorable United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
I am not a member of the plaintiff class.
The enclosure is denominated an amicus objection.
The enclosure bears two case designations, one designation being for the above captioned Bank of America case and the second designation being for In re Citigroup Securities Litigation Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS), which is also pending in the Southern District of New York.
The enclosure was previously sent by US mail on December 11, 2012 to the Court and also to counsel in the Citigroup Securities Litigation. Further, the below email (with an electronic link to the enclosure) was sent to counsel in both cases on December 13, 2012:
From: RDShatt@aol.comThe enclosure was originally posted on the Internet in November 2012 at URL http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2012/11/bank-of-america-draft-objection.html. The posting underwent revision, but it has been in its present form (the form of the enclosure) since the aforesaid mailing to the Court on December 11, 2012.
To: bkarp@paulweiss.com, plinden@kmllp.com, gcastaldo@ktmc.com, mwb@blbglaw.com, rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
Sent: 12/13/2012 11:28:09 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Amicus curiae objection in Citigroup and Bank of America cases
To: Plaintiffs' counsel, Citigroup Inc. counsel and Bank of America Corp. counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (PKC)
SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION
IN RE CITIGROUP INC. Master File No. 07 MDL CIV 9901 (SHS)
SECURITIES LITIGATION
AMICUS CURIAE OBJECTION OF ROBERT SHATTUCK TO SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS FEES
Please be advised that a paper copy of this amicus curiae objection was mailed on December 11, 2012 to the Clerk of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel and Citicorp counsel in the above Citigroup litigation and will be mailed in due course to the Clerk of the Court, plaintiff's' counsel and Bank of America counsel in the above Bank of America litigation.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586 ..
This is in the nature of an amicus letter or amicus objection to the Court, which I would understand the Court has no obligation to read or consider.
If the Court should choose to consider the enclosure, I would like to make the following brief points in this transmittal letter:
First, does this class action lawsuit and its settlement have any deterrent value and is it counter productive to the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing?
I have done extensive solicitation of regulators, state attorneys general, prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance professionals, defense lawyers, and tort reform organizations, among others, to try to obtain their views on the foregoing question and for such views to be submitted to the Court. To my knowledge, none of the persons or organizations I have solicited have submitted or are going to submit their views to the Court.
Second, I would like to raise a new issue that came to my mind since December 11th, and that concerns the adequacy of the disclosure in the Notice, relative to two points. Point one is that the Notice is not very explicit, and can be fairly called opaque, in describing how untold (and unknown) numbers of selling shareholders are walking away with windfall gains in an untold (and unknown) aggregate amount and are being allowed to keep the windfall gains, and the settlement in substance is largely an arbitrary shifting around of the corresponding losses experienced by purchasing shareholders. . Point two is, if I was a purchasing shareholder, and I had a loss, I would find it objectionable if the substance of the settlement was that my loss was being arbitrarily increased because my loss was less than the loss of other purchasing shareholders, and part of their greater loss is in substance getting arbitrarily shifted to me. As to this point two as well, the Notice is not very explicit and can be fairly be called opaque, in order for members of the plaintiff class ito decide to make an objection to the settlement or not.
Third, I make the suggestion to the Court that the Court request briefs from the plaintiffs and defendants addressing the issues raised in the enclosure and also the foregoing new issue.
Since this letter and the enclosure have no legal standing for recognition by the Court, and the Court has unfettered power to consider the same, or not, at this time, I am sending this letter and enclsoure by US mail only to the Court and am sending this letter by email to counsel specified in the Notice (per the above email addresses), which email has the above Internet link to the posted form of the enclosure
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Shattuck
Birmingham, AL
No comments:
Post a Comment