Which cases apply to your company?

Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Settlement

1:13-md-2476 US District Court Southern District of New York

Overview​​

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) engaged in anticompetitive acts that affected the price of Credit Default Swaps in violation of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit also alleges that Defendants were unjustly enriched under common law by their anticompetitive acts.

Definition of a CDS Transaction

“CDS” means any and all types of credit default swap(s) and CDS-based products, including, without limitation, single-name CDS, CDS on corporate, sovereign and municipal reference entities, tranche CDS, basket CDS, index CDS, and CDS futures. A “CDS Transaction” means (i) any purchase, sale, trade, assignment, novation, unwind, termination, or other exercise of rights or options with respect to any CDS, whether executed over-the-counter or via inter-dealer brokers, a centralized clearinghouse, a central limit order book, an exchange, a swap execution facility, or any other platform or trading facility; or (ii) any decision to withhold a bid or offer on, or to decline to purchase, sell, trade, assign, novate, unwind, terminate or otherwise exercise any rights or options with respect to any CDS.​

Class

All persons or entities (“Persons”) who, during the period of January 1, 2008 through September 25, 2015, purchased CDS from or sold CDS to the Dealer Defendants, their respective affiliates, or any purported co-conspirator, in any Covered Transaction. The settlement agreements define a Covered Transaction as follows: “A purchase or sale of CDS shall be deemed to be a “Covered Transaction” in each of the following circumstances: (i) if the purchase or sale was by or on behalf of a Person either domiciled or located (e.g., had a principal place of business) in the United States or its territories at the time of such purchase or sale; (ii) if the Person was domiciled and located outside the United States and its territories at the time of any such purchase or sale, where such purchase or sale was in United States commerce; or (iii) where such purchase or sale otherwise falls within the scope of the U.S. antitrust laws.” Examples of a “Covered Transaction” include: (i) you are domiciled or located in the United States or its territories and you made a CDS Transaction with a Dealer Defendant or one of its affiliates; (ii) you are domiciled and located outside the United States or its territories and you made a CDS Transaction with a Dealer Defendant or one of its affiliates located in the United States or its territories; or (iii) you are domiciled and located outside the United States or its territories and you made a CDS Transaction with a Dealer Defendant or one of its affiliates that was executed through a desk located in the United States or its territories.

Defendants

• Bank of America Corporation & Bank of America, N.A.
• Barclays Bank PLC
• BNP Paribas
• Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A. & Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
• Credit Suisse AG
• Deutsche Bank AG
• Goldman, Sachs & Co.
• HSBC Bank PLC & HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
• International Swaps and Derivatives Association
• JPMorgan Chase & Co. & J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
• Markit Group Holdings Ltd. & Markit Group Ltd.
• Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
• Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
• UBS AG & UBS Securities LLC

Total Settlements: $1,864,650,000

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​ ​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Dental Supplies Antitrust Settlement

US District Court, Eastern District of NY, Case 1:16-cv-00696

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that the country’s largest dental supply distributors colluded to suppress price competition so they could charge artificially inflated prices for dental supplies and equipment. The dental supply companies Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies and Benco Dental Supply Company, were accused of colluding to fix prices on crowns, numbing agents, X-ray accessories and other products, and also colluding to boycott supporters of a lower-cost rival.

​Dentists typically buy supplies through centralized clearinghouses, as opposed to purchasing goods directly from manufacturers. Collectively, these companies reportedly control over 85 percent of all distributor sales of dental products and services nationwide, according to court filings.

Class

All persons or entities that purchased Dental Products directly from Schein, Patterson or Benco between August 31, 2008 and March 31, 2016. Excluded from the Class are Schein, Patterson and Benco (including their subsidiaries, affiliates and employees), and all federal or state government entities.

​Once the settlement is final, customers that are included in the defendants’ databases will be notified of next steps. Organizations such as the ADA will be contacted to provide information, and a settlement website will be set up to explain the terms and process for making a claim.

Defendants

• Henry Schein, In​c.
• Patterson Companies
• Benco Dental Supply Company
  ​

Pending Settlement: $80,000,000

Filing Deadline: September 19, 2019

Domestic Drywall Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

2:13-md-02437 US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Overview

The case is known as In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437 and
13-MD-2437. Starting in December 2012, indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard filed lawsuits claiming that the Defendants conspired, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the price of gypsum wallboard and, to help effectuate this price-fixing conspiracy, abolish the industry’s long-standing practice of limiting price increases for the duration of a construction project through the use of “job quotes.”

Class

In connection with the TIN and USG settlements, the Court certified identical Settlement Classes composed of all persons or entities that indirectly purchased wallboard for end use and not for resale in the United States that was manufactured or distributed by any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014. The settlement recovers money for the benefit of class members located in or making a purchase in or from an entity located in Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (“Indirect Purchaser State Damages Class”).

Defendants

• TIN
• USG
• CertainTeed Gypsum
• New NGC
• Lafarge North America
• Eagle Materials, Inc.
• American Gypsum Company LLC
• PABCO Building Products

Filing Deadline: January 9, 2019

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

DRAM Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

4:02-md-01486 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview

Plaintiffs claim violations of federal antitrust laws regarding the sale of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant DRAM manufacturers conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of DRAM sold in the United States. According to class action lawsuits, Plaintiffs believe these Defendants’ activities resulted in overcharges to customers who purchased DRAM indirectly from the named Defendant manufacturers.

The following is a summary for informational purposes only, based on SRG’s review of publically available information regarding the settlement. More information can be found on the Court’s docket and on www.dramclaims.com, which is the official settlement website maintained by the claims administrator appointed by the Court.

What is DRAM?

“DRAM” is defined as dynamic random access memory devices and components, including but not limited to, synchronous dynamic random access memory (“SDRAM”), Rambus dynamic random access memory (“RDRAM”), asynchronous dynamic random access memory (“ASYNC”) and double data rate dynamic random access memory (“DDR”), including modules containing DRAM, RDRAM, ASYNC, and/or DDR.

“DRAM” does not include static random access memory (“SRAM”) devices and components.​

These Products Contain DRAM:

• Desktop computers
• Laptop computers
• Servers
• Point of Sales Systems
• Graphics cards
• Video game consoles
• MP3 players
• Printers
• Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)
• DVD players
• TiVo/DVRs​

Indirect Purchaser Class

Any person, business or non-governmental entity who, at any time between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2002 purchased DRAM, or DRAM containing devices, anywhere in the United St​ates indirectly from the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates. “Indirectly” means a purchase from any entity other than directly from the listed Defendant manufacturers themselves. Indirect purchases include purchases of DRAM or DRAM containing devices from manufacturers, retailers and resellers.

Defendants

• Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. (“Elpida”)
• Hitachi, Ltd. (“Hitachi”)
• Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (“Hynix”)
• Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (“Infineon”)
• Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (“Micron”)
• Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”)
• Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc. (“Mosel”)
• Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc. (“Nanya”)​
• NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC”)
• Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“Samsung”)​
• Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“Toshiba”)
• Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation America, Inc. (“Winbond”)​

Proposed Settlements: $310,720,000

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Electrolytic Capacitors Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

3:14-cv-03264 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview​

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants colluded to fix prices and restrain trade of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors. These include capacitor products sold in the United States. Electrolytic capacitors are used in electrical circuit boards to store and release electricity. Capacitors are incorporated into almost every electronic device, including computers, audio and video equipment, automobile electronics such as car engines and airbag systems, and telecommunications equipment.

Class

All persons and entities who, between January 1, 2002 and July 15, 2016 (the “Class Period”), purchased electrolytic capacitors or products containing electrolytic capacitors in the United States directly from any of the defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures. Excluded from this Class are the Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, co-conspirators and governmental entities.

Settling Defendants

• Fujitsu Ltd.
• NEC Tokin Corporation
• Nitsuko Electronics Corporation​
• Okaya Electric Industries
• Rohm Company

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Electrolytic Capacitors Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

3:14-cv-03264 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants colluded to fix prices and restrain trade of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors. These include capacitor products sold in the United States. Electrolytic capacitors are used in electrical circuit boards to store and release electricity. Capacitors are incorporated into almost every electronic device, including computers, audio and video equipment, automobile electronics such as car engines and airbag systems, and telecommunications equipment.

Class

All persons and entities who, from January 1, 2002 to April 14, 2016 (the “Class Period”), purchased electrolytic capacitors or products containing electrolytic capacitors in the United States from a distributor or any entity other than a Defendant, that a Defendant or alleged
co-conspirator manufactured. Excluded from this Class are the Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, co-conspirators and governmental entities.

Settling Defendants

• Fujitsu Ltd.
• NEC Tokin Corporation
• Nitsuko Electronics Corporation
• Okaya Electric Industries
• Rohm Company

Filing Deadline: Not yet established

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Euribor Products Settlement

1:13-cv-02811 US District Court, Southern District of New York

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manipulated Euribor and the prices of Euribor Products. For example, panel banks that made daily Euribor submissions to Thomson Reuters, such as Barclays, HSBC and Deutsche Bank, allegedly falsely reported their borrowing costs, in order to financially benefit their Euribor Products positions. Defendants also requested that other Defendants make false Euribor submissions on their behalf, to benefit their Euribor Products positions. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants conspired to fix prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter market to financially benefit their own Euribor Products positions. In addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and agreeing on where to price Euribor Products, in order to allegedly manipulate Euribor and Euribor Products during the Class Period, Defendants allegedly engaged in “pushing cash,” transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative traders as submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor Products.

Class

All Persons that purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in any Euribor Products between June 1, 2005 and March 31, 2011, (“Class Period”), who were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, transacted Euribor Products in the United States or its territories during the Class Period, including, but not limited to, all Persons who traded CME Euro currency futures contracts, all Persons who transacted in NYSE LIFFE Euribor futures and options from a location within the United States, and all Persons who traded any other Euribor Product from a location within the United States.

Defendants

• Barclays plc
• Barclays Bank plc
• Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, “Barclays”)
• HSBC Holdings plc​
• HSBC Bank plc (collectively, “HSBC”)
• Deutsche Bank AG
• DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively, “Deutsche Bank”)

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

EuroYen Settlement

1:12-cv-3419 US District Court, Southern District of New York & Related Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2011, manipulated or helped manipulate Yen-LIBOR, EuroYen TIBOR, and the prices of EuroYen-Based Derivatives. Panel banks that made the daily Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British Bankers’ Association and Japanese Bankers Association (collectively, “Contributor Bank Defendants”), such as Citi and HSBC, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Contributor Bank Defendants also requested that other Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers, intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and derivatives markets (the “Broker Defendants”), such as RP Martin, had knowledge of and assisted the Contributor Bank Defendants’ alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based Derivatives, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. For example, Contributor Bank Defendants used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives by disseminating false “Suggested LIBORs,” publishing false market rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids and offers into the market.

EuroYen Based Derivatives Are

EuroYen TIBOR futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), Tokyo Financial Exchange (“TFX”), Singapore Exchange (“SGX”), or London International Financial Futures & Options Exchange (“LIFFE”) entered into by a US person, or by a person from or through a location within the US; a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME; a Yen
​LIBOR-and/or EuroYen TIBOR-based interest rate swap entered into by a US person, or by a person from or through a location within the US; an option on a Yen LIBOR-and/or EuroYen TIBOR-based interest rate swap (“swaption”) entered into by a US person, or by a person from or through a location within the US; and a Yen LIBOR-and/or EuroYen TIBOR-based forward rate agreement entered into by a US person, or by a person from or through a location with the US.

Class

All Persons that purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in any Euroyen-Based Derivatives during the period of January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011 (“Class Period”). Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents; the Released Parties (as defined in the Agreements); and any Class Member who files a timely and valid request for exclusion.

Defendants

Contributor Bank Defendants

• Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
• Bank of Yokohama, Ltd.
• Barclays Bank PLC
• Citibank Japan Ltd.
• Citibank, NA
• Citigroup Global Markets Japan, Inc.
• Citigroup Inc.
• Deutsche Bank AG
• HSBC Bank PLC
• HSBC Holdings PLC
• ICAP Europe Ltd.
• JP Morgan Chase & Co.
• JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
• JP Morgan Securities Plc.
• Lloyds Banking Group PLC
• Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd.​
• Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corporation
• Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd.
• Norinchukin Bank
• Rabobank
• RBS Securities Japan Ltd.
• Royal Bank of Scotland Group
• Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
• RP Martin Holdings Ltd.
• Shinkin Central Bank
• Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd.
• Societe Generale SA
• Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
• Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.
• Tullett Prebon PLC
• UBS AG
• UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd.

​

​Broker Defendants

• Barclays Plc.
• Bank of America Corporation
• Bank of America, NA
• Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
• Bank of Yokohama, Ltd.
• Barclays Bank Plc.
• Barclays Capital Inc.
• Citibank Japan, Ltd.
• Citibank, NA
• Citigroup Global Markets Japan, Inc.
• Citigroup, Inc.
• DB Group Services UK Ltd.
• Deutsche Bank AG
• HSBC Bank Plc.
• HSBC Holdings Plc.
• ICAP Europe Ltd.
• ICAP Plc.
• JP Morgan Chase & Co.
• JP Morgan Securities Plc.
• JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assoc.
• Lloyds Bank Plc.
• Lloyds Banking Group Plc.
• Martin Brokers (UK), Ltd.
• Merrill Lynch International
• Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corp.
• Mizuho Bank, Ltd.
• Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd.
• Mizuho Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.
• Norinchukin Bank
• Rabobank
• RBS Securities Inc.
• RBS Securities Japan Ltd.
• Resona Bank, Ltd.
• Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.
• Royal Bank of Scotland Plc.
• RP Martin Holdings, Ltd.
• Shinkin Central Bank
• Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd.
• Societe Generale SA
• Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.
• Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.
• Tullett Prebon Plc.
• UBS AG
• UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Settlement

1:13-cv-07789 US District Court, Southern District of New York

Overview​

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (“FX”) market in violation of the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. Nine defendants have so far agreed to pay over $2 billion in settlements. The plaintiffs claim that the bank employees colluded to trade in ways that would create favorable fixed rates and manipulate the global foreign exchange market.

The Direct Settlement Class

All Persons who, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, entered into an FX Instrument directly with a Defendant, a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, or division of a Defendant, a Released Party, or co-conspirator where such Persons were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, transacted FX Instruments in the United States or its territories. Specifically excluded from the Direct Settlement Class are Defendants; Released Parties; coconspirators; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant, Released Party, or coconspirator; any entity in which any Defendant, Released Party, or co-conspirator has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant, Released Party, or co-conspirator and any person acting on their behalf; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the definition of the Direct Settlement Class. Also excluded from the Direct Settlement Class are any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this Action.

The Exchange-Only Settlement Class

All Persons who, between January 1, 2003 and December 15, 2015, entered into FX Exchange-Traded Instruments where such Persons were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, entered into FX Exchange-Traded Instruments on a U.S. exchange. Specifically excluded from the Exchange-Only Settlement Class are Defendants; Released Parties; coconspirators; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant, Released Party, or coconspirator; any entity in which any Defendant, Released Party, or co-conspirator has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant, Released Party, or co-conspirator and any person acting on their behalf; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the definition of the Exchange-Only Settlement Class. Also excluded from the Exchange-Only Settlement Class are: (i) any judicial officer presiding over this action and any member of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this Action; and (ii) any Person who, between January 1, 2003 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, entered into an FX Instrument directly with a Defendant, a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, or division of a Defendant, a Released Party, or coconspirator, where such Person was either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, transacted FX Instruments in the United States or its territories.

Defendants

• Bank of America
• Goldman Sachs
• Barclays
• HSBC
• BNP Paribas
• JP Morgan
• Citigroup
• Morgan Stanley
• Credit Suisse
• Royal Bank of Scotland
• Deutsche Bank
• UBS
• Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
• RBC
• Societe Generale
• Standard Chartered

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.