13-2095-cv L Commonwealth of Pa. Public School Emps.’ Retirement System v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT…

13-2095-cv(L)
Commonwealth of Pa. Public School Emps.’ Retirement System v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
2
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3
4
August Term, 2015 5
6
(Argued: June 20, 2014 Decided: February 23, 2016) 7
8
Docket Nos. 13-2095-cv(L), 13-2283-cv(XAP), 13-2286-cv(XAP), 9
13-2287-cv(XAP) 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT 12
SYSTEM, together and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13
COMMERZBANK AG, together and on behalf of all others similarly 14
situated, 15
16
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 17
18
ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK, individually and on behalf of all 19
others similarly situated, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, together and 20
on behalf of all others similarly situated, SEI INVESTMENTS 21
COMPANY, together and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 22
THE BANK OF N.T. BUTTERFIELD & SON LIMITED, SFT COLLECTIVE 23
INVESTMENT FUND, DEUTSCHE POSTBANK AG, GLOBAL INVESTMENT SERVICES 24
LIMITED, GULF INTERNATIONAL BANK B.S.C., NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL 25
COOPERATIVE FEDERATION, together and on behalf of all others 26
similarly situated, STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA, 27
together and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BANK 28
SINOPAC, together and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 29
BANK HAPOALIM B.M., together and on behalf of all others similarly 30
situated, KBL EUROPEAN PRIVATE BANKERS S.A., 31
32
Plaintiffs, 33
34
v. 35
36
MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. 37
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MOODY’S INVESTOR SERVICE, INC., MOODY’S 38
INVESTOR SERVICE, LTD., THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., STANDARD 39
& POOR’S RATING SERVICES, 40
41
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, 42
43
44
CHEYNE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, CHEYNE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (UK) 45
LLP, CHEYNE CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 46
47
Defendants. 48
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49
1

-- 1 of 4 --

1
B e f o r e: WINTER, LEVAL, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. 2
3
Appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District 4
Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, 5
Judge) denying class certification, dismissing appellant 6
Commerzbank’s fraud claims for lack of standing, and dismissing 7
appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ 8
Retirement System’s (“PSERS”) claims for lack of diversity 9
jurisdiction. In a previous opinion, we affirmed the denial of 10
class certification and the dismissal of PSERS’s claim, and we 11
certified questions dispositive of Commerzbank’s appeal to the New 12
York Court of Appeals. See Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. 13
Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 116-25 (2d Cir.), as amended 14
(Nov. 12, 2014). We have now received an answer. On the basis of 15
that answer, we affirm. 16
LUKE O. BROOKS (Joseph D. Daley & Daniel 17
S. Drosman, San Diego, CA) Robbins Geller 18
Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA, for 19
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. 20
21
JAMES P. ROUHANDEH (Antonio J. Perez- 22
Marques, Paul S. Mishkin, Jessica L. 23
Turner, on the joint brief) Davis Polk & 24
Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for 25
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants 26
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and Morgan 27
Stanley & Co. Int’l Ltd. 28
29
Dean Ringel, Jason M. Hall, Roxana 30
Labatt, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New 31
York, NY, on the joint brief, 32
for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants 33
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services and 34
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 35
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Joshua M. Rubins, James J. Coster, Mario 1
Aieta, James I. Doty, Satterlee Stephens 2
Burke & Burke LLP, New York, NY; Mark A. 3
Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 4
Washington, DC, on the joint brief, for 5
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants 6
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and 7
Moody’s Investors Service, Ltd. 8
9
PER CURIAM: 10
11
Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) appealed from Judge 12
Scheindlin’s denial of class certification and dismissal of the 13
claims asserted by certain investors for lack of standing, 14
including Commerzbank. In a previous decision, familiarity with 15
which is assumed, we affirmed the district court in part and 16
certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether 17
a reasonable trier of fact could, on the record of this case, 18
conclude that Commerzbank was validly assigned the right to bring 19
a common-law fraud claim, and therefore had standing to sue 20
various defendants. See Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Morgan 21
Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 116-25 (2d Cir.), as amended, (Nov. 22
12, 2014). The New York Court of Appeals has since resolved that, 23
under New York law, Commerzbank does not have standing to pursue 24
its fraud claim. Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley 25
& Co., 25 N.Y.3d 543, 553 (2015). 26
Our prior opinion did not reach the question of whether the 27
District Court properly denied Commerzbank’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 28
3

-- 3 of 4 --

17(a)(3) motion as untimely. 1 Rule 17(a)(3) permits ratification 1
of a claim within a "reasonable time" after a standing objection 2
is raised. That issue is now ripe for decision. We review a 3
district court's decision whether to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4
17(a) for abuse of discretion. Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de 5
Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l 6
B.V. v. Schreiber, 407 F.3d 34, 43-44 (2d Cir. 2005). 7
Commerzbank's Rule 17(a) motion was made on September 10, 2012, 8
after summary judgment was entered against it and even after the 9
filing of its motion to reconsider, whereas the issue was raised 10
in defendants' pleadings in March 2011 and again in the motion for 11
summary judgment. Given Commerzbank's delay in filing the motion, 12
the district court acted well within its discretion in denying 13
Commerzbank's ratification motion as untimely. 14
In light of the New York Court of Appeals decision and our 15
affirmance of the denial of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) motion, we 16
affirm. 17
18
1 Given our disposition of this matter, we may assume, for purposes of
this case, that Commerzbank’s 17(a)(3) Notice of Ratification Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) would have afforded the relief sought.
4

-- 4 of 4 --