AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board (ERB) filed a lawsuit against various defendants, including Aldus entities, Saul Meyer, Marc Correra, and Deutsche Bank, to recover investments made under a "pay-to-play" scheme. The ERB and Defendants negotiated three settlement agreements, which the ERB moved the district court to approve (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees (ERB): Sought approval of three settlement agreements negotiated with the defendants to recover for investments made under a "pay-to-play" scheme (para 2).
• Defendants-Appellees: Agreed to the settlement agreements with the ERB, terms undisclosed in the decision (para 2).
• Qui Tam Relators-Appellants: Opposed the settlements, arguing they needed to gather evidence concerning the advisability and legality of the Settlements before deciding whether to support or oppose them. They later filed a memorandum stating their opposition and described their objections without referring to the settlement agreements (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in approving the settlement agreements between the ERB and the defendants (para 13).
• Whether the district court erred by blocking discovery into the merits of the Settlements despite Appellants’ objection (para 17).
• Whether the district court committed legal error by relying on inadmissible evidence in the form of testimony by affidavit and representations from counsel in making its findings (para 22).
• Whether the Settlements violate FATA by providing that Defendants will not be responsible for FATA attorney fees and costs (para 25).

Disposition

• The district court's approval of the Settlements was affirmed (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Gerald E. Baca concurring, held that the district court did not err in approving the Settlements. The court found that the action was deemed an "alternate remedy" under FATA, and the district court had provided the qui tam plaintiffs an opportunity to present evidence that the proposed settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable under all of the circumstances. The court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding discovery issues, evidentiary issues, and attorney fees, noting that similar arguments had been made and rejected in previous cases. The court applied a mixed standard of review, first reviewing de novo whether the correct law was applied and then whether the district court's decision was an abuse of discretion. The court found no error in the district court's approval of the Settlements, affirming the decision (paras 13-27).