Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06015/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1441 - Petition for Removal: SEC Act

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

THOMAS R. BECNEL, individually

and as trustee of the BECNEL

FAMILY TRUST abd CST TRUST, BCTS LLC 

and JARDINE VENTURES LLC, on their own

behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-6015

KPMG LLP, PRESIDIO ADVISORS LLC,

PRESIDIO GROWTH LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK

AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.,

BAYERISCHE HYPO UND VEREINSBANK, QUELLOS

GROUP LLC, QA INVESTMENTS LLC, QUADRA

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP and SIDLEY AUSTIN

BROWN & WOOD LLP DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion and Brief Pursuant to

Rule 59(e) to Alter or Amend the Order Denying Class Certification

(Doc. #115). Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its

Order denying class certification based upon newly discovered

evidence and new law. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the

Court grant class certification as to Separate Defendants KPMG and

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood (Brown & Wood), solely, or allow

Plaintiffs to conduct class discovery. 

Plaintiffs contend the Court should reverse its decision

denying class certification because (1) the guilty plea of an

executive of Separate Defendant Bayerische Hypo Und Vereinsbanks

(HVB) to felony charges related to BLIPS transactions; (2) Third

Circuit case law that Plaintiff contends stands for the proposition

Case 6:05-cv-06015-RTD Document 116 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

that it is not appropriate to deny class certification based upon

the amount of class members’ claims; and (3) KPMG and Brown & Wood

“have taken additional steps toward consummating their collusive

settlement”. The Court has again considered Plaintiffs’ arguments

and concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the

prerequisites of Rule 23, and for the reasons set forth in this

Court’s Memorandum Opinion & Order (Doc. 112), the Court finds the

motion should be and hereby is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 6:05-cv-06015-RTD Document 116 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>