The Relevant Facts and Circumstances In this qui tam action brought pursuant to the NYFCA, the Relator alleges in the Complaint that the Defendants were required to reset the VRDOs at the lowest interest rate possible (NYSCEF 29, ¶ 43).

These two bucket threshold “qualifiers” were necessary to account for the periodic sale of the bonds 100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 5 of 12 or their departure from the market as a result of being paid off or converted to fixed rates.

In fact, according to the Defendants, if the Code worked as the Relator alleged, over a 26-week period the only bonds in one bucket would 100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 6 of 12 be those whose rate changes matched for 80% of those 26 weeks.

Nor has the Court weighed and determined the expert reports and analyses at issue, which is precisely the type of process that occurs on a properly framed motion for summary judgment.

100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 9 of 12 As discussed on the record, this Court understands the Defendants’ objections to the theory of the Complaint, and has been mindful of the scope of discovery in this case and has taken a measured approach.

Nos. 048-050, 071) are decided as set forth on the record (7.27.22) with respect to the swap agreements and the payments made.

No. 047) is granted solely to the extent of sealing NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 871-882, 884-886, and 888-889 in accordance with Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts for good cause shown because these documents contain confidential and proprietary business information.

Counsel for the defendants is directed to obtain a copy of the transcript (7.27.22) and have it uploaded to NYSCEF.

100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 045 047 048 049 050 071 Page 2 of 3 It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed, upon service on him (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) of a copy of this order with notice of entry, to seal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 871- 882, 884-886, and 888-889 and to separate these documents and to keep them separate from the balance of the file in this action; and it is further

ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).

This is a qui tam action alleging violations of the New York State False Claims Act based on the Defendants’ failure to (i) individually market and price variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) issued by the State of New York and (ii) set the rates of the VRDOs at the lowest 100559/2014 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE Motion No. 082 083 Page 1 of 3 possible interest rates as required by their agreements with the State of New York.

Following the Court’s decision (NYSCEF Doc. No. 158) denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Relator sought broad discovery.

The Court however did not make any rulings as to VRDOs on which the Relator’s expert could rely or exclude evidence that may properly be considered in this case.

Experts can always rely on data for which discovery is not sought so long as they provide that data to the opposing party and the Defendants are not entitled to limit the examples that the Relator’s expert relies on in its report or in its testimony in support of Relator’s claims.

They are however entitled to request information related to the data in its expert’s report and to ask appropriate questions at Relator’s expert’s deposition.

100559/2014 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE Motion No. 065 Page 1 of 3 ORDERED that he/she shall at all times during this action be associated with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the aforesaid party; and it is further

ORDERED that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of his/her participation in this matter; and it is further

ORDERED that said counsel shall notify the court immediately of any matter or event in this or any other jurisdiction that affects his/her standing as a member of the bar.

100559/2014 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE Motion No. 065 Page 2 of 3 1/25/2022

100559/2014 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE Motion No. 065 Page 3 of 3

The Relevant Facts and Circumstances In this qui tam action brought pursuant to the NYFCA, the Relator alleges in the Complaint that the Defendants were required to reset the VRDOs at the lowest interest rate possible (NYSCEF 29, ¶ 43).

These two bucket threshold “qualifiers” were necessary to account for the periodic sale of the bonds 100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 5 of 12 or their departure from the market as a result of being paid off or converted to fixed rates.

In fact, according to the Defendants, if the Code worked as the Relator alleged, over a 26-week period the only bonds in one bucket would 100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 6 of 12 be those whose rate changes matched for 80% of those 26 weeks.

Nor has the Court weighed and determined the expert reports and analyses at issue, which is precisely the type of process that occurs on a properly framed motion for summary judgment.

100559/2014 vs. Motion No. 040 041 052 053 054 055 Page 9 of 12 As discussed on the record, this Court understands the Defendants’ objections to the theory of the Complaint, and has been mindful of the scope of discovery in this case and has taken a measured approach.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat,upon the application of Plaintiff-Relator Edelweiss Fund, LLC,the reading andfiling of the annexedaffirmation of Saidah Grimes, dated November 23, 2021, and good cause having been shown,

LET DEFENDANTS SHOW CAUSE,before this Court, at a hearing to be held at the courthouse at 60 Centre St., New York, NY, I.A.S.

Felyary , 202kat /o.Jo a.m./peaa., or as soon as counsel may be heard, why an Order should not be madeandentered: e Ordering that the Clerk of the Court is directed, upon service on him or her (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) of a copy ofthis order with notice of entry, to seal Edelweiss’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Leave to Renew Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaintor in the Alternative to Remedya Fraud on the Court by Dismissing the Second Amended Complaint (NYSCEF No. 1003) and the accompanying Affidavit of Thomas Wesson (NYSCEF No. 1004) e Ordering that thereafter, or until further order of the Court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to the said documents to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the Court) except for counsel of record for any party of this case and any party; and further e Ordering Edelweiss to file redacted versions of Edelweiss’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Leave to Renew Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaintor in the Alternative to Remedy a Fraud on the Court by Dismissing the Second Amended Complaint and the Affidavit of Thomas Wessonuponentry of this order; and further e Ordering that service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in accordance with the proceduresset forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the Court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh; Edelweiss filed Proposed Orders to Show Cause requesting that the Court seal certain documents on January 29, 2021 (Dkt. 576) and November1, 2021 (Dkt. 895).

IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthatservice of a copy of this Order to Show Causeandall supporting papers upon whichit is based, upon Defendants’ attorneys by NYSCEFand email

ORDEREDthat Counsel shall file proof of service by dan yary 26 , sue.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a motion to disburse the Net Settlement Funds to authorized Claimants on November 30, 2021 (ECF Nos. 538-41); WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, the Court granted the motion and ordered a distribution pursuant to the Plan of Allocation but stayed the distribution of the Net Settlement Funds due to claimant AMA Capital Management LLC’s (“AMA”) appeal of the portion of its claim denied for lack of substantiation (ECF No. 562); WHEREAS, on April 14, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed this Court’s orders concerning AMA’s claim and its motion to intervene (Contant v. AMA Cap., LLC, 66 F.4th 59 (2d Cir. 2023)); WHEREAS, on May 8, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate sending the case back to this Court (ECF No. 578); WHEREAS, on January 5, 2024, the Court approved the pro rata distribution of the Net Settlement Funds to authorized Claimants pursuant to a distribution plan proposed by Class Counsel (ECF No. 620); WHEREAS, on January 24, 2024, the first tranche of distribution checks to authorized Claimants were issued (ECF No. 621) and the mailing of checks was completed by February 6, 2024 (ECF No. 626-1); WHEREAS, funds remain in (i) the Claim Administrator’s settlement distribution account from uncashed checks by authorized Claimants after numerous attempts to reissue those checks, and (ii) a Net Settlement Fund bank account containing unused funds that were held in reserve for contingent events; WHEREAS, the Court has considered the Motion for Reimbursement of Settlement Administration Costs, Supplemental Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Cy Pres Award of the Remaining Net Settlement Funds, and other documents submitted in support;

Payment to Class Counsel of $6,083.55 for expenses and $50,000 for funds advanced to pay taxes owed is hereby approved.

Payment of $307,564.25 to Class Counsel as a supplemental attorneys’ fee award ------------ denied.

The prior fee award was based primarily on the settlement fund is hereby approved.

When all settlement funds have been disbursed except for any cy pres distribution, class counsel shall file a letter and include an accounting showing where the settlement funds have been disbursed, the amount proposed for any cy pres distribution and the source of those funds (e.g. uncashed checks), and why distribution of that amount to class members is impracticable.

The parties are directed to review the Court’s Individual Rules to ensure compliance of any related declarations and exhibits.

Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum of law, not to exceed 25 pages, by October 9, 2024.

Defendant shall file a memorandum of law in opposition, not to exceed 25 pages, by November 6, 2024.

Plaintiffs shall file a reply memorandum of law, not to exceed 10 pages, by November 19, 2024.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Dkts.

WHEREAS, this case was recently reassigned to me.

It is hereby ORDERED that a telephonic conference to discuss the status of the case will be held on September 11, 2024, at 4:20 p.m.

The telephonic conference is public, and the time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed by that time.

All pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel.

The parties shall ensure they are all dialed into the conference call by the appointed conference time.

Bank of America is seeking an order sealing portions of Exhibits 7 and 8 cited in the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against the Bank of America Defendants (NYSCEF Nos. 2465-2466) and the August 10, 2024 Affirmation of Andrea L. Eisfeldt, Ph.D. (NYSCEF No. 2469) as set forth in the accompanying order to show cause.

This document reveals customer names, which are sensitive client information that the Bank is obligated to protect and keep private under Title V, Subtitle A of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

In the Court’s August 19, 2024 Decision and Order on Motion Sequence 94 and 99, the Court granted Bank of America’s request to redact customer names.

Bank of America seeks to seal this transcript in part and has identified information for redaction, which contains insight into its current proprietary rate-resetting process, the disclosure of which Bank of America reasonably believes carries a substantial risk of serious competitive and commercial harm by revealing to its competitors and the public aspects of how it sets rates for VRDOs.

Bank of America therefore respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing that portions of Exhibits 7 and 8 cited in the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against the Bank of America Defendants and the August 10, 2024 Affirmation of Andrea L. Eisfeldt, Ph.D., identified in the accompanying proposed order to show cause, be filed under seal.

Nos. 94 & 99 are granted for good cause shown pursuant to Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts solely to the extent that NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1704-1707, 1709-1725, 2169, 2171, 2173, 2179, 2185, 2187, 2188, 2191-2196, 2202, 2206, 2207, 2243shall be permanently sealed, pending the uploading of the approved proposed redactions no later than September 3, 2024; 2.

Nos. 95 & 101 are granted for good cause shown pursuant to Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts solely to the extent that NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1805, 1824, 1825, 1885, 1898, 1935-1940 shall be permanently sealed, pending the upload of the approved proposed redactions no later than September 3, 2024; 3.

No. 98 is granted for good cause shown pursuant to Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts to the extent that NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 2040, 2041, 2044, 2045, 2052, 2057, 2058 shall be sealed permanently, pending the upload of the approved proposed redactions no later than September 3, 2024; 4.

No. 93 is granted for good cause shown pursuant to Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts to the extent that NYSCEF Doc. No. 1695 shall be sealed permanently, pending the upload of the approved proposed redactions no later than September 3, 2024; 5.

2179, 2185, 2187, 2188, 2191-2196, 2202, 2206, 2207, 2243, and to separate these documents and to keep them separate from the balance of the file in this action; and it is further ORDRED that the parties shall upload redactions by September 3, 2024; and it is further ORDERED that thereafter, or until further order of the Court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to the said sealed documents to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the court) except for counsel of record for any party to this case and any party; and it is further ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website).

True, a footnote in one of those paragraphs states that “[e]ven if Coram does have records sufficient to identify the last known address for a limited subset of credit balances, then that state’s escheat laws would apply.” Id. at ¶ 114 n.5 (emphasis added).

In this level, Gill alleges that CVS Pharmacies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly taking government money for drugs that patients funded with copay cards.

Remember, to state an anti-kickback violation, Gill must allege that Coram (1) knowingly and willfully; (2) offered or paid; (3) remuneration; (4) in return for purchasing or ordering any item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program.

Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has explicitly found allegations to “not [be] substantially similar because they covered an entirely different time period.” Cause of Action v. Chicago Transit Auth., 815 F.3d 267, 281 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that Leveski v. ITT Educ.

The relator must show that he (1) “has knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions,” and (2) “has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Bellevue, 867 F.3d at 720.

By: s/Cynthia Giganti Ludwig Robert J. Fluskey, Jr. Aaron M. Saykin Cynthia Giganti Ludwig The Guaranty Building 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100 Buffalo, New York 14202-4040 Telephone: 716.856.4000

Edelweiss Fund, LLC, appear and show cause in at 60 Centre Street, NewYork, before the in the courthouse located J.S.C., on the D_ day of b fUb, IAS Part 53 of this Court, as soon thereafter the following relief:

No. 206), the accompanying Affirmation of Aaron M. Saykin, dated July 2, 2024, and good cause having been alleged, is hereby: it ORDEREDthat Plaintiff-Relator Honorable Andrew Borrok, 2024 at 2/d/) ., or as courisel may be heard, why an Order should not be entered granting M&T a.m./ the Clerk of the Court is directed, Ordering that (60 Centre Street, Room141B) of a copy of this order with notice of entry, of Aaron M. Saykin in Support of M&T's Motion for SummaryJudgment the Affirmation (NYSCEFDoc.

1757), upon service on him or her to seal Exhibit 28 to consisting of excerpts from Plaintiff-Relator's September 15, 2023 Expert Report of Professor S. Ilan Guedj ("Exhibit 28"), and to separate this document and keep it separate from the balance of the file in this action, and to restrict said document from all except the parties, their counsel, and Court personnel; and further Ordering that thereafter, or until further order of the Court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to the said document to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the Court) except for counsel of record for any party of this case and any party; and further Ordering that service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be madein accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for "E-Filing" Filed Cases (accessible at the page on the Court's website at the Electronically address www.nycourts/gov/supctmanh); and it is further

ORDEREDthat, pending the hearing on this Order to Show Cause, under seal, accessible remain temporarily unredacted Exhibit 28 will the only to the parties, their counsel of record, and authorized Court personnel; and it is further ORDEREDthat service upon counsel for Plaintiff-Relator of a copy of this Order, is based, by electronic means so as to be received on or together with the papers upon which it before 7p/y 23 , 2024, shall be deemed good and sufficient and it is further service; ORDEREDthat Counsel shall file proof of service by 3©/7 Z É, 2024; and it is further ORDEREDthat opposition papers, if any, shall be served on or before ofo r