UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X DR. RUTH C. MAY AND DR. DONNA E. LEDGERWOOD, JUSTIN REED, MARK HOWARTH and JEFFREY KNAPP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Plaiintiffs, 23 CIVIL 2583 (LJL)

-against- JUDGMENT

BARCLAYS PLC AND BARCLAYS BANK PLC, JAMES E. STALEY, TUSHAR MORZARIA, STEVEN EWART, C.S. VENKATAKRISHNAN, TIM THROSBY, ANNA CROSS, NIGEL HIGGINS, ALEX THURSBY, HELEN KEELAN, HELENE VAN DORT, JEREMY SCOTT, MARIA RICHTER, and DOES 1-12,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2025, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. "Although Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires,' it is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend." McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). "A district court has discretion to deny leave for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party."

Plaintiffs have not "proffered the content of any proposed amendment or given any clue as to how the complaints defects would be cured." In re Skechers USA, Inc. Sec. Litig.,

, 530 n.19 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim to relief does not appear to be the product of inartful pleading but rather substantive issues with Plaintiff's claims that would make repleading futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu,

(2d Cir. 2000). The amended complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 21, 2025

TAMMI M. HELLWIG Clerk of Court

BY: TR Deputy Clerk