throbber
Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40249 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 64
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`In Re: Wire Harness Systems
`In Re: Instrument Panel Clusters
`In Re: Fuel Senders
`In Re: Heater Control Panels
`In Re: Automotive Bearings
`In Re: Occupant Safety Systems
`In Re: Alternators
`In Re: Anti-Vibrational Rubber Parts
`In Re: Windshield Wiper Systems
`In Re: Radiators
`In Re: Starters
`In Re: Automotive Lamps
`In Re: Switches
`In Re: Ignition Coils
`In Re: Motor Generator
`In Re: Steering Angle Sensors
`In Re: HID Ballasts
`In Re: Inverters
`In Re: Electric Powered Steering
`Assemblies
`In Re: Air Flow Meters
`In Re: Fan Motors
`In Re: Fuel Injection Systems
`In Re: Power Window Motors
`In Re: Automatic Transmission Fluid
`Warmers
`In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices
`In Re: Electronic Throttle Bodies
`In Re: Air Conditioning Systems
`In Re: Windshield Washer Systems
`In Re: Automotive Constant Velocity
`Joint Boot Products
`
`
`No. 12-md-02311
`Hon. Sean F. Cox
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00103
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00203
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00303
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00403
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00503
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00603
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00703
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00803
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00903
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01003
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01103
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01203
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01303
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01403
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01503
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01603
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01703
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01803
`Case No. 2:13-cv-01903
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02003
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02103
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02203
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02303
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02403
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02503
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02603
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02703
`Case No. 2:13-cv-02803
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02903
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40250 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 64
`
`
`
`
`In Re: Spark Plugs
`In Re: Automotive Hoses
`In Re: Shock Absorbers
`In Re: Body Sealing Products
`In Re: Interior Trim Products
`In Re: Automotive Brake Hoses
`In Re: Exhaust Systems
`In Re: Ceramic Substrates
`In Re: Power Window Switches
`In Re: Automotive Steel Tubes
`In Re: Access Mechanisms
`In Re: Side Door Latches
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`End-Payor Actions
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-03003
`Case No. 2:15-cv-03203
`Case No. 2:15-cv-03303
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03403
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03503
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03603
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03703
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03803
`Case No. 2:16-cv-03903
`Case No. 2:16-cv-04003
`Case No. 2:16-cv-04103
`Case No. 2:16-cv-04303
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHELLE M. LA COUNT, ESQ. REGARDING
`END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRO RATA DISTRIBUTIONS
`TO AUTHORIZED CLAIMANTS1
`
`
`I, MICHELLE M. LA COUNT, ESQ., hereby declare as follows pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1.
`
`I am an employee of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
`
`(“Epiq” or “Settlement Administrator”). I currently serve as one of the Project
`
`Directors for this matter on behalf of Epiq. I have more than 17 years of experience
`
`handling all aspects of settlement administration. The statements of fact in this
`
`
`1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this document shall have the
`same meanings ascribed to them in EPPs’ Motion for Distribution of $100 Minimum
`Payment to Authorized Claimants (“Motion for Distribution of $100 Minimum
`Payments”). See, e.g., No 2:12-cv00103 (August 29, 2024), ECF No. 656-1.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40251 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 64
`
`
`
`
`Declaration are based on my personal knowledge and information provided to me
`
`by other experienced Epiq employees working with me and under my supervision in
`
`the ordinary course of business. If called on to do so, I could and would testify
`
`competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`The Court appointed Epiq as the Settlement Administrator on October
`
`13, 2015. See, e.g., Corrected Order Granting End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Authorization to Disseminate Notice to the End-Payor Plaintiff Settlement Classes,
`
`No. 2:13-md-02203 (Oct. 13, 2015), ECF No. 152).2 I submit this Declaration to (a)
`
`provide an update to the parties and the Court regarding the approved $100 minimum
`
`payment distribution, (b) advise the parties and the Court regarding the
`
`implementation of the various applicable End-Payor Plaintiff (“EPP”) Settlement
`
`Agreements, orders, and related documents, and (c) detail the process for allocating
`
`the pro rata proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds3 to Authorized Claimants from
`
`the Rounds 1 through 5 Settlements.
`
`
`
`
`2 In 2018, Epiq acquired Garden City Group, the original Court-appointed
`settlement administrator, and became its successor.
`3 The Net Settlement Funds consist of the Rounds 1-5 Settlement Amounts,
`plus interest earned thereon through November 30, 2024, less attorneys’ fees,
`litigation costs and expenses, class notice and settlement administration expenses
`that have been approved by the Court and paid to date, class representative service
`awards, the previously approved $100 minimum payments, and a $450,000 reserve
`fund in connection therewith.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40252 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 64
`
`
`
`
`ROUND 5 SUBMISSION VALIDATION PROCESS
`
`3.
`
`Epiq applied a similar validation process to the Round 5 Claim Form
`
`submissions. Specifically, Epiq audited Round 5 Claim Form submissions that
`
`appeared to have at least one facially valid transaction to ensure that Epiq identified
`
`and removed from consideration:
`
`a. Duplicate submissions previously made in the Rounds 1 through 4
`
`Settlements;
`
`b. Duplicate submissions made within the Round 5 Settlements;
`
`c. Submissions that failed to include or omitted the required vehicle
`
`purchase, vehicle lease, and/or part purchase information; and
`
`d. Submissions that included an indicia of fraud (e.g., where a single
`
`claimant submitted multiple claims for multiple vehicles using the same
`
`mailing or email address and/or where submissions facially appeared to
`
`contain fraudulent or fake information).
`
`4.
`
`Following application of the validation criteria, the Settlement
`
`Administrator determined that a total of 24,854 submissions would be eligible for a
`
`$100 minimum payment exclusively from the Round 5 Settlements, for a total of
`
`$2,845,400.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40253 Filed 12/27/24 Page 5 of 64
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The Settlement Administrator has not conducted any defect outreach or
`
`requested any sample record documents for those claimants that have submitted a
`
`claim for inclusion exclusively within the Round 5 Settlements.
`
`6.
`
`Following discussions with Settlement Class Counsel, it has been
`
`determined that the $100 minimum payments will draw exclusively from the Round
`
`5 Settlement proceeds leaving a maximum of $741,862.64 remaining funds from the
`
`Round 5 Settlements available for any future distribution or payment of outstanding
`
`costs and fees. Given the small amount of remaining funds available for pro rata
`
`distribution from the Round 5 Settlement Funds, the Settlement Administrator
`
`requests that the Court approve distributing those funds using the same methodology
`
`approved for the Rounds 1 through 4 pro rata distribution described below without
`
`further Order of the Court.
`
`ROUNDS 1 THROUGH 5 $100 MINIMUM PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION
`
`7.
`
`Following this Court’s Order Approving End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion
`
`for Distribution of $100 Minimum Payments to Authorized Claimants, Case No.
`
`2:12-cv-00103 (Oct. 21, 2024), ECF No. 663, the Settlement Administrator began
`
`distributing the $100 minimum payments to eligible claimants on December 24,
`
`2024. The $100 minimum payment distribution included digital, wire, and physical
`
`check payments to Authorized Claimants in the Rounds 1-4 Settlements as described
`
`in the Declaration of Peter Sperry Regarding End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40254 Filed 12/27/24 Page 6 of 64
`
`
`
`
`Distribution of $100 Minimum Payments as well as eligible Round 5 claimants
`
`described in paragraphs 3-6 above.4
`
`PROCESSING CLAIMS
`
`8.
`
`Following application of the claims process detailed in the $100
`
`Minimum Payment Declaration, the Settlement Administrator completed the defect
`
`process, claimant outreach, and related audits in connection with the Rounds 1
`
`through 4 Settlements and reviewed claimants’ eligibility to recover for vehicles
`
`claimed in connection with the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements.
`
`9.
`
`During and following the completion of the claim submission process
`
`for the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements, the Settlement Administrator received,
`
`processed, and/or updated Claim Form submissions from claimants.
`
`10. Part of this process required the Settlement Administrator to de-
`
`duplicate claims made for the same vehicles. This process also required the
`
`Settlement Administrator to identify claims where five or fewer vehicles were
`
`included as part of the submission (“Small Claim Submission”), or six or more
`
`vehicles were included as part of the submission (“Large Claim Submission”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Those first payments issued as a check included language noting, “Cash
`promptly, void and subject to re-distribution if not cashed within 90 days after issue
`date.”
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40255 Filed 12/27/24 Page 7 of 64
`
`
`
`
`IDENTIFYING DUPLICATE CLAIMS BASED ON THE SAME VEHICLE
`
`11. Following its initial review of claim submissions, Epiq determined that
`
`certain claimants submitted duplicate claims for the same Vehicle Identification
`
`Number (“VIN”). Epiq programmatically reviewed these duplicate VIN submissions
`
`and designated, where appropriate, those transactions that contained duplicate VINs.
`
`Epiq determined that 3,425,690 duplicate vehicle submissions existed among 12,102
`
`records submitted by claimants.
`
`12. Following its identification and designation of duplicate transactions,
`
`the Settlement Administrator, after consulting with Settlement Class Counsel,
`
`established a procedure to determine which claimant would receive payment for the
`
`duplicate eligible vehicle. Epiq established the following order of priority:
`
`a. Epiq reviewed the purchase dates included with duplicate claimed
`
`vehicles and awarded priority to the claimed vehicle with the earliest
`
`purchase date.
`
`i. The Settlement Administrator adopted an exception to this rule
`
`to account for transactions where it was apparent that the earlier
`
`purchasing/leasing claimant sold or leased the duplicate vehicle
`
`as a new vehicle. This was evidenced by the existence of a claim
`
`for a duplicate VIN with a purchase/lease date indicating that the
`
`vehicle was purchased or leased by another claimant within a
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40256 Filed 12/27/24 Page 8 of 64
`
`
`
`
`short time of the earlier purchase/lease. Specifically, Epiq
`
`determined that if a claimant submitted a claim for a vehicle that
`
`was purchased/leased by another claimant within 60 days of the
`
`claimed purchase/lease date, the claimant asserting the claim for
`
`the later-purchased duplicate vehicle would be permitted to
`
`recover and the earlier purchaser/lessor who was deemed to
`
`purchase/lease the vehicle for resale was excluded pursuant to
`
`the terms of the Settlement Agreements.
`
`b. Fleet Management Companies (“FMCs”)5 that timely submitted valid
`
`claims were permitted to participate in the recovery under the terms set
`
`forth in the stipulations reached between Settlement Class Counsel and
`
`both: (i) Automotive Rentals, Inc., Element Fleet Corporation, Wheels,
`
`Inc., Donlen LLC, and Class Action Capital (“CAC Stipulation”) [ECF
`
`No. 2182]; and (ii) Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc. (“EFM
`
`Stipulation”) [ECF No. 40184] (together with the “CAC Stipulation,
`
`the “FMC Stipulations”). The Settlement Administrator received and
`
`processed Claim Forms it received from FMCs and companies that
`
`
`5 FMCs are companies that provide fleet management services to businesses
`that operate fleets of vehicles. In certain, but not all instances, FMCs purchased new
`vehicles and then leased those vehicles to their customers.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40257 Filed 12/27/24 Page 9 of 64
`
`
`
`
`leased vehicles directly from FMCs (“FMC Customer Claimants”)
`
`following the same process identified above, with two exceptions:
`
`i. Where both an FMC and an FMC Customer Claimant submitted
`
`claims based on the same vehicle with the same VIN, the
`
`Settlement Administrator resolved the competing claims in favor
`
`of the FMC Customer Claimant when the FMC Customer
`
`Claimant submitted a valid and qualifying claim.
`
`ii. Where both an FMC and an FMC Customer Claimant submitted
`
`claims based on the same vehicle with the same VIN and the
`
`FMC Customer Claimant submitted an ineligible claim, then
`
`Epiq denied both the FMC Customer Claimant’s claim and the
`
`FMC’s claim for the duplicate vehicle. 6
`
`c. If, after applying the priority rules set forth above, priority could still
`
`not be established for one of the duplicate claimants and the conflict
`
`accordingly remained unresolved, then Epiq applied the following
`
`priority allocation:
`
`i. If the unresolved conflict was between an individual person/
`
`individual business and an FMC, then Epiq awarded payment to
`
`the individual person or individual business claimant.
`
`
`6 CAC Stipulation at ¶ 3; EFM Stipulation at ¶ 2.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40258 Filed 12/27/24 Page 10 of 64
`
`
`
`
`ii. If the unresolved conflict existed between a rental car company
`
`and an FMC, then Epiq awarded payment to the rental car
`
`company. If two or more rental car companies submitted
`
`duplicate claims and insufficient documentation existed to
`
`determine the priority of either claimant, then Epiq denied
`
`payment to each of the rental car companies. Epiq adopted this
`
`approach because rental car companies frequently submitted
`
`duplicate claims for affiliated, merged, acquired, subsidiary, and
`
`related companies that generated thousands of duplicate and
`
`conflicting claims with insufficient documentation to determine
`
`which rental car company affiliate should prevail over another.
`
`Due to the high frequency of such unverified, duplicate, and
`
`conflicting claims, Epiq denied the claims.
`
`iii. If the unresolved conflict existed between an FMC and an FMC
`
`with a Managed-Only Claim7, then Epiq awarded the FMC the
`
`vehicle for payment. If two or more FMCs submitted duplicate
`
`claims for a vehicle and insufficient documentation existed to
`
`determine the priority of the claimants, then Epiq denied
`
`
`7 A Managed-Only claim is a claim asserted by an FMC that provided fleet
`management services to an FMC Customer relating to new vehicles purchased or
`leased by the FMC Customer from an automobile dealer or other third party.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40259 Filed 12/27/24 Page 11 of 64
`
`
`
`
`payment for the duplicate vehicle to all FMC claimants. Epiq
`
`adopted this approach because FMCs submitted thousands of
`
`duplicate and conflicting claims with insufficient documentation
`
`to determine which claim should prevail over another. Due to the
`
`high frequency of such unverified, duplicate, and conflicting
`
`claims, Epiq denied the claims.
`
`13. Epiq’s employees spent thousands of hours conducting a manual
`
`review and outreach in connection with the submission of duplicate claims. This
`
`process required Epiq to contact claimants and review thousands of pages of
`
`documents involving millions of claimed vehicles. After application of the duplicate
`
`vehicle priority rules, Epiq updated all vehicle transactions with duplicate VINs to
`
`either deny payment for unresolved duplicates or award payment to the appropriate
`
`priority holder eliminating millions of ineligible and/or duplicative VINs both within
`
`claims from a single claimant and across multiple claims from consideration.
`
`IDENTIFYING, CATEGORIZING, AND VAIDATING CLAIMS
`
`SMALL CLAIM SUBMISSION
`
`14. For Small Claim Submissions, the claimant was required to submit
`
`transaction details identifying: (1) the make, model, and year of each claimed
`
`vehicle; (2) whether the claimed vehicle was purchased or leased new; (3) the
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40260 Filed 12/27/24 Page 12 of 64
`
`
`
`
`purchase or lease date of the vehicle; and (4) the state of purchase, state of residence,
`
`or, for businesses the principle place of business at the time of the purchase or lease.
`
`15. Following receipt of the Claim Form and any corresponding defect
`
`response, the Settlement Administrator removed claims for ineligible vehicles
`
`where:
`
`a. The claim for one or more vehicle(s) did not include: (1) the make,
`
`model, and year of the claimed vehicle(s); (2) whether the claimed
`
`vehicle(s) was purchased or leased new; (3) the purchase or lease
`
`date of the claimed vehicle(s); and/or (4) the state of purchase, state
`
`of residence, or, for businesses, the principal place of business at the
`
`time of the purchase or lease of the claimed vehicle(s).
`
`b. The claim did not have a make, model, and year consistent with a
`
`vehicle present on the Settlement Rounds 1 through 5 eligible
`
`vehicle lists.8
`
`c. The purchase or lease date of the claimed vehicle(s) was 24 months
`
`or more after the model year or 12 months or more before the model
`
`year of the claimed vehicle(s). This rule was applied to ensure that
`
`a vehicle was purchased or leased new.
`
`
`8 The eligible vehicle list identifies the eligible make, model, and model year
`vehicles included in each Settlement Class. The eligible vehicle list was and has been
`posted to the Settlements website, AutoPartsClass.com.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40261 Filed 12/27/24 Page 13 of 64
`
`
`
`
`16. Although the Settlement Administrator did not require documentation
`
`for Small Claim Submissions unless the initial submission was defective, a claim for
`
`a vehicle was deemed ineligible if: (1) the Claim Form submission included
`
`documentation demonstrating the vehicle was ineligible for recovery; or (2) a defect
`
`response provided information that made it readily apparent that the vehicle was not
`
`eligible for recovery.
`
`17. Following review and removal of ineligible vehicles (where necessary),
`
`Epiq determined the number of Small Claim Submission vehicles eligible for
`
`participation in the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements.
`
`18. For Small Claim Submissions, Epiq evaluated 314,058 vehicles for
`
`eligibility. Epiq determined that 267,230 of Small Claim Submission vehicles are
`
`eligible for participation in the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements.
`
`LARGE CLAIM SUBMISSIONS
`
`19. For Large Claim Submissions, Epiq implemented additional claim
`
`submission requirements due to the potential impact that accepting a Large Claim
`
`Submission could have on the recovery of other claimants. First, Epiq required
`
`claimants to submit the associated VIN for each claimed vehicle. Second, Epiq
`
`required the claimant to submit proof of an identified sample of vehicle purchases.
`
`Specifically, the Settlement Administrator required claimants to submit evidence for
`
`a randomly determined representative sample of vehicles (discussed in more detail
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40262 Filed 12/27/24 Page 14 of 64
`
`
`
`
`below) confirming the vehicles’ make, model, year, ownership/leaseholder status,
`
`date of purchase/lease, and location of purchase/lease in an Indirect Purchaser State
`
`for a particular quantity of
`
`the claimed vehicles
`
`(“Sample Vehicle
`
`Documentation”).9
`
`20. After processing all defect responses, Epiq applied the following
`
`criteria to establish the eligibility of a Large Claim Submission:
`
`a. Epiq required that submissions for each claimed vehicle meet the
`
`same minimum criteria as set forth in paragraph 15. The Settlement
`
`Administrator removed all claimed vehicles as ineligible that were
`
`not in compliance with these minimum requirements.
`
`b. While VINs were requested but not required for claimants under the
`
`Small Claims Submission Process, Epiq required claimants within
`
`the Large Claim Submission process to include the associated VIN
`
`for each claimed vehicle. If a VIN was not provided for a particular
`
`claimed vehicle following the defect notice and opportunity to cure,
`
`
`9 The Settlement Administrator specified that the requisite proof included
`purchase orders, lease contracts, title documents, and/or purchase or lease
`documents
`that provided sufficient
`information
`to enable
`the Settlement
`Administrator to identify the purchaser’s or lessee’s name and address, VIN, the date
`and place of purchase or lease, and either the purchaser/lessee’s place of residence,
`or for businesses, principal place of business.
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40263 Filed 12/27/24 Page 15 of 64
`
`
`
`
`Epiq marked the claimed vehicle as ineligible and excluded it from
`
`the claimant’s recovery.10
`
`c. If all the claimed vehicles in a submission conformed with the
`
`established eligibility requirements (i.e., vehicles make, model,
`
`year, ownership/leaseholder status, date of purchase/lease, and
`
`location of purchase/lease in an Indirect Purchaser State), but the
`
`claimant failed to provide a VIN for any of the claimed vehicles, the
`
`Settlement Administrator permitted the claimant to obtain recovery
`
`for five vehicles, consistent with the allowances made for Small
`
`Claims Submissions. This exception was applied to maintain
`
`consistency among the Small Claim Form and Large Claim Form
`
`populations.
`
`21. Following review and removal of ineligible transactions (if necessary),
`
`Epiq determined the number of Large Claim Submission vehicles eligible for
`
`participation in the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements.
`
`22. For Large Claim Submissions, Epiq evaluated 41,073,762 vehicles for
`
`eligibility. Epiq determined that 32,216,456 of Large Claim Submission vehicles are
`
`eligible for participation in the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements.
`
`
`10 A strict requirement for inclusion of VINs was applied to Large Claim
`Submissions due to the volume of vehicles claimed by these submissions compared
`to those under the Small Claim Submission process.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40264 Filed 12/27/24 Page 16 of 64
`
`
`
`
`LARGE CLAIM SUBMISSION VEHICLE SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION
`REVIEW AND VALIDATION
`
`In June 2023, Epiq issued claim defect notices to claimants with Large
`
`23.
`
`Claim Submissions. The defect notices advised claimants with Large Claim
`
`Submissions that they would need to provide purchase or lease documentation for a
`
`representative sample of claimed vehicles. The Settlement Administrator selected a
`
`representative sample of vehicles from the population of facially valid vehicle
`
`transactions using a programmatic randomizer to establish the list of claimed vehicle
`
`transactions that would require documentation (the “Sample Vehicle List”). The
`
`Settlement Administrator did not require Sample Vehicle Documentation for all
`
`vehicles submitted as part of a Large Claim Submission because such a requirement
`
`may have been overly burdensome for some claimants given the quantity of vehicles
`
`involved and the length of the Class Periods. Imposing such a requirement would
`
`also have been to the detriment of Settlement Class Members because it would have
`
`resulted in significant delay and increased costs.
`
`24. The
`
`Settlement Administrator
`
`requested
`
`Sample Vehicle
`
`Documentation from claimants based on the number of vehicles claimed. This
`
`process involved establishing a Sample Document matrix as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40265 Filed 12/27/24 Page 17 of 64
`
`
`
`
`Vehicle Count
`
`Sample Document Count
`
`6-99 claimed vehicles
`
`100-999 claimed vehicles
`
`1,000-9,999 claimed vehicles
`
`10,000-99,999 claimed vehicles
`
`100,000-999,999 claimed
`vehicles
`One million or more claimed
`vehicles
`
`
`
`5
`
`20
`
`50
`
`100
`
`200
`
`400
`
`25.
`
`If a claimant was unable to present Sample Vehicle Documents for
`
`model years 2011 and older, the Settlement Administrator allowed the claimants to
`
`alternatively submit: (i) Sample Vehicle Documentation for three (3) Vehicles per
`
`claimed model year in 2011 or before; or (ii) a data export from the company’s
`
`digital records detailing all claimed purchases/leases in 2011 and before,
`
`accompanied by a signed affidavit.
`
`26. Epiq has reviewed all Sample Vehicle Documentation in connection
`
`with the Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements to confirm that the submitted
`
`documentation validates the following information for each identified sample
`
`vehicle: (1) make, model, and year; (2) ownership/leaseholder status; (3) date of
`
`purchase/lease; (4) location of purchase/lease in an indirect purchaser state; and (5)
`
`the purchase/lease was a new vehicle.
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40266 Filed 12/27/24 Page 18 of 64
`
`
`
`
`27. During the documentation review process, a handful of claimants
`
`(either directly or through Third-Party Claims Filers11) contacted the Settlement
`
`Administrator
`
`to discuss questions and comments concerning available
`
`documentation. The Settlement Administrator considered
`
`these questions,
`
`comments, and any additional supporting documentation when determining an
`
`appropriate validation process.
`
`28. The Settlement Administrator reviewed documentation for a total of
`
`66,645 vehicles submitted as part of a Large Claim Submission in connection with
`
`the Rounds 1-4 Settlements. From these records, the Settlement Administrator
`
`determined:
`
`a. Randomly Selected Sample Vehicle Documentation: 9,646 vehicles
`
`were supported by documentation from a claimant’s records
`
`indicating a qualifying purchase or lease. 23,609 vehicles were
`
`supported by indirect purchase evidence from a Recording
`
`Company12. 23,105 sample vehicles were accompanied by either
`
`invalid documentation or no documentation.13
`
`
`11 A third-party filer is an entity that filed a claim on behalf of a claimant.
`12 Recording companies include companies such as Carfax, Inc., R.L. Polk &
`Company, TransUnion Automotive Solutions, and Accurint that collect vehicle data
`and records concerning the purchase or lease of a vehicle, including the vehicle
`make, model, year, VIN, title, and registered owner details.
`
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40267 Filed 12/27/24 Page 19 of 64
`
`
`
`
`b. For those claimants that could not support vehicle purchases or
`
`leases for model year vehicles 2011 and older with supporting
`
`Sample Vehicle Documentation, claimants were presented with an
`
`alternate option to document claimed vehicles for these years using
`
`an affidavit signed by the claimant that included a data export taken
`
`from the claimant’s business records. 3,923 claimants supported
`
`these purchases using this alternative method.
`
`CLAIM AND RELATED VEHICLE POINT VALUATION
`
`29. Following completion of the Settlement Administrator’s review and
`
`analysis of Small and Large Claim Submissions, which included review of all
`
`submitted Sample Vehicle Documentation, application of the FMC submission
`
`rules, and award or removal of duplicate vehicle submissions, Epiq determined that
`
`32,483,686 vehicles should be allocated payment from the Rounds 1 through 4
`
`Settlement Funds, inclusive of both Small and Large Claim Submissions.
`
`30.
`
`In accordance with the Rounds 4 and 5 Plans of Allocation, the
`
`Settlement Administrator established a “point” value for each included vehicle
`
`identified as eligible under the various Settlements. Per the approved Rounds 4 and
`
`5 Plans of Allocation, certain vehicles were specifically identified as a “targeted”
`
`vehicle, meaning the vehicle was specifically targeted by the alleged collusive
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40268 Filed 12/27/24 Page 20 of 64
`
`
`
`
`conduct of the Defendants. Such targeted vehicles were “weighted at four times the
`
`Allowed Claim Amount for other vehicles.”14
`
`31. Based on the required weighting, the Settlement Administrator
`
`established a point valuation system for each eligible vehicle within the various
`
`Rounds 1 through 4 Settlements – one point for each non-weighted eligible vehicle
`
`and four points for each targeted eligible vehicle as described above. Eligible
`
`vehicles were identified on the Settlement Website, www.AutoPartClass.com,
`
`which listed the make, model, and year, of the vehicles, the automotive parts case(s)
`
`to which they applied, and whether the vehicles were targeted.
`
`32. After determining the eligible vehicles for a given claim, the Settlement
`
`Administrator assessed the point value of each Authorized Claimant’s eligible
`
`vehicle claims. The assigned point value of an eligible vehicle for Small and Large
`
`Claim Submissions were determined as described below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14 See, e.g., Order Granting EPPs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Approving
`the Proposed Further Revised Plan of Allocation and for Authorization to
`Disseminate Supplemental Notice to the Settlement Classes ¶¶ 6-8, Master File No.
`2:12-md- 02311 (Dec. 20, 2019), ECF No. 2032 (order approving further revised
`plan of allocation in connection with Round 4 Settlements); Proposed Further
`Revised Plan of Allocation and for Authorization to Disseminate Supplemental
`Notice to the Settlement Classes, Case No. 2:12-cv-00403 (Dec. 10, 2019), ECF No.
`301-2 (EPPs’ proposed Plan of Allocation in connection with the Rounds 1 through
`4 Settlements).
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40269 Filed 12/27/24 Page 21 of 64
`
`
`
`
`SMALL CLAIM SUBMISSIONS
`
`33. Epiq recorded the eligible vehicle transactions of claimants utilizing the
`
`Small Claims Submissions and added together the point values for all potentially
`
`eligible vehicles in each Round 1 through 4 Settlement Fund. For each of the separate
`
`Round 1 through 4 Settlement Funds, a Small Claim Submission could only be
`
`eligible for between zero and 20 points (e.g., if all five eligible vehicles qualified as
`
`four-point targeted vehicles). Epiq treated Large Claim Submissions that identified
`
`eligible vehicles with no valid VIN information as Small Claim Submissions limited
`
`to a maximum of 20 points.
`
`34. For those claimants utilizing or treated as Small Claim Submissions,
`
`the Settlement Administrator determined that 267,230 vehicles were eligible for
`
`payment across 152,815 claimant submissions. This totaled 4,177,081 points across
`
`the Rounds 1-4 Settlements.
`
`LARGE CLAIM SUBMISSIONS
`
`35. For those claimants utilizing the Large Claim Submission process, the
`
`Settlement Administrator determined that 32,216,456 vehicles were eligible for
`
`payment across 3,851 claimant submissions. As set forth in detail in paragraph 24
`
`above, those claimants that Epiq identified as part of the Large Claim Submission
`
`group were required to present Sample Vehicle Documentation to validate their
`
`claims.
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2256-1, PageID.40270 Filed 12/27/24 Page 22 of 64
`
`
`
`
`36.
`
` In May 2023, Epiq sent defect letters to claimants that failed to
`
`adequately support the vehicles requested by Epiq with Sample Vehicle
`
`Documentation. Following issuance of the defect letters, Epiq spent six months
`
`reviewing claimants’ responses, requesting additional details, and reconciling
`
`documentation. Epiq ultimately determined that a large portion of claimants
`
`submitting Large Claim Submissions failed to cure their defects necessitating Epiq
`
`to send a second round of defect letters to claimants on a rolling basis beginning in
`
`November 2023. All told, the Settlement Administrator spent hundreds of hours
`
`communicating with those claimants that failed to provide adequate support for each
`
`of the vehicles for which it requested Sample Vehicle Documentation. In June 2024,
`
`after reviewing documentation provided in response to both the initial and the
`
`follow-up defect letter campaign, Epiq conducted an analysis of documents
`
`submitted by claimants which purporte

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket