Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2114-9, PageID.38381 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`ALL END-PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`Hon. Sean F. Cox
`Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen
`
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW R. HUPPERT IN SUPPORT OF
`FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC’S EMERGENCY MOTION
`TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF VEHICLE DATA
`I, Matthew R. Huppert, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare under
`
`penalty of perjury that:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member of the bar of this Court. I submit this declaration in
`
`support of FRS’s Emergency Motion to Compel Acceptance and Processing of
`
`Vehicle Data.
`
`2.
`
`I am an associate with the law firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
`
`Frederick, P.L.L.C, which represents Financial Recovery Services, LLC d/b/a
`
`Financial Recovery Strategies (“FRS”) in this litigation. The following facts are
`
`based on my personal knowledge. If called upon as a witness, I could and would
`
`testify competently to them.
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2114-9, PageID.38382 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`3.
`
`On January 6, 2021, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, the Claims
`
`Administrator for the End-Payor Settlements, communicated to FRS via email that
`
`it would not accept any vehicle data submitted after the June 18, 2020 claim-filing
`
`deadline, even if such data were submitted in support of timely filed claim forms.1
`
`Two days later, I sent an email to counsel for the End-Payor Settlement classes
`
`(“Class Counsel”) asking to meet and confer about the Claims Administrator’s
`
`emails. Class Counsel (Chanler A. Langham) responded on January 11, 2021 with
`
`his availability to confer and with a two-paragraph statement disputing one of the
`
`statements in my original email. A true and correct copy of the foregoing email
`
`exchange is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`4.
`
`On January 12, 2021, my colleague Daniel S. Severson and I conferred
`
`by telephone with Mr. Langham and his colleague Jenna Farleigh. During that call,
`
`I asked Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh several questions about the meaning of and
`
`basis for the Claims Administrator’s statements to FRS on January 4 and January 6
`
`and Mr. Langham’s statements in his January 11 email. In particular:
`
`a.
`
`I asked Mr. Langham to cite the basis for his claim that “Class Counsel
`repeatedly rejected any notion that FRS could submit ‘placeholder’
`claims.” He pointed only to (1) an unsupported assertion in Class
`Counsel’s July 2, 2020 brief opposing FRS’s motion to intervene, ECF
`No. 2066, PageID.38053, (2) paragraphs 5-9 of Jeffrey N. Leibell’s
`declaration filed in support of FRS’s motion to intervene, ECF No.
`
`1 FRS’s January 2020 correspondence with the Claims Administrator is
`attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jeffrey N. Leibell dated February 17,
`2021 (“Leibell Declaration”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2114-9, PageID.38383 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`c.
`
`2060-2, (3) the Declaration of Brian A. Pinkerton dated November 12,
`2020, ECF No. 2098-1, and (4) the Court’s order denying FRS’s motion
`to intervene on November 17, 2020, ECF No. 2101. None of those
`sources reflect any statement from Class Counsel prior to the June 18,
`2020 claim-filing deadline regarding so-called “placeholder” claims or
`the submission of vehicle data after the claim-filing deadline.
`b. Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh stated that the Claims Administrator
`would treat so-called “placeholder” claims filed before the claim-filing
`deadline as if they had been filed after the claim-filing deadline and
`would not process any vehicle data associated with such claims.
`Specifically, they stated that the Claims Administrator would not make
`any determination whether or to what extent that data reflect vehicles
`eligible for recovery in the End-Payor Settlements and would not
`“intermingle” such data with the data of non-“placeholder” claims.
`I stated that, by refusing even to process vehicle data for timely filed
`claim forms, Class Counsel was prejudicing FRS’s auto insurer clients
`(“Insurers”) because Class Counsel could later try to oppose
`compensation for those claims on the basis that the data underlying the
`claims had not been taken into account in calculating the claims and
`pro rata shares of other claimants. Accordingly, I asked whether Class
`Counsel would be willing to agree to process vehicle data for the
`purpose of preserving Insurers’ practical ability to recover. Mr.
`Langham and Ms. Farleigh refused to agree.
`I asked Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh to state which claim forms Class
`Counsel and the Claims Administrator would consider “placeholder”
`claim forms. They responded that a claim form would be considered a
`“placeholder” if it did not contain information sufficient to identify the
`vehicle(s) being claimed. I then asked them how much information
`they considered sufficient to identify a vehicle, and they were unable or
`unwilling to provide an answer. In a further attempt to obtain an answer
`to my question, I posed a hypothetical claim form that identified “five
`Toyota Camrys,” and asked whether that would be a “placeholder”
`claim form. Ms. Farleigh initially responded that my hypothetical
`would constitute a “placeholder” claim form because a make and model
`was insufficient to identify a vehicle, but then Mr. Langham interrupted
`Ms. Farleigh and said that they would not comment on hypotheticals. I
`understood Mr. Langham’s interruption to indicate his disagreement
`with Ms. Farleigh on this point. In the end, Mr. Langham and Ms.
`
`d.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2114-9, PageID.38384 Filed 02/17/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`Farleigh offered only to review individual claim forms and offer their
`personal opinions as to whether the forms were “placeholder” claim
`forms. I understood this offer to mean that the “placeholder” status of
`a claim form could be determined, if at all, on a form-by-form basis.
`I asked Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh what the source of their
`authority was to instruct the Claim Administrator to disregard vehicle
`data for timely filed claim forms. The only authority they cited was the
`portion of the Plan of Allocation for the End-Payor Settlements, which
`defines “Authorized Claimants” as those who, inter alia, “submit
`timely and valid Claim Forms.” 12-cv-403, ECF No. 301-2,
`PageID.11012.
`On January 28, 2021, my colleague Aaron M. Panner sent a letter to
`
`e.
`
`5.
`
`Class Counsel elaborating on why we believed it was improper for them to instruct
`
`the Claims Administrator not to process vehicle data for timely filed claim forms
`
`and to consider the Insurers’ vehicle data untimely. Among other things, that letter
`
`stated: “If you do not immediately direct that Insurers’ supplemental vehicle data is
`
`processed when submitted and considered timely, FRS will seek appropriate relief.”
`
`A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit H.
`
`6.
`
`On February 12, 2021, I sent an email to Class Counsel following up
`
`on Mr. Panner’s January 28 letter and stating, inter alia: “If you do not confirm by
`
`5 pm ET on Wednesday, February 17 that Insurers’ supplemental vehicle data will
`
`be processed when submitted and considered timely, then FRS will seek relief from
`
`the court on that issue.” Class Counsel did not respond to that email. A true and
`
`correct copy of that email correspondence is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2114-9, PageID.38385 Filed 02/17/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`Executed this 17th day of February 2021, in Arlington, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew R. Huppert
`
`5
`
`