Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-4, PageID.38560 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-4, PageID.38561 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Burton, Emma
`Friday, March 5, 2021 5:44 PM
`Chanler Langham; Jenna Farleigh; William Reiss
`Sasse, Daniel; Rives, Ann
`Re: Auto Parts End-Payor
`In re Wire Harness - Order Authorizing Distribution - filed 2018-11-07.pdf; In re Wire
`Harness - Declaration of David Garcia - filed 2018-10-22.pdf; In re Occupant Safety
`Systems - Order Authorizing Distribution - filed 2017-04-18.pdf; In re Occupant Safety
`Systems - Declaration of Guy Thompson - filed 2017-02-14.pdf; RE:
`
` (Claimant ID 10021066) - Amended Claim Submission
`
`Chanler, Jenna, and Bill –
`
`Thank you for taking the time to speak with us this morning regarding post-deadline amendments submitted by class
`members who previous filed timely claims without complete vehicle information in the Auto Parts End-Payor matter. As
`we discussed, we represent 25 class members who filed claim forms prior to the June 18, 2020, claim filing deadline and
`claim amendments no later than 10 weeks after the deadline. You stated that EPPs are inclined to treat such amended
`submissions as untimely, but invited us to provide support for our position that these submissions should be treated as
`timely.
`
`Post-deadline claim submissions are routinely approved and paid out by courts. In fact, so-called “late claims” – in which
`no filing of any kind was made prior to the claim filing deadline – were approved in at least two of the Auto Parts Direct
`Purchaser cases in this MDL:
`
`In re Wire Harness Cases, No. 12-0101, ECF Nos. 566-1, 570 (E.D. Mich. 2018) – granting Direct Purchaser
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Distribution of the Settlement Fund, including approval of late-filed
`claims. The Motion was supported by a declaration from Epiq Client Services Director David Garcia, stating,
`“Epiq recommends that the 55 late-filed Claim Forms be considered timely because they did not materially delay
`the ultimate processing of the Claim Forms submitted on or before [the claim filing deadline].” Some of these
`55 late-filed claims were filed more than 10 months after the deadline. Declaration and Order attached for
`reference.
`
`In re Occupant Safety Sys. Cases, No. 12-0601, ECF Nos. 144, 145 (E.D. Mich. 2017) – granting Direct Purchaser
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Distribution, including approval of late claims. The Motion was
`supported by a declaration from Epiq Project Manager Guy Thompson, indicating that, “Epiq recommends that
`the 66 late-filed Claim Forms be considered timely because they did not materially delay the ultimate processing
`of the Claim Forms submitted on or before [the claim filing deadline].” Some of these 66 late-filed claims were
`filed more than 5 months after the deadline. Declaration and Order attached for reference.
`
`Other examples from the Eastern District of Michigan include:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`o
`
`In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., No. 09-2042, ECF Nos. 607-1, 610 Case 4:13-md-02420-
`YGR (E.D. Mich. 2017). From the Motion for Distribution, approved by order dated March 10, 2017,
`“[n]one of [the late] claims were received so late as to interfere with the claims administration process.”
`
` Other examples from the Sixth Circuit include:
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-4, PageID.38562 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`o
`
`In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., No. 10-2196, ECF Nos. 2086, 2095, 2172, 2184 (N.D. Ohio
`2016). From the Motion for Distribution, approved by orders dated May 16, 2016 and Oct. 30, 2017,
`“late claims did not delay the completion of the claims administration process or distribution” and
`“Plaintiffs believe[d] it would have been unfair to prevent otherwise valid claims from participating in
`the distribution . . . solely because they were submitted after the cutoff dates.”
`
`
`In a December 2020 decision in the Lithium-Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, the court ordered the approval of over
`1,200 late claims, including claims received five months after the claims deadline. The court emphasized that “including
`these late claims will not delay the claims and distribution process in any substantial way” and that “principles of equity
`and fairness support allowing the [late claims.]” No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR, ECF No. 2681 at 27-28 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
`
`Three additional examples from the Northern District of California are outlined below – as well as 13 additional cases as
`listed at bottom – all included approval en masse of late-but-valid claims (without any individualized analysis of
`prejudice to other class members, or excusable neglect by late claimants).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 03-1827, ECF Nos. 9217, 9273 (N.D. Cal. 2014) – The court
`approved late claims submitted over 18 months after the claims deadline and ordered the claims administrator
`to “process all claims[,] . . . including auditing of claims as appropriate” filed as late as a month after the
`distribution motion was filed. Class counsel noted that “distribution has not been delayed as a result of any late-
`filed claims. Moreover, those claimants, like all other claimants, have been injured as a result of the same
`alleged wrongful conduct. . . . Additionally, because all claimants are similarly situated, none of them has a
`better right to recover than any other claimant; in other words, because no distribution delay has been
`occasioned by the processing of those claims, the first-filed claim is no more entitled to recover or to recover
`more per unit than the last claim received and processed before the distribution motion is filed. The whole point
`of these actions was to compensate as many injured claimants as possible.” ECF No. 9217 at 7-8.
`
`In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. 02-1486, ECF Nos. 2273, 2283 (N.D. Cal.
`2016) – For late claims filed up to a year after the deadline, class counsel recommended – and the court granted
`– approval: “the distribution [was] not . . . delayed by the additional claims[,] . . . and considerations of overall
`fairness to the Settlement Class outweigh any prejudice to those class members who filed in the ‘first wave’ of
`claims by [the deadline].” Class counsel in DRAM cited In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188, 194-197
`(3d Cir. 2000) noting that “until the fund created by settlement is actually distributed, the court retains its
`traditional equity powers to protect unnamed but interested persons; a court may assert this power to allow
`late-filed claims.”
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 14-3264, ECF Nos. 2228, 2228-1 (N.D. Cal. 2018) – Class counsel
`recommended, and the court granted, approval of late claims “[b]ecause the claims represent valid purchases,
`[and] it is in the interests of justice to pay them” with “no evident prejudice to other Settlement Class members
`from recognizing these claims as valid.”
`
` Additional Cases Approving Late Claims:
`In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 06-1775, ECF Nos. 1526-4, 1673 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
`o
`o Axiom Inv. Advisors, L.L.C. v. Barclays Bank PLC, No. 15-9323, ECF Nos. 135, 138 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
`o Kleen Prods., L.L.C. v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 10-5711, ECF Nos. 1454-3, 1457 (N.D. Ill. 2019).
`In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., No. 13-2476, ECF Nos. 568, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
`o
`o Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd., No. 12-3824, ECF Nos. 686-1, 687 (E.D. Pa. 2015).
`In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings (DIPF) Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 12-0711, ECF Nos. 493-2, 494
`o
`(D.N.J. 2019).
`In re Fasteners Antitrust Litig., No. 08-1912, ECF Nos. 140-1, 142 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
`In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig., No. 08-4883, ECF Nos. 1077, 1082 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
`In re Foreign Exch. Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-7789, ECF Nos. 1216, 1230 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
`
`o
`o
`o
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-4, PageID.38563 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`