Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-6, PageID.38574 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 4
`
` EXHIBIT 1-A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-6, PageID.38575 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`In addition to the cases identified in Claimants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of
`
`Acceptance of Post-Deadline Claim Submissions, Claimants have identified the 17 recent cases
`
`below in which courts approved late claims without an individualized analysis of prejudice to the
`
`class or excusable neglect. In each of these cases, late claims were approved en masse where they
`
`did not delay the claims distribution process nor prejudice the class.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 14-3264, ECF Nos. 2770-2, 2770-1 (N.D. Cal. 2021):
`class counsel and claims administrator recommends the 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”; approved by order dated Feb. 9, 2021. (App. Ex. 15 at 2:16-22; Ex. 16 at 4:13–22.)
`
`In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings (DIPF) Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 12-0711, ECF
`Nos. 493-2, 494 (D.N.J. 2019): “[n]one of the claims were received so late as to interfere
`with the claims administration process”; approved by order dated Feb. 25, 2019. (App. Ex.
`17 at 2; Ex. 18 at 2.)
`
`In re Foreign Exch. Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-7789, ECF Nos. 1216, 1230
`(S.D.N.Y. 2019): “no delay resulted from [the] acceptance” of late claims; approved by order
`dated Mar. 8, 2019. (App. Ex. 19 at 6; Ex. 20 at 3.)
`
`4. Kleen Prods., L.L.C. v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 10-5711, ECF Nos. 1454-3, 1457 (N.D. Ill.
`2019): late claims “did not cause any delay in the processing of the administration overall”;
`approved by order dated Feb. 5, 2019. (App. Ex. 21 at 4; Ex. 22 at 6.)
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Precision Assocs., Inc. v. Panalpina World Transp. (Holding) Ltd., No. 08-0042, ECF Nos.
`1517, 1535 (E.D.N.Y. 2019): “little prejudice and no disruption by allowing these late-
`submitted claims” in three separate settlement rounds; approved by order dated Apr. 5, 2019.
`(App. Ex. 23 at 17; Ex. 24 at 5.)
`
`Axiom Inv. Advisors, L.L.C. v. Barclays Bank PLC, No. 15-9323, ECF Nos. 135, 138
`(S.D.N.Y. 2018): “no delay in the claims distribution process was occasioned by [the]
`acceptance” of late claims; approved by order dated Sep. 14, 2018. (App. Ex. 25 at 4; Ex.
`26 at 2.)
`
`In re Steel Antitrust Litig., No. 08-5214, ECF Nos. 682, 686 (N.D. Ill. 2018); class counsel
`instructed the administrator “to accept late [c]laims if doing so would not delay the claims
`administration process” and did not recommend denial of any late claims; approved by order
`dated Mar. 12, 2018. (App. Ex. 27 at 5 n.2; Ex. 28 at 2.)
`
`8. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig., No. 09-3690, ECF Nos. 786, 802 (N.D.
`Ill. 2016): “full forfeiture of the late claims would be an extreme consequence, especially
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-6, PageID.38576 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`given that the common fund doctrine originates in equity”; approved by order dated Jan. 10,
`2017. (App. Ex. 29 at 6-7; Ex. 30.)
`
`In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., No. 13-2476, ECF Nos. 568, 570 (S.D.N.Y.
`2016): late claims “ha[d] not caused significant delay in the distribution . . . or otherwise
`prejudiced any class member”; approved by order dated Oct. 31, 2016. (App. Ex. 31 at 5;
`Ex. 32.)
`
`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 roughly one year after the deadline,
`“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]”; approved by order dated May 19, 2016,
`which directed the claims administrator to “process all claims received . . . before the date of
`[the o]rder.” (App. Ex. 33 at 10-11; Ex. 34 at 5.)
`
`In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., No. 10-2196, ECF Nos. 2086, 2095, 2172, 2184
`(N.D. Ohio 2016): for multiple distributions, “late claims did not delay the completion of the
`claims administration process or distribution”; approved by orders dated May 16, 2016 and
`Oct. 30, 2017. (App. Ex. 1 at 11-15; Ex. 2; Ex. 3 at 3, Ex. 4 at 8.)
`
`In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., No. 04-1616, ECF Nos. 3301, 3302 (D. Kan. 2016): late
`claimants “are class members” for whom the “[s]ettlement [f]und was created” and class
`counsel “would rather err on the side of inclusion than exclusion and would recommend that
`they be allowed to participate in full in distributions”; approved by order dated Jul. 29, 2016.
`(App. Ex. 35 at 5; Ex. 36 at 2.)
`
`13. Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd., No. 12-3824, ECF Nos. 686-1, 687 (E.D.
`Pa. 2015): administrator “believe[d] no delay has resulted from the provisional acceptance
`of these Late, but Otherwise Eligible, Claims”; approved by order dated Nov. 23, 2015.
`(App. Ex. 37 at 7; Ex. 38 at 2.)
`
`In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig., No. 08-4883, ECF Nos. 1077, 1082 (N.D. Ill. 2014):
`“acceptance of the [late] claim did not delay the validation and distribution process”;
`approved by order dated Mar. 20, 2014. (App. Ex. 39 at 4; Ex. 40 at 2.)
`
`In re Fasteners Antitrust Litig., No. 08-1912, ECF Nos. 140-1, 142 (E.D. Pa. 2014): late
`claims “did not delay the ultimate processing of [timely claims]”; approved by order dated
`Nov. 17, 2014. (App. Ex. 41 at 2; Ex. 42 at 1.)
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 03-1827, ECF Nos. 9217, 9273 (N.D. Cal.
`2014): 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 approximately one month after the distribution motion was filed.
`(App. Ex. 43 at 7:4–27; Ex. 44 at 2:23–4:10.)
`
`In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 06-1775, ECF Nos. 1526-4, 1673
`(E.D.N.Y. 2012): for late claims filed up to two years after the claim deadline, “[n]one of the
`2
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2125-6, PageID.38577 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`late claims interfered with or delayed the claim administration process”; approved by order
`dated May 1, 2012. (App. Ex. 45 at 4:9–12; Ex. 46 at 2.)
`
`3
`
`