Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-3, PageID.39140 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-3, PageID.39141 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`January 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Adam J. Zapala
`Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`AZapala@cpmlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`William Reiss
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
`New York, NY 10022
`wreiss@robinskaplan.com
`
`Marc M. Seltzer
`Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`MSeltzer@SusmanGodfrey.com
`
`
`I write in response to your letter dated January 12, 2021, which complains about
`communications with potential members of the End-Payor settlement classes in the above-
`referenced multi-district litigation. You contend (at 1) that these communications were
`“unauthorized and misleading,” and you threaten to “seek an injunction from the District Court
`overseeing the Auto Parts Litigation” and/or “to take other appropriate actions” if Financial
`Recovery Strategies (“FRS”) “does not immediately take the actions detailed” in your letter. As
`discussed below, we disagree with the statements in your letter, many of which are themselves
`misleading or unsupported, and we think it is improper for you, as counsel with a fiduciary duty
`to the settlement classes, to impede efforts to facilitate class members’ participation in these
`apparently undersubscribed End-Payor settlements.1 Notwithstanding our disagreement, FRS
`intends to take certain actions to reflect information that you have recently communicated to us
`for the first time. Those actions should fully resolve this matter.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., ECF No. 301 at PageID.10937, 12-cv-403 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2019) (asking
`to amend plan of allocation and extend claim-filing deadline “to enlarge the number of claims
`and qualifying purchases”); id. at PageID.10951 (proposed modifications “respond[] to the
`Court’s prior concern that the number of claims already filed were fewer than hoped for”).
`
`Re:
`
`In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 12-md-02311
`
`
`Dear Messrs. Reiss, Seltzer, and Zapala:
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-3, PageID.39142 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`William Reiss, Marc M. Seltzer & Adam J. Zapala
`January 19, 2021
`Page 2
`
`
`I.
`
`The Solicitation Emails Were Not Contrary to Any Statements from the Court,
`Class Counsel, or the Claims Administrator
`
`The “Solicitation” referenced in your letter was sent via email by an independent
`contractor of FRS on October 26, 2020, and January 3, 2021; it does not appear and has never
`appeared on FRS’s website. The Solicitation states, in relevant part, that “[l]ate claims are still
`being accepted in the Automobile/Automotive Parts Class Action Settlement,” and that “late
`claims are subject to final court approval.” Your letter contends (at 1-2) that these statements are
`“untrue” because “the Claims Administrator has been instructed”—presumably by you—“to
`deny both late-filed claims and claims filed with a place-holder.” However, none of the
`statements in the Solicitation is inconsistent with the assertions in your letter or any statement
`made to FRS prior to the transmission of the Solicitation.
`
`As an initial matter, neither you nor the Claims Administrator has the authority to “deny”
`any claims. The court alone has that authority. The court has instructed the Claims
`Administrator to (1) “review . . . the Claim Forms” submitted to it, (2) “use the information
`[claimants] provide in [their] Claim Form[s] . . . to determine whether [claimants’] Vehicle[s]
`contain[] one or more of the Automotive Parts,” (3) “determin[e] . . . the amounts recommended
`to be paid to Authorized Claimants,” and (4) make “recommendations as to the amounts to be
`paid.” Plan of Allocation at 1, 3. Accordingly, your opinion about which claims should be paid
`is solely advisory and is not binding on the court or FRS.
`
`Moreover, instructing the Claims Administrator to recommend non-payment of certain
`claims is different than instructing the Claims Administrator not even to accept for processing
`claim forms or vehicle information submitted after the claim-filing deadline.2 The court has
`authorized you to do the former but not the latter, and you did not even purport to do the latter
`until after the Solicitation was sent. FRS contacted the Claims Administrator on June 19, 2020,
`to ask whether late claims were being accepted in the End-Payor settlements, subject to court
`approval, and the Claims Administrator did not respond that late claims would be rejected.
`Rather, it responded that such claims “will be treated in accordance with the Court’s direction.”
`That response is consistent with the Solicitation’s statement that “late claims are subject to final
`court approval.”
`
`
`2 Nor does the mere existence of a claim-filing deadline (or reproduction of that deadline
`on the settlement website) foreclose the submission or payment of late-filed claims or data
`authorize you or the Claims Administrator to decline to process such claims or data. See, e.g.,
`Sutton v. Hopkins County, 2009 WL 3299597 at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2009) (permitting class
`member to submit a late claim form); Michel v. WM Healthcqre Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL
`497031, at *24 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 7, 2014) (permitting 62 claimants who submitted “late, but
`otherwise valid, claim forms . . . to participate and recover as Class Members”).
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-3, PageID.39143 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`William Reiss, Marc M. Seltzer & Adam J. Zapala
`January 19, 2021
`Page 3
`
`
`Subsequently, in December 2020, FRS submitted vehicle information to the Claims
`Administrator for several timely filed claim forms and received no response to that submission.
`FRS then submitted vehicle information for several other timely filed claim forms on January 4,
`2021, and received a response from the Claims Administrator later that day saying, for the first
`time, that “we are no longer accepting new data for the settlements,” but also that “[w]e will file
`the records submitted.” Then, on January 12, 2021, your colleagues, Chanler Langham and
`Jenna Farleigh, stated in a telephone conversation with me that the Claims Administrator would
`not process any claim forms submitted after June 18, 2020, but would accept late vehicle
`information for timely filed claim forms unless they are deemed “placeholder” claim forms—a
`term that Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh were either unable or unwilling to define.3 As this
`timeline makes clear, neither you nor the Claims Administrator disclosed your intent not to
`accept late submissions for processing until after the Solicitation emails had already been sent.
`
`The Solicitation and FRS’s Website Are Neither Misleading Nor Improper
`
`II.
`Your letter also complains (at 2) about other statements in the Solicitation and on FRS’s
`website that you contend are “cherry-picked” or are “likely to create confusion for potential
`Settlement Class Members.” These complaints are meritless. The relevant portion of FRS’s
`website (which the Solicitation attached) refers readers to class counsel, the Claims
`Administrator, and the settlement website “for additional settlement information,” and neither
`the Solicitation nor FRS’s website states or implies that class members are required to retain FRS
`in order to file a claim. In particular, the statements that “FRS is still filing claims for new
`clients” and “can submit your organization’s Claim(s)” are true and do not imply that claimants
`are unable to file claims without FRS’s assistance, especially given FRS’s express notice to class
`members that they “have the right to file on [their] own.”
`
`* * *
`
`In light of the foregoing, you have no good-faith basis to threaten any legal action against
`FRS. Nevertheless, in the interest of putting this matter to rest, FRS intends to take the following
`actions: (1) instruct the independent contractor who sent the Solicitation not to disseminate the
`Solicitation further, (2) remove from its website the “Class Action Summary” for the End-Payor
`Actions, and (3) send a further communication to recipients of the Solicitation that reiterates that
`(a) the deadline for submitting claim forms has passed, and (b) payment for claim forms filed
`after the deadline are subject to the court’s approval.
`
`
`3 Mr. Langham and Ms. Farleigh stated that a claim form would be considered a
`“placeholder” if it did not contain information sufficient to identify the vehicle(s) being claimed,
`but they were unable or unwilling to specify how much information would be considered
`sufficient. Rather than provide a generally applicable definition of “placeholder,” they offered to
`review specific claim forms and opine whether they contained sufficient information.
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-3, PageID.39144 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`William Reiss, Marc M. Seltzer & Adam J. Zapala
`January 19, 2021
`Page 4
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Matthew R. Huppert
`
`