Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39145 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39146 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`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 ROBIN M. NIEMIEC IN SUPPORT OF
`FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC’S EMERGENCY MOTION
`TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF VEHICLE DATA
`I, Robin M. Niemiec, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am Chief Operating Officer of Financial Recovery Services, LLC
`
`d/b/a Financial Recovery Strategies (“FRS”).1 I submit this declaration in support
`
`of FRS’s Emergency Motion to Compel Acceptance and Processing of Vehicle Data.
`
`This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, as well as my extensive
`
`experience with class action settlement administrations and distributions.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise specified, all references herein to docket entries are to the docket in 12-
`md-02311. All terms with initial capitalization that are not defined in this declaration have the
`same meanings as those set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Financial Recovery
`Services, LLC’s Motion to Intervene (PageID.37697, ECF No. 2060).
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39147 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
`
`2.
`
`I joined FRS in 2015 from Rust Consulting, Inc. (“Rust”), a leading
`
`class action claims administrator that, for more than 40 years, has designed,
`
`implemented, or managed more than 6,500 time-sensitive projects of all sizes and
`
`types. I managed Rust’s over 30-person Florida office and I directed the operation
`
`of Rust’s antitrust claims administration practice.
`
`3.
`
`In my ten years of managing antitrust class action settlements at Rust,
`
`I oversaw more than 160 direct purchaser and indirect purchaser antitrust class action
`
`settlements—including some of the largest, most complex and data intensive in U.S.
`
`history—many of which involved hundreds of thousands of class members, and that
`
`collectively involved settlement funds of more than $15 billion and the processing
`
`of 6 million proofs of claim.
`
`PLACEHOLDER CLAIMS
`
`4.
`
`In my experience, both at Rust and at FRS, it has been and continues to
`
`be commonplace for timely filed blank claim forms to be treated in the exact same
`
`manner as timely filed partially incomplete claim forms. In the hundreds of
`
`settlements that I directly oversaw at Rust, and in the hundreds of others of which I
`
`have personal knowledge, Rust customarily sent the same deficiency notice to
`
`claimants that timely filed blank claim forms as was sent to claimants that had timely
`
`filed partially incomplete claim forms. That deficiency notice provided the claimant
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39148 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`an opportunity to cure the missing data deficiency in their claim form, without
`
`distinguishing between claim forms containing some data for some claimed units
`
`and those that provided no data for any entries. If a claimant that had received such
`
`a deficiency notice submitted the required data by the deadline established in the
`
`deficiency notice or an y extensions thereof, the claim, whether it was blank or
`
`partially complete when it was originally filed, was accepted to the extent of the data
`
`provided.
`
`5.
`
`On January 24, 2019, I, together with Jeffrey N. Leibell, FRS’s Chief
`
`Legal & Financial Officer, participated in a meet and confer telephone conference
`
`with Class Counsel represented by Marc Seltzer and William V. Reiss. On behalf
`
`of FRS, I requested that conference to discuss how “to address now any data
`
`collection issues that may exist so that the process is more efficient, both for our
`
`clients and for the claims administrator.”2 At no time during that call was the subject
`
`of placeholder claims discussed. Neither Mr. Leibell nor I requested permission
`
`from Class Counsel to submit placeholder claims, and at no time did either
`
`Mr. Seltzer or Mr. Reiss explicitly or implicitly state that the placeholder claims that
`
`FRS had already filed, or any that FRS might file in the future, would be rejected.
`
`2 Ex. C to Declaration of Jeffrey N. Leibell at 1 (June 18, 2020), PageID.37777, ECF No.
`2060-5; see Declaration of Jeffrey N. Leibell (June 18, 2020), PageID.37726, ECF No. 2060-2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39149 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`PLACEHOLDER CLAIM DATA
`
`6.
`
`Hardcopy placeholder claim forms are usually blank, other than
`
`including the identity and contact information of the claimant. When claim forms
`
`also may be filed electronically, as was the case for the End-Payor Settlements, the
`
`required fields must be populated for the form to be submitted. In this
`
`administration, model year, make, model, place of purchase and date of purchase
`
`needed to be populated for the electronic form to be submitted. Accordingly, any
`
`placeholder claim that FRS filed electronically populated the required fields for a
`
`single placeholder vehicle.
`
`7.
`
`In the hundreds of settlements that I administered in which business
`
`entities filed blank hardcopy claim forms or electronically filed claim forms with
`
`only one placeholder unit, I understood those claims to be placeholder claims.
`
`Accordingly, those claimants were sent deficiency notices. I knew from experience
`
`that, in response to the deficiency notice that would be sent, either the claim form
`
`would be updated by the deadline set forth in the deficiency notice or extensions
`
`thereof, or it would not. If the claimants responded in time to those notices, their
`
`supplemental data was processed as timely. If a claimant had submitted a blank
`
`claim form and did not timely respond to the deficiency notice, its claim was
`
`rejected; if a claimant had electronically submitted a claim form with one unit and
`
`did not timely respond to the deficiency notice, the claim was processed if the data
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39150 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`for that one unit was sufficient. The class counsel with whom I worked in connection
`
`with those settlements were well aware of this process, and none directed me to
`
`reject placeholder claims as untimely or fraudulent.
`
`8.
`
`Given the ubiquitous nature of placeholder claims, it would surprise me
`
`to see a claims administrator waste time researching the one placeholder unit
`
`included on electronically submitted claim forms to determine whether it was
`
`legitimate. As mentioned above, such placeholder claim forms, if they are not timely
`
`supplemented with credible data, would be processed only to the extent that the data
`
`for the one claimed unit was sufficient. If they were timely supplemented, that
`
`supplemental data, not the original placeholder data, would be processed and
`
`evaluated.
`
`9. When FRS files placeholder claims, as we did in this MDL, we never
`
`intend anything other than to establish the timeliness of the claim and to make the
`
`claims administrator aware of our intent to supplement the placeholder claim before
`
`any deadline established for doing so. With respect to placeholder claims for
`
`Insurers, FRS was careful to make sure that Class Counsel and the claims
`
`administrator were aware that placeholder claims would be supplemented.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2126-4, PageID.39151 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
