IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ____________________________________ ) IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST ) MDL 1616 LITIGATION ) ____________________________________) ) Civil No. 04-md-1616-JWL-JPO This Document Relates To: ) The Polyether Polyol Cases ) ____________________________________) CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPROVE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE DOW SETTLEMENT FUND I. INTRODUCTION 1. The claims process is now complete. By any measure, the process has been a success. Claims were submitted by every one of the top 75 class members and 149 out of the top 150 class members. Indeed, claims were submitted by class members reflecting more than 95% of the Recognized Losses estimated by Plaintiffs’ damages expert, a remarkably high percentage. The high claims participation makes all the more impressive that participating Class Members will recover more than 100% of their Recognized Loss, as described more fully below. 2. Now that the claims process is complete, Class Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), by their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move this Court to approve: (a) the procedures used, the actions taken, and the determinations made by the Settlement Administrator, Garden City Group, LLC (“GCG”), and by the undersigned Class Counsel relating to the administration of, and proposed distributions from, the settlement fund established in accordance with the Settlement Agreement with The Dow Chemical Company as approved by this Court (the “Dow Settlement Fund”), including the administrative determinations of the Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel in accepting, revising, and rejecting claims in connection therewith; (b) the Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 18
105
Embed
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ...polyetherpolyolsettlement.com/docs/Motion to... · 8. With the Court's approval, Class Counsel engaged Garden City Group
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
____________________________________ ) IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST ) MDL 1616 LITIGATION ) ____________________________________) ) Civil No. 04-md-1616-JWL-JPO This Document Relates To: ) The Polyether Polyol Cases ) ____________________________________)
CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPROVE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE DOW SETTLEMENT FUND
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The claims process is now complete. By any measure, the process has been a
success. Claims were submitted by every one of the top 75 class members and 149 out of the top
150 class members. Indeed, claims were submitted by class members reflecting more than 95%
of the Recognized Losses estimated by Plaintiffs’ damages expert, a remarkably high percentage.
The high claims participation makes all the more impressive that participating Class Members
will recover more than 100% of their Recognized Loss, as described more fully below.
2. Now that the claims process is complete, Class Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), by their
undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move this Court to approve: (a) the procedures used,
the actions taken, and the determinations made by the Settlement Administrator, Garden City
Group, LLC (“GCG”), and by the undersigned Class Counsel relating to the administration of,
and proposed distributions from, the settlement fund established in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement with The Dow Chemical Company as approved by this Court (the “Dow
Settlement Fund”), including the administrative determinations of the Settlement Administrator
and Class Counsel in accepting, revising, and rejecting claims in connection therewith; (b) the
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 18
2
payments of certain invoices associated with claims administration; and (c) distribution of
settlement funds to approved claimants.
II. BACKGROUND
3. On July 29, 2016, the District Court granted final approval to the Dow Settlement
(Dkt. No. 3274), and also approved Plaintiffs’ proposed Plan of Allocation for the Dow
Settlement Fund (Dkt. No. 3275).
4. The Notice and Claims process, described in detail below, is now complete, and
the Settlement Administrator is prepared to distribute the net Dow Settlement Fund to the Class,
on approval by the Court.
5. The current total available balance of the Dow Settlement Fund is $556,980,141
as of the September 30, 2017 Summary of Accounts. Declaration of Angela Ferrante, attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Ferrante Decl.”), ¶ 46.
6. For the reasons set forth below, Class Counsel recommend distributing the
Settlement Fund in two installments: (i) 85% to be distributed as soon as practicable after court
approval and the running of the applicable appeal period; and (ii) the remaining approximately
15% at an appropriate and prudent future date. Based thereon, Class Counsel recommend
transferring $473,433,120.57 into a new Distribution Account for purposes of making the first
installment of payments. The monies in the Distribution Account will be distributed to claimants
pro rata based on their Recognized Loss Amounts as described below and in accordance with
the Estimated Recommended Schedule of Distribution, attached as Exhibit D-1 to the Ferrante
Declaration.
7. The Estimated Recommended Schedule of Distribution is “estimated” because
percentages and distribution amounts could change before the actual distributions. For example,
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 18
3
Court-ordered changes to the treatment of specific claims or the acceptance of any additional
claims could affect percentages and distribution amounts. Should percentages or distribution
amounts change, Plaintiffs will submit a revised recommended schedule of distribution to the
Court, as they did in the Bayer and the BASF and Huntsman Settlement distribution processes
(Dkt. Nos. 1853-1; 2546-1).
III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION PROCESS
8. With the Court's approval, Class Counsel engaged Garden City Group (“GCG”)
to act as the Settlement Administrator, under the supervision of Class Counsel. GCG is
experienced in handling class action settlement notice programs and claims administration.
9. In its capacity as Settlement Administrator, GCG was authorized to: prepare and
mail proof of claim forms to Class Members; receive, review and enter data regarding the claim
forms that were filed; audit claims when appropriate and necessary; recommend the dollar
volume of eligible (and, where appropriate, ineligible) purchases as to each claim filed; and
otherwise assist Class Counsel in the claims administration process. GCG’s efforts are
summarized in the Ferrante Declaration.
10. The Plan of Allocation (the “Plan”) called for sending Class Members
individualized Proof of Claim Forms that showed the following:
Direct Purchase Amounts: The Class Member’s total net purchases of Polyether Polyol
Products between November 24, 2000 and December 31, 2003 (the “Damages Period”) in
dollars, directly from all of the Defendants. Direct Purchase Amounts were reported by
product category (i.e., MDI, TDI, polyols, and systems), as derived from sales data
provided by the Defendants.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 18
4
Overcharge Percentage: The Class Member’s overcharge percentage for each product
category, as determined by Plaintiffs’ expert on damages.1 See Plan § 1 & Claim Form
Part 1.
Each Class Member’s Recognized Loss Amount is calculated by multiplying its Direct Purchase
Amounts by its Overcharge Percentage in each product category and then adding together the
resulting amounts, the total being that Class Member’s Recognized Loss Amount.2 As explained
in the Plan, claimants’ awards are to be based on their Recognized Loss Amounts. See Plan § 3.
11. The Defendants’ sales data identified nearly 2,000 Class Members with positive
purchase data during the Damages Period. For each such Class Member, InfoTech obtained by
product category (i) the Class Member’s Direct Purchase Amounts from the database of class
member purchases constructed from Defendants’ sales records and (ii) the Overcharge
Percentage from the damages model constructed by Dr. McClave for presentation at trial.
12. InfoTech then prepared a database consisting of (i) Class Member names; (ii)
most current or best street addresses as derived from Defendants’ sales data, the work performed
during the Bayer and BASF/Huntsman settlement distributions, and the settlement notice
programs; (iii) Direct Purchase Amounts for each Class Member for each product category
during the Damages Period; and (iv) Overcharge Percentages for each Class Member for each
product category.
1 The overcharge percentage is bounded by the Interquartile Range (“IQR”) for each modeled product
overcharge applicable to that customer so as to compensate claimants based on their estimated damages while eliminating outlier estimates and excessive variability among claimants. See Memorandum in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Their Plan of Allocation and Distribution of the Dow Settlement Fund at 5-6 (Dkt. No. 3249).
2 Plaintiffs’ expert estimated each Class Member’s overcharge percentage to between 14 and 16 decimal points, but the claim forms were simplified to identify overcharge percentages to two decimal points. Total Recognized Loss herein is being calculated based on Plaintiffs’ expert’s more precise estimates. Therefore, the Recognized Loss amounts listed on the Schedule differ slightly from the calculations based on the figures in the claim forms.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 18
5
13. GCG, in consultation with Class Counsel and InfoTech, created and sent
personalized, pre-printed proof of claim forms to the members of the Class identified in
Defendants’ purchase data. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 6. The personalized proof of claim forms specified
the Direct Purchase Amounts and Overcharge Percentages for each product category.
14. The proof of claim forms instructed claimants that they had two options: (a) they
could accept the pre-printed Direct Purchase Amounts appearing on the claim form, in which
case claimants did not have to provide any additional proof of their purchases, or (b) they could
claim different purchase amounts, in which case claimants were instructed to submit adequate
proof that they had purchased the claimed amount of Eligible Products directly from the
Defendants in the United States or its territories during the Damages Period. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 6.
The Claim Form explained that although a claimant’s Direct Purchase Amounts may be
contested and adjusted if supported by adequate documentation, the customer-specific
Overcharge Percentage could not be challenged. See Plan § 1 & Claim Form Part 5, Instructions
4, 6 & 7. A sample proof of claim form is attached as Exhibit A to the Ferrante Declaration.
15. GCG sent personalized claim forms showing no eligible purchases to entities that
had Recognized Loss Amounts in connection with the Bayer and/or BASF/Huntsman settlement
distributions but did not have Eligible Purchases for purposes of the Dow settlement distribution,
either because of changes in the list of Eligible Products or the duration of the period of
eligibility. GCG also sent blank claim forms to anyone who requested one during the course of
the litigation. This ensured that such Class Members had notice of the claims process and could
submit a claim with corrected amounts if they had, in fact, purchased Eligible Products during
the Damages Period. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 7.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 5 of 18
6
16. The proof of claim form instructed all claimants to return their claim forms by
February 27, 2017.3 Ferrante Decl. ¶ 6; see Claim Form, Part 1 and Part 5, Instruction 1.
17. The Ferrante Declaration, to which Plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court, provides
a detailed description of the claims administration process. Specifically, Ms. Ferrante describes
the procedures and criteria by which GCG reviewed and evaluated claim forms; GCG’s
communications with claimants and Class Counsel to evaluate and audit claims; GCG’s
procedures for, and efforts in, identifying deficiencies in submitted claim forms, notifying
claimants of the deficiencies, and allowing claimants to correct and cure the identified
deficiencies; the process by which GCG and Class Counsel determined whether to recommend
accepting, rejecting, or modifying each claim; GCG’s written notifications to claimants whose
claims are being recommended for rejection or reduction and the process and deadline for
objecting to that recommendation; and how GCG calculated the Recognized Loss Amount for
each claim and the resulting Estimated Recommended Schedule of Distribution.
18. More than 1,500 claim forms were submitted. After eliminating duplicative,
ineligible, and deficient claims, GCG and Class Counsel recommend that 865 claims be
approved for payment. Ferrante Decl. ¶¶ 20, 43.
19. The Defendants’ Purchase Data as listed on the preprinted claim forms (the
“Undisputed Claims”) was accepted by 783 Claimants. Class Counsel and GCG treated the
Undisputed Claims as presumptively approved for payment. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 22.
20. A number of Claimants returned claim forms that did not specify the amount of
claimed purchases. Many of these were “placeholder” claims, which are claims filed before the
claimant or someone acting on behalf of the claimant has determined the extent – or perhaps
3 In accordance with the Plan of Allocation (Dkt. No. 3248-1), Class Counsel instructed GCG to accept late
claims if doing so would not delay the claims administration process. Class Counsel is not recommending that any claims be denied on the basis that they were not submitted by February 27, 2017.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 6 of 18
7
even the existence – of Eligible Purchases. GCG sent a Notice of Claim Deficiency (“Deficiency
Notice”) to all claimants who did not specify purchase amounts, informing them that if they
failed to submit purchase numbers and supporting documentation, their claims would be rejected.
The majority of the placeholder claims were withdrawn or abandoned. The claims that
responded with purchase numbers were reviewed as disputed claims as set forth below. Ferrante
Decl. ¶ 23.
21. GCG received more than one hundred claim forms disputing the purchase
information reflected in the Defendants’ sales records, claiming either that (i) the claimant had
made more purchases than the positive purchase numbers on the claim form they received or the
products on their claim form were misclassified (e.g., listed as systems instead of MDI); or (ii)
they had made eligible purchases though the Defendants’ data showed no Eligible Purchases
during the Damages Period (“Disputed Claims”). Ferrante Decl. ¶ 24.
22. The Disputed Claims were first reviewed for completeness. Disputed Claims that
did not provide documents to support claimed purchase amounts were sent a Deficiency Notice
requiring that documentation be submitted to justify the additional claimed amounts. Many of
these Disputed Claims failed to supplement their claim with supporting documents or were
affirmatively withdrawn by the Claimants after they received Deficiency Notices, and as a result,
are recommended for rejection. Claims that provided supporting documentation were considered
for further review to determine eligibility. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 25.
23. All remaining Disputed Claims were then reviewed and evaluated individually to
determine whether the Claimant had sufficiently proven qualifying purchases in the amounts
claimed. In making this determination, GCG and Class Counsel considered, inter alia, the
following factors: (i) whether the Claimant had demonstrated that it purchased products within
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 7 of 18
8
the Damages Period; (ii) whether the purchases were foreign or U.S. purchases; (iii) whether the
Claimant had demonstrated that the products were purchased directly from the Defendants; (iv)
whether the Claimant had demonstrated that the products purchased were Eligible Products
within the Class definition; and (v) the extent to which the Claimant had documented the
amounts of purchases. In many instances, GCG and Class Counsel searched Defendants’
Purchase Data, often asked InfoTech to perform additional research, and often conducted
independent research into the reasons for discrepancies between the amounts in Defendants’
Purchase Data and the amounts claimed by Claimants. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 26.
24. Class Counsel and GCG tried to resolve as many of the issues relating to Disputed
Claims as possible through phone calls and e-mails with Claimants. This approach was
extremely effective in streamlining the claims review process, and numerous Disputed Claims
were resolved in this manner. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 27.
25. Where the informal process was not successful or was deemed unlikely to be
successful, GCG sent a personalized letter to the Disputed Claimant whose claimed purchase
amounts were to be reduced or rejected, explaining the basis for reduction or rejection and
providing the Claimant with another opportunity to submit supplemental proof or argument. Id.
Some of the Claimants did not respond with any supplemental proof or argument, or
affirmatively withdrew their claims and, as a result, are recommended for rejection.
26. Many Disputed Claimants responded to the Deficiency Letters with more
information. All responding Claimants’ files, including the new information, were re-reviewed.
Where Claimants were able to produce sufficient proof of the amounts claimed, their Claims are
being recommended for approval. Id.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 8 of 18
9
27. A further aspect of the claims review process involved the submission of
duplicative claim forms filed by the same Claimant. GCG notified these Claimants of the
duplication and informed them that only one Claim Form could be approved for payment. GCG
and Class Counsel designated one of the submitted Claim Forms as the primary claim and
provided the Claimant with an opportunity to respond with additional information, including
with respect to the preferred address for communications and receipt of the settlement proceeds.
Ferrante Decl. ¶ 31.
28. In some instances, GCG received competing claim forms from two or more
different Claimants with respect to a particular claim, causing a potential duplication of
recoveries. In each such instance, GCG and Class Counsel communicated with the competing
claimants and suggested that the claimants agree between themselves as to which claimant is the
rightful owner of the claim or as to an appropriate allocation of the claim. Class Counsel and
GCG tried to resolve as many of these conflicts as possible through phone calls and e-mails with
the competing claimants. In some instances, they provided the claimants with additional
information as to the purchases at issue in order to clarify who made the purchases. In other
instances, they requested from the claimants the legal and factual bases for their claims. This
approach was extremely effective in resolving conflicts, and in almost all of these instances, the
competing claimants have successfully resolved ownership and/or allocation of the claim.
Ferrante Decl. ¶ 35.
29. In only one instance (Reference # 50), the claimants have not resolved fully the
ownership and/or allocation issues. With respect to this claim, the competing claimants have
agreed that a part of the claim properly is attributed to one of the claimants and so only the
remaining portion of the claim is in dispute. GCG and Class Counsel will continue to work
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 9 of 18
10
towards resolving this conflict through the date of the Distribution Hearing. To the extent that
this claim remains unresolved at the time of the Hearing, Class Counsel will recommend to the
Court that the claim be approved based on the full amount in Defendants’ Data; that the amounts
that are not in dispute be paid as agreed; and that the amounts that continue to be in dispute be
retained in the Distribution Fund until such time as the dispute is resolved, either by negotiation,
mediation or court process. Class Counsel has informed the affected claimants of this proposal,
and they are both agreeable to this recommended approach. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 36.
30. Among the claims received by GCG were five claims submitted by companies
that were not related to any defendant during the Damages Period when their purchases of
eligible products were made but that are currently subsidiaries of defendants.4 For the reasons
stated below, Class Counsel and GCG recommend that these claims be accepted. Ferrante Decl.
¶ 37. The class herein is defined to include all persons and entities who purchased Polyether
Polyol Products directly from a defendant at any time from November 24, 2000 through
December 31, 2003 in the United States and its territories, “excluding all governmental entities,
any defendants, their employees, and their respective parents, subsidiaries and affiliates." While
the class definition excludes defendants and their subsidiaries, it is not clear whether the
exclusion applies to a claimant's current corporate status or to its status at the time the purchases
in question were made. In resolving this ambiguity, Class Counsel placed considerable weight
on the fact that (i) the purchases were impacted by the conspiracy and thus the companies were
overcharged; and (ii) the purchases made by these companies were included in plaintiffs'
damages model and therefore were reflected in the jury's verdict and the settlement with
Dow. Class Counsel recognize, however, that others may weigh factors differently and at least
4 These claims are identified on the Accepted Claims spreadsheet as Reference #11/Claim #692; Reference #16/Claim # 1002764; Reference #17/Claim # 1001266; Reference #35/Claim #1010006; and Reference #67/Claim #1008190.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 10 of 18
11
one class member has expressed to Class Counsel that any such purchases should be considered
ineligible. Given these circumstances, GCG and Class Counsel concluded that the best course
was to lay out the relevant facts in this motion, allowing any interested parties to submit
argument and enabling the Court to make a final determination as to the eligibility of these
purchases.
31. GCG and Class Counsel recommend that a total of 71 of the Disputed Claims be
approved as follows: 26 for the full amount requested by the Claimant, 8 for an amount greater
than that contained in Defendants’ Purchase Data but less than the full amount requested by the
Claimant, and 37 for the amount contained in Defendants’ Purchase Data (i.e., rejecting just the
additional claimed amount). Ferrante Decl. ¶ 29.
32. In addition, GCG and Class Counsel recommend that 56 Disputed Claims be
rejected in full. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 30.
IV. DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
33. Attached as Exhibit D to the Ferrante Declaration is a list of all the Claims filed.
34. Exhibit D-1 lists the 865 Claims that GCG and Class Counsel recommend be
approved, in whole or in part. Exhibit D-1 lists, for each claim, the Claim Number; the
Reference Number; the Total Recognized Loss Amounts; the Total Estimated Payment Amount
(100%); the Estimated Initial Payment Amount (85%); and a short description of the
circumstances relating to the claim.
35. As stated above, the results of the claims process were extraordinary. Every one
of the Top 75 Class Members (by Recognized Loss Amount) submitted a claim, and 149 of the
Top 150 Class Members submitted claims. Indeed, claims were submitted by Class Members
reflecting 95% of the Recognized Losses estimated by plaintiffs’ damages expert.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 11 of 18
12
36. Class Counsel is not aware of any claims process that comes anywhere close to
matching the results achieved here.
37. Exhibit D-2 lists 677 claims that GCG and Class Counsel recommend be rejected
in full. Exhibit D-2 lists, for each such claim, the Claim Number; the Reference Number; and a
short description of the circumstances relating to the claim.
38. For privacy reasons, these lists identify Claimants only by Claim Number and
Reference Number. No names, addresses or Taxpayer I.D. numbers are disclosed.
39. All told, GCG and Class Counsel recommend approval of 865 claims representing
a Total Recognized Loss Amount of $519,257,220.68. The September 2017 statement for the
Dow Settlement escrow account shows a total available balance of $556,980,141. According to
the Plan of Allocation, each Approved Claimant shall be allocated a pro rata share of the
Settlement Fund based on its percentage of the Total Recognized Loss Amount, after deduction
of reasonable, anticipated further expenses.
40. GCG and Class Counsel recommend that the Settlement Fund be distributed in
two installments: (i) 85% of the Settlement Fund to be distributed as soon as practicable after the
Court enters a distribution order and the applicable appeal period has run; and (ii) the remaining
approximately 15% of the Settlement Fund to be distributed at an appropriate and prudent future
date.5 The purpose of this approach is to retain flexibility in the event that legitimate corrections
or adjustments need to be made after the initial settlements payments are distributed or any
presently unforeseen claims issues arise. GCG and Class Counsel believe that this approach
5 To the extent that any Claimants appeal the treatment of their claims, GCG and Class Counsel propose
that instead of delaying the distribution to other Class members pending resolution of such appeals, GCG would hold back from the distribution an amount sufficient to pay all such claims in the amounts claimed, in the event that that becomes necessary or appropriate. GCG and Class Counsel will submit an amended Recommended Schedule of Distribution to the Court in that event. If the appealing claimants ultimately do not prevail in full, the extra monies held back would revert to the general Distribution Fund to be allocated to all approved claimants on a pro rata basis.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 12 of 18
13
provides sufficient back-up to ensure the integrity of the distribution process. Class Counsel
request that the Court authorize a hold back here with the understanding that at an appropriate
and prudent future date, Class Counsel will petition the Court for leave to distribute the
remaining settlement proceeds to valid claimants on the same pro rata basis used for the initial
distribution requested in this Motion.
41. GCG calculated the Estimated Initial Payment Amount for each Approved
Claimant listed on Exhibit D-1 in accordance with the Court-approved Plan of Allocation, and
using an initial Distribution amount of $473,433,120.57. That amount is 85% of the available
balance of the Dow Settlement Fund.6
Ferrante Decl. ¶¶ 45-46.
42. GCG calculated the Total Estimated Payout Amount using a total distribution
amount of $556,980,141, which is the balance in the Dow Settlement Fund as of September 30,
2017. This amount will change as of the time of the final distribution. For example, the amount
will increase based on additional interest earned in the fund, as well as any uncashed Class
Member checks. In addition, GCG has incurred fees and expenses of $76,224.71 between
August 1 and October 15, 2017 that have not yet been billed, and estimates that approximately
$164,000 will be expended in reasonable, anticipated further expenses. These include further
work on the claims and distribution process, including conducting the initial and supplemental
distributions, re-issuing checks as necessary, and other administrative tasks. These expenses also
include expenditures associated with preparing tax forms, paying any taxes due on interest
earned by the Dow Settlement Fund, and funding any unanticipated costs. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 46.
Rather than requesting that the Court set aside a reserve to cover these expenses, Class Counsel
6 The recommended Approved Payment Amounts for Claimants for whom GCG’s initial calculations
returned a pro rata share of less than $500 have been adjusted upward to $500. Class Counsel and GCG recommend that the Court approve $500 as the minimum payment for each Approved Claim.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 13 of 18
14
recommends that they be paid out of the funds remaining in the Escrow Account and they be
accounted for at the time Class Counsel seeks the Court’s leave for the final distribution.
43. GCG and Class Counsel recommend that the Court approve GCG’s
determinations as set forth above and in Exhibit D. After approval by the Court and expiration
of the appeal period,7 GCG will prepare and mail checks to all Approved Claimants for their pro
rata shares of the Settlement Fund as set forth in Exhibit D-1 to the Ferrante Declaration. For
details of the mechanics of the Distribution, see Ferrante Decl. ¶¶ 50-56.
44. A significant number of claims were filed on behalf of Class Members by Third
Party Filers. Now that we are approaching the distribution stage of the settlement process, an
issue has arisen as to how the settlement checks should be made out and where they should be
sent: whether GCG should (i) make the settlement checks payable to the Class Member and mail
the check directly to the Class Member; or (ii) make the settlement checks payable to the Third
Party Filer “For the Benefit of” (“FBO”) the Class Member and mail the check directly to the
Third Party Filer. GCG and Class Counsel recommend that all settlement checks be made
payable to and mailed to the Class Member, rather than the Third Party Filer. Ferrante Decl. ¶
53. The magnitude of the payments in this case are enormous, more than ten times as much as
they were in the earlier settlements in this case. Indeed, some of the Dow Settlement claims
submitted through Third Party Filers involve recoveries in the many millions of dollars. Under
these circumstances, sending negotiable checks to third-party entities rather than the Class
Members to whom we have our direct obligation is not the prudent course. The protections
7 As described above, if any claimants appeal the treatment of their specific claims, Class Counsel propose
withholding sufficient funds from the initial distribution to pay such claims in full, proceeding with the distribution to all other claimants, and making any necessary payment adjustments in the supplemental distribution.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 14 of 18
15
available for the Class Members are not sufficient to justify any risk that the settlement monies
never make it to their intended beneficiary, the Class Member.8
45. In order to encourage Claimants to promptly negotiate their distributions, and to
avoid or reduce future expenses relating to unpaid distributions, GCG and Class Counsel
recommend that the distribution checks bear the notation, “CASH PROMPTLY. VOID AND
SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER
ISSUE DATE.” Ferrante Decl. ¶ 56.
46. GCG agreed to be the Settlement Administrator in exchange for payment of its
fees and expenses. Class Counsel have been billed and received reports of all of the work GCG
performed with respect to the administration of the Settlement, and authorized all of the claims
administration work GCG performed. Since settlement approval, GCG has been paid a total of
$320,658.64 out of the Dow Settlement Fund for the work it reasonably performed through July
31, 2017. Ferrante Decl. ¶ 57. For a summary of that work, see Ferrante Decl., passim & Exh.
E. Plaintiffs request that the Court find that those expenses were reasonable.
47. During the claims administration process, InfoTech consulted with Class Counsel
as to the eligibility of products listed in Class Members’ claims. InfoTech also provided
information on the billing and shipping locations of class member purchases which were used in
resolving disputes between competing claimants. Since settlement approval, InfoTech has been
paid a total $32,675.00 out of the Settlement Fund for the work it reasonably performed through
August 31, 2017. Plaintiffs request that the Court find that those expenses were reasonable.
48. As contemplated by § 4 of the Plan of Allocation, at least 21 days before the date
of the hearing on this Motion (“Distribution Hearing”), GCG will mail letters to claimants whose
8 Mailing checks to Class Members is not and should not be interpreted as a resolution by GCG or Class
Counsel, in form or substance, of any claims between the Class Member and Third Party Filer. It is simply a protocol to complete the claims distribution process in a timely and efficient manner.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 15 of 18
16
claims were rejected in toto and to those whose claims were reduced in the review and audit
process. The letters will inform the claimants of the rejection or modification of their claims, the
procedures for disputing those determinations, the deadline for doing so, and the time and date of
the Distribution Hearing. See Ferrante Decl. ¶ 48.
49. Class Counsel and GCG will continue to work closely with claimants until the
Distribution Hearing to eliminate or reduce the number of potential disputes relating to
claimants’ recommended Recognized Loss Amount. See Ferrante Decl. ¶ 49.
V. CONCLUSION
50. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the
proposed Order authorizing the distributions from the Dow Settlement Fund as requested in this
Motion.
DATED: November 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert W. Coykendall Robert W. Coykendall, No.10137 Robert N. Walter, No.08620 Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered Old Town Square 300 North Mead – Suite 200 Wichita, KS 67202 Tel: (316) 262-2671 Fax: (316) 262-5991 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 16 of 18
17
Donald L. Perelman Roberta D. Liebenberg Gerard A. Dever Paul Costa Matthew Duncan Mary Russell FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872
Richard A. Koffman Kit A. Pierson Christopher J. Cormier Sharon K. Robertson Laura Alexander COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N. W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 17 of 18
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of November, 2017, I caused the foregoing Class
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Distributions from the Dow Settlement Fund to be electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of
electronic filing to all counsel who have registered for receipt of documents filed in this matter.
/s/ Robert W. Coykendall Robert W. Coykendall
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281 Filed 11/06/17 Page 18 of 18
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 87
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
____________________________________ ) IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST ) MDL 1616 LITIGATION ) ____________________________________) ) Civil No. 04-md-1616-JWL-JPO This Document Relates To: ) The Polyether Polyol Cases ) ____________________________________)
DECLARATION OF ANGELA FERRANTE IN SUPPORT OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
APPROVE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE DOW SETTLEMENT FUND
I, Angela Ferrante, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a Senior Vice President, Operations of Garden City Group, LLC (“GCG”).
Pursuant to this Court’s April 27, 2016 Order Authorizing Dissemination of Notice to the Class
of the Dow Settlement Agreement and Establishing Procedures and a Hearing on Final
Settlement Approval, the Proposed Plan of Allocation and Class Counsel’s Fee Petition Dkt.
3243 (the “Order Authorizing Dissemination”), GCG was appointed as the Settlement
Administrator in connection with the proposed settlement between Defendant The Dow
Chemical Company (“Dow”) and Class Plaintiffs (the “Dow Settlement”).1 The following
statements are based on personal knowledge and/or information provided to me by other
experienced GCG employees working under my supervision.
MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF THE DOW SETTLEMENT
2. As set forth in the Declaration of Jose C. Fraga Regarding Mailing of Notice of
Dow Settlement (the “Mailing Declaration”), GCG received from Class Counsel updated lists of
Class Members provided by the prior administrator, who had disseminated notices and claim 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this document shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement dated February 25, 2016. Dkt. 3238-1.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 87
2
forms in connection with prior settlements and other developments in the Urethane Antitrust
Litigation. Pursuant to the Order Authorizing Dissemination, on May 16, 2016, GCG mailed the
Notice, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to 9,437 Class Member addresses. For those Notices
that were returned as undeliverable by the USPS with forwarding addresses, GCG re-mailed the
Notice to the forwarding addresses. For those Notices that were returned as undeliverable
without a forwarding address, GCG performed an NCOA search to locate new addresses and re-
mailed Notices to any updated addresses that were obtained.
3. In the aggregate, as of July 15, 2016, GCG mailed 9,474 Notices to potential
Class Members by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Included in this are 10 Notices that were
mailed to potential Class Members upon request.
MAILING OF PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS
4. During the course of the litigation, Class Counsel’s expert, InfoTech, processed
and compiled comprehensive data from the Defendants showing Class Members’ purchases of
qualifying products (“Defendants’ Purchase Data”).2 In 2016, at the request of Class Counsel,
InfoTech prepared a database containing the following information: (i) Class Member names; (ii)
most current or best street addresses as derived from Defendants’ Purchase Data and the work
performed during the Bayer and BASF/Huntsman settlement distributions; (iii) Direct Purchase
Amounts3 for each Class Member for each product category during the Damages Period; and (iv)
2 We understand that this data compilation was done as part of the expert damages analysis in the case under the supervision of InfoTech’s President, Dr. James T. McClave, who is Plaintiffs’ damages expert. 3 Direct Purchase Amounts are the Class Member’s total net purchases of Polyether Polyol Products (net
of freight charges, returns, discounts, credits, rebates, or other price adjustments) between November 24, 2000 and December 31, 2003 (the “Damages Period”) in dollars, directly from all of the Defendants: BASF, Bayer, Dow, Huntsman and Lyondell.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 87
3
Overcharge Percentages4 for each Class Member for each product category.
5. InfoTech provided this database to GCG and worked with GCG and Class
Counsel to integrate the information with GCG’s database and systems for preparation of
personalized claim forms for Class Members who had not timely excluded themselves from the
Litigation Class. GCG worked with InfoTech and Class Counsel to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of the data used to prepare the personalized claim forms for Class Members.
6. Once GCG completed its analysis of the data, GCG created unique Proof of Claim
Forms (the “Claim Form”) for each Class Member. Each Claim Form included a unique Claim
Number, the corresponding Class Member’s Reference Number, and the Class Member’s Direct
Purchase Amounts and Overcharge Percentages for each product category. The Claim Form
instructed claimants that they had two options: (a) they could accept the pre-printed Direct
Purchase Amounts on the Claim Form, in which case they did not have to provide any additional
proof of their purchases, or (b) they could claim different purchase amounts, in which case they
were instructed to submit adequate proof that they had purchased the claimed amount of Eligible
Products directly from the Defendants in the United States or its territories during the Damages
Period. The Claim Form explained that although a claimant’s Direct Purchase Amounts may be
contested and adjusted if supported by adequate documentation, the customer-specific
Overcharge Percentage could not be challenged. The Claim Form instructed all claimants to
return their Claim Forms by February 27, 2017.5 A copy of a sample Claim Form is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
4 The Overcharge Percentage included the Class Members’ overcharge percentage for each product
category, as determined by Plaintiffs’ expert on damages. 5 Although the deadline for Claim submission was February 27, 2017, Class Counsel instructed GCG to
accept late claims if doing so would not delay the claims administration process. GCG received and processed all claims through November 1, 2017. GCG is not recommending that any claims be denied on the basis that they were not submitted by February 27, 2017.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 87
4
7. In order to ensure that Class Members had notice of the claims process and could
submit a claim with corrected amounts, GCG sent blank Claim Forms showing no eligible
purchases to entities that had Recognized Loss Amounts in connection with the Bayer and/or
BASF/Huntsman settlement distributions but did not have Eligible Purchases for purposes of the
Dow Settlement, either because of changes in the list of Eligible Products or the duration of the
period of eligibility. GCG also sent blank Claim Forms to anyone who requested one during the
course of the administration.
8. To the extent that GCG had multiple addresses for a Class Member, GCG sent a
Claim Form to each address, with each Claim Form having a unique Claim Number. Class
Members were directed that, to the extent they received multiple Claim Forms with different
Claim Numbers but the same Reference Number, they should only return one Claim Form. The
unique Reference Number was assigned based on each Class Members’ total Recognized Loss,
with Reference Number 1 assigned to the Class Member with the largest Recognized Loss.
9. On January 13, 2017, GCG mailed 10,204 Claim Forms, 3,705 pre-populated and
6,499 blank, to potential Class Members.
10. In addition, as mentioned above, when GCG received requests for Claim Forms
from entities for which purchase amounts were not provided in Defendants’ Purchase Data, GCG
sent blank Claim Forms to those entities. In the aggregate, as of November 1, 2017, GCG
mailed 10,458 Claim Forms.
TELEPHONE HOTLINE
11. As more fully described in the Mailing Declaration, on or about April 6, 2016,
GCG took control of the toll-free number (1-877-741-1226) that had been established in
connection with prior Urethane Antitrust Litigation settlements. GCG continues to maintain the
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 5 of 87
5
telephone hotline to accommodate inquiries from Class Members and to respond to frequently
asked questions. The telephone hotline is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
WEBSITE
12. In addition, on or about March 30, 2016, GCG took ownership of the URL
www.polyetherpolyolsettlement.com, which was established in connection with prior settlements in the
Urethane Antitrust Litigation (the “Settlement Website”). GCG updated the Settlement Website to
provide information about the Dow Settlement, and continues to maintain the website. On November 6,
2017, GCG updated the homepage of the website to inform the Class that the Court will hear the Motion
for Distribution on December 19, 2017. Upon filing of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Distributions
from the Down Settlement Fund, all documents associated with that motion, including this Declaration,
will be posted to the website, as well as the date of the Distribution Hearing.
13. GCG also established a dedicated email address
([email protected]) to assist Class Members with questions regarding the Dow
Settlement.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN PROCESSING CLAIMS
14. As mentioned above, each Class Member who wished to receive a distribution
from the Dow Settlement was required to complete and submit a properly executed Claim Form.
Class Members were directed to submit their Claim Forms to:
Urethane Antitrust Litigation c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10223 Dublin, OH 43017-5723
15. Before claims processing commenced, GCG created a database dedicated to the
Litigation by customizing its proprietary database management software to accommodate the
specifics of the Litigation and the Dow Settlement as well as the data provided by InfoTech.
This included developing various computer programs and screens for entry of Class Members’
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 6 of 87
6
identifying and purchase information and calculating each Class Member’s pro rata share of the
Dow Settlement Fund pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. In addition, GCG
trained its staff in the specifics of the Dow Settlement so that Claim Forms were properly
processed, and formulated a system so that telephone inquiries were properly handled.
16. GCG sorted incoming mail into Claim Forms and administrative mail.6 Claim
Forms that were returned by the Post Office as undeliverable were reviewed for updated
addresses on a rolling basis using the NCOA database and, where available, new addresses were
entered into the database and Claim Forms were mailed to the updated addresses.
Administrative mail was reviewed and, where necessary, appropriate responses were provided to
the senders.
17. As described above, each Class Member’s Claim Form included Direct Purchase
Amounts and customer specific Overcharge Percentages for each product category. In order to
participate in the Dow Settlement, Class Members who agreed with the amounts printed on the
Claim Form simply had to sign the Claim Form and return it to GCG at the address noted above
(“Undisputed Claims”). Class Members who disagreed with the Direct Purchase Amounts
printed on the Claim Form were required to fill in the amounts they believed to be accurate in
Part 4 of the Claim Form and submit documentation to support those amounts (“Disputed
Claims”).
18. Once received, mail including Claim Forms was opened and prepared for
scanning. This process included unfolding documents, removing staples, copying non-
conforming sized documents, sorting documents, and, where Claimant identification information
was not provided on the Claim Form, copying and attaching the envelope with the return address 6 Administrative mail includes all mail other than Claim Forms and supporting documentation and responses to deficiency (e.g., requests for Claim Forms, notification of change of address, questions regarding the administration process or the status of the administration).
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 7 of 87
7
to the file. This manual task of preparing the paper Claim Forms is laborious and time-intensive.
Once prepared, paper Claim Forms were scanned into the Settlement Database together with all
submitted documentation. Subsequently, each Claim Form was assigned a unique Claim
Number and Reference Number if it did not already have a pre-assigned Claim Number and
Reference Number. Once scanned, the information from each Claim Form was entered into the
Settlement Database.
19. GCG utilized internal codes to identify and classify claims and any deficient or
ineligible conditions that existed within those claims. The appropriate codes were assigned to
the claim as they were processed. For example, where a Claim Form was submitted by a
claimant who disputed the amounts on their Claim Form but who did not include amounts of
their own or supporting documentation, that claim received a message code that denoted
ineligibility. Similar ineligible codes were used to denote other ineligible conditions, such as
duplicate Claim Forms. These codes indicated to GCG that the claimant was not eligible to
receive any payment from the Dow Settlement with respect to that Claim Form unless the
deficiency was cured.
20. As of November 1, 2017, GCG has received 1,543 Claim Forms from 1,293
unique claimants. All but one of the Class Members with the 150 largest Recognized Loss
Amounts filed a Claim Form. In addition, claims were submitted by Class Members reflecting
approximately 96.8% of the total Recognized Loss Amounts.
21. Of the 1,543 Claim Forms GCG received, 190 Claim Forms were duplicative of
other Claim Forms filed by the same Claimant with the same Reference Number. Those
duplicate Claim Forms are recommended for rejection and Claimants were notified that only one
claim would be approved for payment.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 8 of 87
8
22. Of the 1,543 Claim Forms, 786 Claim Forms accepted the pre-printed Direct
Purchase Amounts (“Undisputed Claims”). The Undisputed Claims were presumptively
approved for payment, subject to change only if new information came to our attention during
the claims process.
23. Of the 1,543 Claim Forms, 395 Claim Forms were blank Claim Forms (i.e., Claim
Forms without pre-populated data) that did not provide Corrected Purchase Data in Part 4 of the
Claim Form. Many of these were “placeholder” claims, which are claims filed before the
claimant or someone acting on behalf of the claimant has determined the extent – or perhaps
even the existence – of Eligible Purchases. GCG sent a Notice of Claim Deficiency (“Deficiency
Notice”) to all claimants who did not specify purchase amounts, informing them that if they
failed to submit purchase numbers and supporting documentation, their claims would be rejected.
A sample of the Deficiency Notice sent regarding placeholder claims is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. In response to the Deficiency Notice, the majority of the placeholder claims were
withdrawn or abandoned.
24. Of the 1,543 Claim Forms, 127 Claim Forms were submitted disputing the Direct
Purchase Amounts pre-printed on the Claim Form, claiming either that (i) the claimant had made
more purchases than the amounts pre-printed on the Claim Form or the products on their Claim
Forms were misclassified (e.g., listed as Systems instead of MDI); or (ii) they had made eligible
purchases though the Defendants’ data showed no Eligible Purchases during the Damages
Period. (“Disputed Claims”).
REVIEW OF DISPUTED CLAIMS
25. The Disputed Claims were first reviewed for completeness. Disputed Claims that
did not provide documents to support claimed purchase amounts received a Deficiency Notice
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 9 of 87
9
requiring that documentation be submitted to justify the additional claimed amounts. Many of
these claimants failed to supplement their claim with supporting documents or were affirmatively
withdrawn by the claimants after they received Deficiency Notices and, as a result, are
recommended for rejection. Claims that provided supporting documentation were considered for
further review to determine eligibility.
26. All remaining Disputed Claims were then reviewed and evaluated individually to
determine whether the claimant had sufficiently proven Eligible Purchases in the amounts
claimed. In making this determination, GCG and Class Counsel considered, among other things,
the following factors: (i) whether the claimant had demonstrated that it purchased products
within the Damages Period; (ii) whether the purchases were foreign or U.S. purchases; (iii)
whether the claimant had demonstrated that the products were purchased directly from the
Defendants; (iv) whether the claimant had demonstrated that the products purchased were
Eligible Products within the Class definition; and (v) the extent to which the claimant
documented the purchase amounts they claimed. In many instances, GCG and Class Counsel
searched Defendants’ Purchase Data, asked InfoTech to perform additional research, and often
conducted independent research into the reasons for discrepancies between the amounts in
Defendants’ Purchase Data and the amounts claimed by claimants.
27. Class Counsel and GCG worked with claimants via phone calls and emails to try
to resolve as many of the Disputed Claims as possible. In those instances where these phone
calls and emails were not successful or were deemed unlikely to be successful, GCG sent a
personalized Deficiency Notice to the Disputed Claimant whose claimed purchase amounts were
to be reduced or rejected, explaining the basis for rejection or reduction and providing the
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 10 of 87
10
Claimant with another opportunity to submit supplemental proof or argument. A sample of these
personalized Deficiency Notices is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
28. Many Disputed Claimants responded to the Deficiency Notice with additional
information. All responding Claimants’ files, including the new information, were re-reviewed.
Where Claimants were able to produce sufficient proof of the amounts claimed, their Claims are
being recommended for approval.
29. Ultimately, of the 127 Disputed Claims that were submitted, GCG and Class
Counsel recommend that a total of 71 be approved as follows: 26 for the full amount requested
by the Claimant, 8 for an amount greater than that contained in Defendants’ Purchase Data but
less than the full amount requested by the Claimant, and 37 for the amount contained in
Defendants’ Purchase Data (i.e., rejecting just the additional claimed amount).
30. In addition, GCG and Class Counsel recommend that 56 Disputed Claims be
rejected in full.
REVIEW OF DUPLICATE CLAIMS
31. As mentioned above, GCG received multiple Claim Forms filed by the same
claimant for the same Reference Number. GCG notified these claimants of the duplication and
informed them that only one Claim Form could be approved for payment. GCG and Class
Counsel designated one of the submitted Claim Forms as the primary claim and provided the
claimant with an opportunity to respond with additional information, including with respect to
the preferred address for communications and receipt of the settlement proceeds.
32. GCG also received duplicate Claim Forms submitted by Class Members on their
own behalf as well as by a third party on behalf of the Class Member (a “Third Party Filer”). In
most instances, both Claim Forms accepted the pre-populated Direct Purchase Amounts and only
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 11 of 87
11
required completion of the Certification section of the Claim Form and providing taxpayer
identification number, contact information and any change of address.
33. GCG and Class Counsel determined that, so long as the Claim Form submitted
by the Third Party Filer was signed by the Class Member, both the claim filed by the Class
Member and the claim filed by the Third Party Filer would be recommended for approval,
however, only one payment would be issued. Accordingly, upon approval of the Court, payment
will be sent directly to the Class Member at the address provided on the Claim Form. Neither
GCG nor Class Counsel consider this determination to constitute a resolution, in form or
substance, of any claims between the Class Member and Third Party Filer but, instead, simply
reflects a protocol for purposes of completing the claims administration process in a timely and
efficient manner.
34. To ensure that checks are sent to the correct address, GCG and Class Counsel
have requested that all Third Party Filers provide contact information with respect to the Class
Members on whose behalf they have submitted claims. GCG and Class Counsel expect the
Third Party Filers to update this information, as needed.7 GCG and Class Counsel will inform
the Third Party Filers via email of the filing of this Motion and direct them to the settlement
website where Class Counsel’s motion papers and this declaration will be posted.
35. GCG also received competing Claim Forms from two or more different claimants
with respect to the same Reference Number (“Competing Claimants”). GCG and Class Counsel
communicated with the Competing Claimants and suggested that they agree between themselves
as to who was the rightful owner of the claim or as to an appropriate allocation of the
claim. Class Counsel and GCG worked with the Competing Claimants to try to resolve as many 7 As initially submitted, the majority of the claims submitted by Third Party Filers did not provide contact information for the Class Member but instead only provided contact information for the Third Party Filer.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 12 of 87
12
of these conflicts as possible through phone calls and e-mails, and in some instances, provided
the claimants with additional information regarding the Eligible Purchases. In all but one
instance, the Competing Claimants have resolved ownership and/or allocation of the claim.
36. In only one instance (Reference No. 50), the Competing Claimants have not
resolved fully the ownership and/or allocation issues for this claim. The Competing Claimants
have agreed that a part of the claim is properly attributed to one of the claimants and so only a
portion of the claim remains in dispute. GCG and Class Counsel will continue to work with the
Competing Claimants to attempt to resolve this conflict through the date of the Distribution
Hearing. To the extent that this claim remains unresolved at the time of the Hearing, Class
Counsel will recommend to the Court that the claim be approved based on the full amount in
Defendants’ Data; that the amounts that are not in dispute be paid as agreed; and that the
amounts that remain in dispute be retained in the Distribution Fund until such time as the dispute
is resolved, either by negotiation, mediation or court process. Class Counsel has informed the
Competing Claimants of this approach, and they are both agreeable.
37. GCG has also received five claims submitted by companies that were not related
to any Defendant during the Damages Period when their purchases of Eligible Products were
made, but are currently subsidiaries of one of the Defendants.8 After consultation with Class
Counsel, GCG recommends that these claims be accepted.
QUALITY ASSURANCE, FRAUD PREVENTION AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
38. An integral part of all of GCG’s settlement administration projects is its Quality
Assurance review. GCG personnel worked throughout the entire administration process to
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 13 of 87
13
ensure that Claim Forms were processed properly; that Deficiency Notices were mailed to the
appropriate Claimants; and that GCG’s computer programs were operating properly.
39. GCG performed a final project wrap-up on all of the claims that have been
reviewed as described in this Declaration. For example, GCG conducted a review of the
Deficiency Notices that were mailed along with the resulting responses to ensure proper
processing. The team also reviewed the claims filed to ensure the correctness and completeness
of all of the Claim Forms. Here, in connection with this Quality Assurance wrap-up, GCG
(i) confirmed that valid claims have no messages denoting ineligibility; (ii) confirmed that claims
that are ineligible have messages denoting ineligibility; (iii) confirmed that all claims requiring
Deficiency Notices were sent such Notices; and (iv) reviewed claims with large dollar amounts.
40. GCG also used a variety of fraud protection controls throughout the
administration process to identify potential fraudulent Claim Forms. Duplicate claim searches,
high value reviews, spot reviews, and other standard audit reports that examined the information
in a variety of ways, were used during the claim review.
41. GCG reviewed and compared the entire database for the Settlement against the
“watch list” of known potential fraudulent filers that GCG has developed throughout its over
thirty years of experience as a claims administrator. GCG works closely with the FBI to update
that watch list with the latest information available.
42. In accordance with the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control
regulations and guidelines, known as OFAC, GCG will perform searches on payments to identify
potential payees whose names may appear on the federal government’s restricted persons list or
who reside in countries to which payments are prohibited. GCG regularly monitors changes to
OFAC regulations and guidelines in connection with its distributions.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 14 of 87
14
DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS
43. As noted above, GCG received a total of 1,543 Claim Forms from 1,293 unique
claimants. Of these, 865 claims are recommended for acceptance and 678 are recommended for
rejection.
44. Submitted herewith as Exhibit D is a list of all claims filed. Exhibit D-1 lists the
8659 Approved Claims with each Class Member’s Total Approved Recognized Loss Amount,10
Estimated Total Recovery, Estimated Initial Payment Amount and a short description of the
circumstances of the claim. Exhibit D-2 lists the 678 Rejected Claims and the reason(s) for
rejection. For privacy reasons, these lists identify claimants only by Claim Number and
Reference Number. No names, addresses or Taxpayer I.D. numbers are disclosed.
45. In total, GCG has recommended for approval 86511 claims representing a Total
Loss Amount of $519,257,220.68. According to the Plan of Allocation, each Approved
Claimant shall be allocated a pro rata share of the Dow Settlement Fund Total Loss Amount.12
9 Although there are 865 Approved Claims listed on Exhibit D-1, there are only 830 claims that will be paid. As mentioned above, there are a number of Class Members for whom two claims were filed, however, only one claim will be paid, 10 Each Class Member’s Approved Recognized Loss Amount was calculated by multiplying the Direct Purchase Amounts by the Overcharge Percentage in each product category. The Approved Recognized Loss Amount for each product category was added together for the Total Approved Recognized Loss Amount. 11
GCG received duplicate Claim Forms submitted by Class Members on their own behalf as well as by a third party on behalf of the Class Member. GCG and Class Counsel determined that, so long as the Claim Form submitted by the Third Party Filer was signed by the Class Member, both the claim filed by the Class Member and the claim filed by the Third Party Filer would be recommended for approval, however, only one payment will be issued.
12 For Claims where the potential payment amount calculated to less than $500, upon direction from Class Counsel, GCG increased the payment amounts for these claims to $500 and re-calculated the potential payment amounts for the remaining claims.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 15 of 87
15
Upon approval by the Court and expiration of the appeal period,13 GCG will prepare and mail
checks to all Approved Claimants for approximately 85% of their pro rata share of the Dow
Settlement Fund as set forth in Exhibits D-1.
46. GCG calculated the Estimated Payment for each Approved Claimant listed on
Exhibits D-1 in accordance with the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. GCG coordinated with
Class Counsel to determine the amount remaining in the Dow Settlement Fund after all
outstanding fees and expenses have been paid, and approximately 85% of that amount will be
distributed pro rata to Class Members in the initial distribution. Class Counsel has recommended
to the Court that approximately 15% of the Dow Settlement Fund be held in reserve to cover any
legitimate corrections or adjustments that need to made after the initial settlement payments are
made or any presently unforeseen claims issues arise as well as for administrative fees and
expenses and address contingencies such as paying any taxes due on interest earned by the Dow
Settlement Fund, and funding any unanticipated costs. The most recent statements for the
Settlement escrow accounts show a total balance of $556,980,141.85. Accordingly, the balance
of the Dow Settlement Fund available for distribution is $473,433,120.57.
47. GCG recommends that the Court approve GCG’s determinations as set forth
above and in Exhibit D.
48. Pursuant to page 6 of the Plan of Allocation, at least 21 days before the date of the
hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Distributions from the Dow Settlement Fund
(“Distribution Hearing”), GCG will mail letters to claimants whose claims were rejected and to
13 To the extent that any claimants appeal the administrative determination of their claim, GCG and Class Counsel propose that instead of delaying the distribution to other Class Members pending resolution of such appeals, GCG would hold back from the distribution an amount sufficient to pay all such claims in the amounts claimed, in the event that that becomes necessary or appropriate. GCG and Class Counsel will submit an amended Recommended Schedule of Distribution to the Court in that event. If the appealing claimants ultimately do not prevail in full, the extra monies held back would revert to the Dow Settlement Fund to be allocated to all Approved Claimants on a pro rata basis.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 16 of 87
16
those whose claims were reduced in the review and audit process. The letters will inform the
claimants of the rejection or modification of their claims, the procedures for disputing those
determinations, the deadline for doing so, and the time and date of the Distribution Hearing.
49. Class Counsel and GCG will continue to work with claimants until the
Distribution Hearing to eliminate or reduce the number of potential disputes before the Court.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS
50. Should the Court approve GCG’s recommendations and determinations, GCG
recommends the following Distribution Plan. As set forth in Exhibits D-1, GCG has calculated
the pro rata payment amounts from the Dow Settlement Fund for each of the Approved
Claimants.
51. GCG will conduct an immediate distribution (the “Initial Distribution”) of the
Dow Settlement Fund in the amounts listed, as described below.
52. GCG will prepare checks and check registers. Check files will be reviewed and
compared to the entitlement report prior to printing checks. All check files will have records that
indicate the total number of checks and the total dollar amount of the checks. The records will
be checked against the entitlement report totals and also against the sum of the detail record
check amounts in the actual file. GCG will compare the list of Approved Claimants to GCG’s
internal list of Claimants who have been identified as potentially fraudulent filers.
53. In consultation with Class Counsel, GCG recommends that all settlement checks
be made payable to and mailed to the Class Member.
54. Once all of these quality assurance tests are performed and confirmed, checks will
be printed and mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 17 of 87
17
55. GCG will issue replacement payments for distributions upon request by payee,
and will respond to inquiries about distribution amounts and Payment Amount calculations.
56. Based on our years of experience, we know that not all of the checks distributed
to Approved Claimants will be cashed promptly. In order to encourage Approved Claimants to
promptly cash their distributions and to avoid or reduce future expenses relating to unpaid
distributions, all of the distribution checks will bear a notation: “CASH PROMPTLY. VOID
AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER
ISSUE DATE.”
FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS
57. GCG agreed to be the Settlement Administrator in exchange for payment of its
fees and expenses. Class Counsel have been billed and received reports of all of the work GCG
performed with respect to the administration of the Dow Settlement, and authorized all of the
claims administration work performed herein. Since settlement approval, GCG has been paid a
total $320,658.64 from the Dow Settlement Fund for the work it has performed through July 31,
2017. GCG has also incurred fees and expenses of $76,224.71 between August 1 and October
15, 2017 and estimates that $163,331.47 will be expended to conduct the Initial
Distribution. Copies of GCG’s invoices for the work performed through July 31, 2017, GCG’s
fees and expenses incurred from August 1, 2017 through October 15, 2017 and its estimate to
conduct the Initial Distribution of the Dow Settlement Fund are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
CONCLUSION
58. GCG respectfully requests that the Court enter an order approving its
administrative determinations accepting and rejecting the Claim Forms received on or before
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 18 of 87
18
November 1, 2017 and approving the Distribution Plan. GCG also request that the Court
approved GCG’s fees and expenses as set forth in Exhibit E hereto as reasonable.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed in Lake Success, New York on November 6, 2017.
_________________________________ Angela Ferrante
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 19 of 87
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 20 of 87
IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATIONUnited States District Court for the District of Kansas MDL No. 1616 – Civil No. 2:04-md-1616-JWL
PROOF OF CLAIM FORM ― SETTLEMENT WITH THE DOW CHEMICAL CO.
To view GCG’s Privacy Notice, please visit http://www.gardencitygroup.com/privacy
PART 1: CLAIMANT PURCHASE DATA
The Direct Purchase Amounts set forth below were obtained directly from Defendants’ sales records and summarize your net total payments for qualifying Polyether Polyol Products during the period November 24, 2000 through December 31, 2003.
POLYETHER POLYOL PRODUCT
DIRECT PURCHASE AMOUNT
CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC OVERCHARGE PERCENTAGE
POLYOLS N/A N/A
MDI N/A N/A
TDI N/A N/A
Submission Deadline: February 27, 2017
If you accept the Direct Purchase Amounts above, you do not need to attach any additional information to submit a claim. Complete the Certification and Claimant Identification information on the next page of this form and your share of the Net Settlement Fund will be calculated based on these amounts.
If you disagree with the Direct Purchase Amounts above, please complete Part 4 and complete the Certification and Claimant Identification information on the next page of this form. You MUST attach documentation in support of any correction.
The Customer-Specific Overcharge Percentage was calculated by Plaintiffs’ expert. You may not contest this figure.
SYSTEMS N/A N/A
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 21 of 87
*P-UTH-POC/2*2
PART 3: CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION (Please type or neatly print all information – use blue or black ink)
I certify that I am an owner, officer, or director of the Class Member submitting this Proof of Claim and that I have the authority to submit this claim on its behalf. I also certify that the Class Member/Claimant is the proper recipient of the funds sought. I further declare under the laws of the United States of America that all Corrections to Direct Purchase Amounts that I provided in Part 4 of this Proof of Claim are true and correct.
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________Name (please print) Capacity or Title
______________________________________________ ________________________________Signature Date
PART 2: CERTIFICATION
Contact Person Last Name Contact Person First Name
Address Line 1
Address Line 2 (If Applicable)
City State Zip Code
- -Daytime phone number
Email Address
Federal Employer Tax ID Number (FEIN)
Business Name
If necessary, use the following box to correct your name and address information that appears on page 1.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 22 of 87
*P-UTH-POC/3*3
PART 4: CLAIMANT’S CORRECTED PURCHASE DATA
1. To receive your share of the Dow Settlement Fund, you must complete and sign the Proof of Claim and return it to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked on or before February 27, 2017, to the following address: Urethane Antitrust Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10223, Dublin, Ohio 43017-5723.
2. This Proof of Claim, even if prepared by a third party, must be completed and signed by the Class Member. You must submit the Proof of Claim Form to obtain your share of the Dow Settlement Fund even if you submitted a claim in connection with the earlier settlements with Bayer, BASF and/or Huntsman. If you have any questions concerning the Proof of Claim, or if you change your address, please contact the Settlement Administrator at the above address.
3. You are only entitled to a distribution if you are a Class member and purchased Polyether Polyol Products (Products) directly from a Defendant (defined below) at any time from November 24, 2000 through December 31, 2003 (the Claims Period) in the United States and its territories. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their employees, and their respective parents, subsidiaries and affiliates; all who timely elected to exclude themselves from the Class; and all governmental entities. Polyether Polyol Products are: propylene oxide-based polyether polyols; monomeric or polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanates (MMDI or PMDI – collectively, MDI); toluene diisocyanates (TDI); MDI-TDI blends; and propylene oxide-based polyether polyol systems (except those that also contain polyester polyols). Defendants are: Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer MaterialScience LLC (f/k/a Bayer Polymers, LLC), BASF SE (f/k/a BASF AG), BASF Corporation, The Dow Chemical Company, Huntsman International LLC and Lyondell Chemical Company.
4. As stated in the Plan of Allocation, the Net Dow Settlement Fund will be distributed in proportion to the dollar amount of Claimant’s estimated customer-specific damages, as determined by Plaintiffs’ expert, for the period November 24, 2000 through December 31, 2003. The customer-specific damage amounts were estimated from each Claimant’s purchases of the relevant Products from all of the Defendants during the Claims Period. A list of the trade names of the eligible Products is available online at www.PolyetherPolyolSettlement.com.
5. The Direct Purchase Amounts set forth in the chart on page 1 of this form were taken from Defendants’ sales records and summarize your net payments for relevant Products during the Claims Period. If you accept the Direct Purchase Amounts pre-printed on page 1, you can submit a claim without collecting any documentation from your files. The stated amounts may differ from the purchase amounts that appeared on your claim forms for earlier settlements because the Claims Period for the Dow settlement (November 24, 2000 through December 31, 2003) is different than the Claims Period for earlier settlements.
6. If you believe that any of the pre-printed Direct Purchase Amounts on page 1 are incorrect, you may provide corrected purchase information in the space provided in Part 4 (“Corrections”). You must provide proof to support the corrected amount and identify the Defendant-supplier, product name and type, date of purchase, and net purchase amounts (in U.S. dollars). Electronic transaction summaries or similar records are preferred. You must have purchased directly from one of the Defendants and not through an intermediary such as a wholesaler or distributor. Provide net purchase amounts: total purchases net of freight charges, discounts, returns, rebates, chargebacks, and other debits, credits, or price
PART 5: INSTRUCTIONS
Polyether Polyol Product Corrections to Direct Purchase Amount
POLYOLS
MDI
TDI
SYSTEMS
(To be completed ONLY if you disagree with, and do not wish to accept, the totals presented in Part 1)
If you disagree with the pre-printed information contained in Part 1, please enter the corrected purchase amounts in the table below and complete the Certification and Claimant Identification information on page 2 of this form. You only need to complete this Part if you disagree with, and do not wish to accept, the amounts presented in Part 1. You MUST attach documentation in support of any corrected amounts. Further instructions are provided in Part 5.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 23 of 87
*P-UTH-POC/4*4
adjustments. If you received multiple Proof of Claim forms, please provide supporting documentation and specify the Claim Number for each corrected form. Each form contains a discrete Claim Number in the address block on the first page. You should include that Claim Number in all correspondence and submissions to the Settlement Administrator. You may only submit Corrections to the total purchases for a particular Product category. Corrections must reflect a good-faith belief as to the accuracy of the purchase information; blank or “$0” claim forms and/or placeholder claim forms will not be accepted. You may not rely on submissions made in connection with earlier settlements because: (i) the Claims Period is different for this settlement; and (ii) you must designate the amounts purchased by Product category (e.g., polyols, MDI, TDI and/or systems).
7. The Customer-Specific Overcharge Percentage was calculated by Plaintiffs’ expert. You may not contest this figure.
8. If you appeared in Defendants’ records under other names or at different locations, you and related entities and locations may receive multiple but non-duplicative Proof of Claim Forms, each with a unique Reference Number. In those circumstances, you are encouraged to combine all of your claims into one Proof of Claim. To do so, you must mail all the Proof of Claim forms to the Settlement Administrator with a written request specifying which Claim Numbers to combine and designating one of them as the master claim. The Claim Number is on page 1, near the address.
9. The Settlement Administrator is authorized to request from persons or entities submitting proofs of claim any documentation necessary to verify all information appearing in the Proof of Claim and to prevent claim duplication. Failure to provide requested information may constitute grounds for rejection of the Claim.
10. The completed Proof of Claim and the information it contains will be treated as confidential and will be used solely for purposes of administering the settlement.
11. If you would like further information or have any questions, you may go to www.PolyetherPolyolSettlement.com. You may also contact the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-741-1226 or at [email protected]. You may also contact Don Perelman or Jerry Dever of Fine Kaplan and Black at 215-567-6565. Please do not contact the Court or the Judge.
12. By signing above and/or submitting a Proof of Claim, you are submitting to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas with respect to the claim you are making as a Class Member.
13. If you are a Class Member, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim form, you already have released the specific claims against Dow and its affiliates as described in Paragraph 26 of the Settlement Agreement.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 24 of 87
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 25 of 87
***THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE FOR THIS CLAIM***IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US AT 1-877-741-1226
Date:Response Due Date:Claim Number:Reference Number:
NOTICE OF REJECTION
Dear Claimant:
We have received the Proof of Claim (“POC”) identified above that you submitted in connection withthe Dow Settlement of the Urethane Antitrust Litigation. The POC did not include pre-printedEligible Purchases, and you did not claim any Eligible Purchases or submit any documentation ofEligible Purchases with your POC. Therefore, your claim is ineligible. If you do not respond to thisletter, your claim will be denied.
If you disagree with this determination, you must submit a corrected Proof of Claim form tothe Settlement Administrator no later than June 12, 2017. You must provide a revised POC withthe amount of Eligible Purchases and documentation demonstrating the specific products purchased,the Defendant from which they were purchased, the dates, and the prices. In particular, your re-submission should include sufficient product, location, date, seller and other data to allow us tomeaningfully review the claim.
A blank claim form (with detailed instructions for filing a corrected claim) and a searchable list ofEligible Products are available on the settlement website at www.polyetherpolyolsettlement.com.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please c o n t a c t t h e Settlement Administratortol l f ree at 1 - 877-741-1226 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
The Settlement AdministratorUrethane Antitrust Litigation
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 26 of 87
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 27 of 87
Urethane Antitrust Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10223
Dublin, OH 43017-5723
Date:
Response Due Date:
Claim Number:
Reference Number:
Dear Claimant:
We have received the Proof of Claim (“POC”) identified above that you submitted in connection with the Dow
Settlement of the Urethane Antitrust Litigation. After careful review, we are unable to approve the “corrected”
purchase totals submitted with your claim because our review of the material you submitted shows insufficient
proof of qualifying purchases in the amounts you have claimed. In particular, we are unable to identify from the
documentation that you submitted what urethane products were purchased, from whom they were purchased
and the purchase prices that were paid for the products. Specifically, the only documentation submitted is a
vendor/product list with no purchase totals and a letter saying that you extrapolated based on 2006 and forward
purchases. Extrapolation is not an acceptable means of establishing purchase figures in a case like this, where
Defendants’ data on actual purchase figures is available. If you wish to establish “corrected” amounts, you
must provide more detailed information with respect to your purchases.
We are writing to provide you with a final opportunity to submit supplemental proof of your qualifying
purchase amounts. To do so, please return this letter along with documentation demonstrating the specific
products purchased, the Defendant from which they were purchased, the dates, and the prices. In particular,
your re-submission should (1) remove all non-urethane purchases, (2) remove all foreign purchases, and (3)
include sufficient product, location, date, seller and other data to allow us to meaningfully review the claims,
including transparency as to how you calculated your purchase figures. In considering what to include in your
supplemental submission, you may want to consult the list of eligible products on the Urethane settlement
website at www.polyetherpolyolsettlement.com.
Examples of acceptable documentation are invoices and purchase orders. Product purchase spreadsheets which
set forth the specific qualifying products purchased, the Defendant from which they were purchased, the dates,
and the prices may be submitted along with representative invoices and purchase orders, but summary
spreadsheets which merely aggregate purchases generally are insufficient. Generic product designations (e.g.,
$___ of MDI or $___ of urethane chemicals) will not be accepted. Purchase amounts based on extrapolation are
not acceptable.
Any supplemental submission must be made no later than May 30, 2017. If we do not hear from you by that
date, your claim will be denied.
Sincerely,
The Settlement Administrator
Urethane Antitrust Litigation
***THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE FOR THIS CLAIM***
IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US AT 1-877-741-1226
NOTICE OF CLAIM DEFICIENCY
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 28 of 87
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 29 of 87
EXHIBIT D-1
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 30 of 87
EXHIBIT D-1 ACCEPTED CLAIMS REPORTThe Estimated Total Recovery and Estimated Payment Amounts listed below are the
current proposals of GCG and Class Counsel Only. They are subject of approval and/or change by the Court.
$12,759,409.04 $13,685,528.20 $11,632,698.97Corrected Purchase Amount Rejected/Claim Approved for Defendants Data/Class Member and Third Party Filer Claims Submitted
5 1005430 $14,373,657.72 $15,416,944.27 $13,104,402.63 Accepted Defendants Data
*GCG received duplicate Claim Forms submitted by Class Members on their own behalf as well as by a third party on behalf of the Class Member. GCG andClass Counsel determined that, so long as the Claim Form submitted by the Third Party Filer was signed by the Class Member, both the claim filed by theClass Member and the claim filed by the Third Party Filer would be recommended for approval, however, only one payment will be issued.
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 44 of 87
EXHIBIT D-2
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 45 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 1 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
DUPLICATE1005384 8
DUPLICATE1002520 10
DUPLICATE1007332 13
DUPLICATE1003414 17
DUPLICATE1003411 17
DUPLICATE1006765 17
DUPLICATE1001273 17
DUPLICATE1001299 17
DUPLICATE1008118 17
DUPLICATE1003413 17
DUPLICATE1006646 17
DUPLICATE1008127 18
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1008135 18
DUPLICATE1003499 19
DUPLICATE1000246 25
DUPLICATE1001012 27
DUPLICATE1006064 27
DUPLICATE1006609 27
DUPLICATE1006776 33
DUPLICATE1003398 38
DUPLICATE1005472 38
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1004491 41
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1000277 46
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN702 47
DUPLICATE1010013 50
DUPLICATE1010014 50
DUPLICATE1010012 50
DUPLICATE1010010 50
DUPLICATE1005648 52
DUPLICATE1003336 52
DUPLICATE1003060 54
DUPLICATE1001517 55
DUPLICATE1008186 56
DUPLICATE1007789 61
DUPLICATE1008988 61
DUPLICATE1007785 61
DUPLICATE1005292 70
DUPLICATE1004748 72
DUPLICATE1001987 75
DUPLICATE1010028 81
DUPLICATE1007808 81
DUPLICATE1009011 83
DUPLICATE1003136 83
DUPLICATE1005410 84
DUPLICATE1008496 86
DUPLICATE1001687 87
DUPLICATE205 87
DUPLICATE1006553 90
DUPLICATE1004701 93
DUPLICATE1005914 93
DUPLICATE1005527 93
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 46 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 2 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
DUPLICATE1005913 93
DUPLICATE1004512 93
DUPLICATE1003109 93
DUPLICATE1010042 105
DUPLICATE1010045 111
DUPLICATE1010044 111
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1008735 118
DUPLICATE1006145 126
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN711 134
DUPLICATE1003867 135
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004699 139
DUPLICATE1010053 140
DUPLICATE1008277 147
DUPLICATE1009055 150
DUPLICATE1000100 154
DUPLICATE1002828 154
DUPLICATE1001258 154
DUPLICATE1000966 154
DUPLICATE1006178 156
DUPLICATE1004193 156
DUPLICATE1003523 166
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1000220 172
DUPLICATE1008613 174
DUPLICATE1010057 183
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN4 194
DUPLICATE1006176 195
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1005066 204
DUPLICATE1004300 212
DUPLICATE295 224
DUPLICATE1008439 234
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1005506 237
DUPLICATE1001036 243
DUPLICATE1007781 245
DUPLICATE297 247
DUPLICATE1006041 250
DUPLICATE1005961 250
DUPLICATE1007741 255
DUPLICATE/NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE1003110 264
DUPLICATE/NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE1009078 264
DUPLICATE1009013 267
DUPLICATE1005370 282
DUPLICATE1006174 293
DUPLICATE1004025 299
DUPLICATE1001204 299
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1006130 304
DUPLICATE1010085 325
DUPLICATE1007289 329
DUPLICATE1003635 350
DUPLICATE1004426 364
DUPLICATE1002621 369
DUPLICATE1006262 371
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 47 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 3 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
DUPLICATE1008469 374
DUPLICATE1008710 378
DUPLICATE283 379
DUPLICATE1009502 397
DUPLICATE1008535 397
DUPLICATE1000285 403
DUPLICATE1003035 403
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1003663 415
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1001045 421
DUPLICATE1000090 434
DUPLICATE1007992 450
DUPLICATE1004115 460
DUPLICATE1002008 462
DUPLICATE1010104 465
DUPLICATE1007760 465
DUPLICATE1000224 473
DUPLICATE1007343 499
DUPLICATE1006613 499
DUPLICATE1000282 499
DUPLICATE270 499
DUPLICATE1004893 504
DUPLICATE396 505
DUPLICATE1006772 514
DUPLICATE1003363 514
DUPLICATE1001817 523
DUPLICATE1004677 526
DUPLICATE1001390 526
DUPLICATE1006405 536
DUPLICATE1010117 542
DUPLICATE1007360 561
DUPLICATE1002211 571
DUPLICATE/NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE1009127 573
DUPLICATE1002576 576
DUPLICATE1008888 577
DUPLICATE1008887 577
DUPLICATE1008203 580
DUPLICATE1001957 592
DUPLICATE1008444 596
DUPLICATE94 604
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1002912 607
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1010003 607
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1010142 613
DUPLICATE1008045 629
DUPLICATE1007903 629
DUPLICATE1008982 631
DUPLICATE1005412 631
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN700 645
DUPLICATE1006210 662
DUPLICATE1005768 675
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1003645 678
DUPLICATE1008646 683
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 48 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 4 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
DUPLICATE1002458 706
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1010159 719
DUPLICATE1006188 729
DUPLICATE1004104 761
DUPLICATE1010173 761
DUPLICATE1009848 796
DUPLICATE1005726 800
DUPLICATE1010190 823
DUPLICATE1010199 849
DUPLICATE1000546 852
DUPLICATE1000297 865
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1010204 866
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1003740 866
DUPLICATE1008601 868
DUPLICATE704 875
DUPLICATE1005694 877
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1009425 885
DUPLICATE1002416 890
DUPLICATE1010223 908
DUPLICATE1008174 918
DUPLICATE1006900 927
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1003905 944
DUPLICATE1010246 958
DUPLICATE1002006 965
DUPLICATE1007770 965
DUPLICATE/WITHDRAWN1004094 990
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1009185 992
DUPLICATE82 1012
DUPLICATE1002923 1018
DUPLICATE1004434 1040
DUPLICATE1001765 1040
DUPLICATE1010268 1048
IMPROPER CLAIMANT390 1060
DUPLICATE1005169 1076
DUPLICATE1006669 1139
DUPLICATE1004121 1176
DUPLICATE1001419 1176
DUPLICATE1004355 1185
DUPLICATE1010303 1198
DUPLICATE1010327 1275
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN381 1276
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004744 1283
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004741 1283
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004733 1283
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1003792 1283
DUPLICATE1003790 1283
DUPLICATE1005279 1287
DUPLICATE1010342 1302
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004823 1309
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1004818 1309
IMPROPER CLAIMANT1004812 1309
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 49 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 5 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
DUPLICATE1002370 1388
DUPLICATE1001346 1470
IMPROPER CLAIMANT/WITHDRAWN1010414 1532
DUPLICATE531 1561
DUPLICATE1010433 1576
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE1002704 1598
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1005717 1704
DUPLICATE1001684 1726
DUPLICATE636 1789
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1004807 1827
DUPLICATE1000538 1832
NO PURCHASE DATA1009463 2003
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1003909 2015
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN70 2055
NO PURCHASE DATA1003930 2062
NO PURCHASE DATA1007999 2106
NO PURCHASE DATA80 2109
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1006952 2163
NO PURCHASE DATA34 2180
NO PURCHASE DATA1008021 2242
NO PURCHASE DATA1003376 2243
NO PURCHASE DATA1000421 2283
NO PURCHASE DATA1003355 2298
NO PURCHASE DATA1000423 2321
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL1009449 2362
WITHDRAWN/RE-SUBMITTED1009030 2384
CORRECTED AMOUNT REJECTED IN FULL/WITHDRAWN1009896 2427
NO PURCHASE DATA1009750 2478
NO PURCHASE DATA1009453 2479
WITHDRAWN/RE-SUBMITTED1005182 2565
NO PURCHASE DATA1008892 2589
NO PURCHASE DATA1008896 2593
NO PURCHASE DATA1009455 2763
NO PURCHASE DATA125 2785
NO PURCHASE DATA1006977 2787
NO PURCHASE DATA1000464 2876
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1006447 2914
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1003773 2984
NO PURCHASE DATA1003781 3050
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN136 3118
NO PURCHASE DATA1000735 3174
NO PURCHASE DATA1008589 3176
NO PURCHASE DATA1000643 3177
NO PURCHASE DATA77 3192
NO PURCHASE DATA1002952 3267
NO PURCHASE DATA1007862 3372
NO PURCHASE DATA1006806 3373
WITHDRAWN/RE-SUBMITTED1007869 3379
NO PURCHASE DATA1005497 3414
NO PURCHASE DATA87 3422
NO PURCHASE DATA1001858 3470
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 50 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 6 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
WITHDRAWN/RE-SUBMITTED1007020 3507
CORRECTED AMOUNT REJECTED IN FULL/WITHDRAWN1003953 3534
NO PURCHASE DATA1005226 3535
NO PURCHASE DATA143 3539
NO PURCHASE DATA1007023 3560
NO PURCHASE DATA1008868 3575
NO PURCHASE DATA148 3630
NO PURCHASE DATA1001724 3703
NO PURCHASE DATA13 3796
NO PURCHASE DATA18 3799
NO PURCHASE DATA19 3801
NO PURCHASE DATA14 3802
NO PURCHASE DATA1009469 3805
NO PURCHASE DATA1001176 3825
NO PURCHASE DATA1008718 3828
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN158 3833
NO PURCHASE DATA1002774 3904
NO PURCHASE DATA89 3955
NO PURCHASE DATA91 3958
NO PURCHASE DATA1003717 3983
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN75 4009
NO PURCHASE DATA1006982 4011
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1005210 4027
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN220 4034
NO PURCHASE DATA65 4112
DUPLICATE1003329 4184
NO PURCHASE DATA1004209 4263
NO PURCHASE DATA1007329 4287
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN388 4325
NO PURCHASE DATA1008702 4345
NO PURCHASE DATA1007988 4439
NO PURCHASE DATA1007989 4440
NO PURCHASE DATA1007728 4448
NO PURCHASE DATA1000786 4493
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN165 4499
NO PURCHASE DATA1002526 4554
NO PURCHASE DATA1002975 4555
NO PURCHASE DATA167 4596
NO PURCHASE DATA1006241 4640
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1000798 4735
DUPLICATE1004105 4753
DUPLICATE1004106 4754
DUPLICATE1002101 4756
NO PURCHASE DATA1004603 4784
NO PURCHASE DATA1009851 4855
NO PURCHASE DATA96 4875
NO PURCHASE DATA1004613 4890
NO PURCHASE DATA1006291 4910
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1006034 4926
NO PURCHASE DATA9 4942
NO PURCHASE DATA1001200 4981
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 51 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 7 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA1005350 5061
NO PURCHASE DATA44 5085
NO PURCHASE DATA1006348 5149
NO PURCHASE DATA1007075 5150
NO PURCHASE DATA1006996 5216
NO PURCHASE DATA1005780 5251
NO PURCHASE DATA38 5324
NO PURCHASE DATA1001948 5359
NO PURCHASE DATA194 5368
NO PURCHASE DATA197 5399
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN201 5503
NO PURCHASE DATA1008208 5541
NO PURCHASE DATA53 5693
NO PURCHASE DATA51 5694
NO PURCHASE DATA52 5695
NO PURCHASE DATA1009487 5709
NO PURCHASE DATA1001093 5736
NO PURCHASE DATA214 5754
NO PURCHASE DATA1000348 5767
NO PURCHASE DATA1009835 5789
NO PURCHASE DATA1005807 5883
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1009860 5934
NO PURCHASE DATA1005821 5940
NO PURCHASE DATA1008131 5948
NO PURCHASE DATA1002025 5949
NO PURCHASE DATA1009247 5984
NO PURCHASE DATA1000057 6018
DUPLICATE1001282 6019
NO PURCHASE DATA1005225 6070
NO PURCHASE DATA1007179 6100
NO PURCHASE DATA1007181 6163
NO PURCHASE DATA1001357 6184
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL1000951 6208
NO PURCHASE DATA1005371 6263
NO PURCHASE DATA1002310 6287
NO PURCHASE DATA47 6311
NO PURCHASE DATA1009493 6357
NO PURCHASE DATA1005230 6368
DUPLICATE1005319 6422
NO PURCHASE DATA57 6509
NO PURCHASE DATA63 6510
NO PURCHASE DATA59 6511
NO PURCHASE DATA61 6512
NO PURCHASE DATA41 6611
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN182 6630
NO PURCHASE DATA1002423 6642
NO PURCHASE DATA1005168 6649
NO CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFO/SIGNATURE/WITHDRAWN1009328 6665
NO PURCHASE DATA55 6676
NO PURCHASE DATA1003201 6688
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL1009263 6700
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 52 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 8 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA1003563 6707
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN188 6727
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN110 6738
NO PURCHASE DATA1009441 6739
NO PURCHASE DATA1008365 6754
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1008368 6775
NO PURCHASE DATA1001510 6776
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN191 6779
NO PURCHASE DATA1000516 6780
NO PURCHASE DATA1004462 6812
NO PURCHASE DATA1000730 6931
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1008578 6932
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN1004388 6933
NO PURCHASE DATA40 6943
NO PURCHASE DATA1009839 6955
CORRECTED AMOUNT REJECTED IN FULL/WITHDRAWN501 7001
NO PURCHASE DATA66 7108
NO PURCHASE DATA1001562 7215
NO PURCHASE DATA1007116 7216
NO PURCHASE DATA1003348 7216
NO PURCHASE DATA1007126 7218
NO PURCHASE DATA1001278 7260
DUPLICATE1005932 7261
NO PURCHASE DATA1007158 7309
NO PURCHASE DATA1006407 7310
NO PURCHASE DATA1005656 7315
NO PURCHASE DATA1000937 7332
NO PURCHASE DATA83 7342
NO PURCHASE DATA346 7355
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN344 7359
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN345 7360
NO PURCHASE DATA466 7361
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC628 7365
NO PURCHASE DATA353 7368
NO PURCHASE DATA354 7369
NO PURCHASE DATA355 7370
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL356 7371
NO PURCHASE DATA357 7372
NO PURCHASE DATA358 7373
NO PURCHASE DATA359 7374
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC360 7375
NO PURCHASE DATA361 7376
NO PURCHASE DATA362 7377
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL363 7378
NO PURCHASE DATA364 7379
NO PURCHASE DATA365 7380
NO PURCHASE DATA366 7381
NO PURCHASE DATA367 7382
NO PURCHASE DATA368 7383
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC369 7384
NO PURCHASE DATA370 7385
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 53 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 9 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA371 7386
NO PURCHASE DATA372 7387
NO PURCHASE DATA373 7388
NO PURCHASE DATA375 7389
NO PURCHASE DATA376 7390
NO PURCHASE DATA377 7391
NO PURCHASE DATA378 7392
NO PURCHASE DATA379 7393
NO PURCHASE DATA397 7394
NO PURCHASE DATA398 7395
NO PURCHASE DATA401 7396
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC402 7397
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC403 7398
NO PURCHASE DATA404 7399
NO PURCHASE DATA405 7400
NO PURCHASE DATA407 7401
NO PURCHASE DATA408 7402
NO PURCHASE DATA409 7403
NO PURCHASE DATA410 7404
NO PURCHASE DATA411 7405
NO PURCHASE DATA412 7406
NO PURCHASE DATA413 7407
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC414 7408
NO PURCHASE DATA415 7409
NO PURCHASE DATA416 7410
NO PURCHASE DATA417 7411
NO PURCHASE DATA418 7412
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC419 7413
NO PURCHASE DATA420 7414
NO PURCHASE DATA421 7415
NO PURCHASE DATA422 7416
NO PURCHASE DATA423 7417
NO PURCHASE DATA424 7418
NO PURCHASE DATA425 7419
NO PURCHASE DATA426 7420
NO PURCHASE DATA427 7421
NO PURCHASE DATA428 7422
NO PURCHASE DATA429 7423
NO PURCHASE DATA430 7424
NO PURCHASE DATA432 7425
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL433 7426
NO PURCHASE DATA434 7427
NO PURCHASE DATA435 7428
NO PURCHASE DATA436 7429
NO PURCHASE DATA437 7430
NO PURCHASE DATA438 7431
NO PURCHASE DATA439 7432
NO PURCHASE DATA440 7433
NO PURCHASE DATA442 7434
NO PURCHASE DATA443 7435
NO PURCHASE DATA444 7436
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 54 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 10 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA445 7437
NO PURCHASE DATA446 7438
NO PURCHASE DATA447 7439
NO PURCHASE DATA448 7440
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC449 7441
NO PURCHASE DATA450 7442
NO PURCHASE DATA451 7443
NO PURCHASE DATA452 7444
NO PURCHASE DATA453 7445
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL454 7446
CORRECTED AMOUNT REJECTED IN FULL/WITHDRAWN455 7447
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL456 7448
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL457 7449
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL458 7450
NO PURCHASE DATA459 7451
NO PURCHASE DATA460 7452
NO PURCHASE DATA461 7453
NO PURCHASE DATA462 7454
NO PURCHASE DATA463 7455
NO PURCHASE DATA464 7456
NO PURCHASE DATA467 7457
NO PURCHASE DATA468 7458
NO PURCHASE DATA470 7459
NO PURCHASE DATA471 7460
NO PURCHASE DATA472 7461
NO PURCHASE DATA473 7462
NO PURCHASE DATA474 7463
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC475 7464
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC476 7465
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC477 7466
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC478 7467
NO PURCHASE DATA479 7468
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL480 7469
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC481 7470
NO PURCHASE DATA482 7471
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC483 7472
NO PURCHASE DATA484 7473
NO PURCHASE DATA485 7474
NO PURCHASE DATA486 7475
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC487 7476
NO PURCHASE DATA488 7477
NO PURCHASE DATA489 7478
NO PURCHASE DATA490 7479
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC491 7480
NO PURCHASE DATA492 7481
NO PURCHASE DATA494 7482
NO PURCHASE DATA495 7483
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL496 7484
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC498 7485
NO PURCHASE DATA499 7486
NO PURCHASE DATA500 7487
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 55 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 11 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL502 7488
NO PURCHASE DATA503 7489
NO PURCHASE DATA504 7490
NO PURCHASE DATA505 7491
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL506 7492
NO PURCHASE DATA507 7493
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC508 7494
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC509 7495
NO PURCHASE DATA510 7496
NO PURCHASE DATA511 7497
NO PURCHASE DATA512 7498
NO PURCHASE DATA513 7499
NO PURCHASE DATA514 7500
NO PURCHASE DATA515 7501
NO PURCHASE DATA516 7502
NO PURCHASE DATA518 7503
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC519 7504
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC520 7505
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC521 7506
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC522 7507
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC523 7508
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC524 7509
NO PURCHASE DATA525 7510
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN527 7511
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN528 7512
NO PURCHASE DATA529 7513
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN530 7514
NO PURCHASE DATA532 7516
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL533 7517
NO PURCHASE DATA535 7518
NO PURCHASE DATA536 7519
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN537 7520
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN538 7521
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN539 7522
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN540 7523
NO PURCHASE DATA541 7524
NO PURCHASE DATA542 7525
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL543 7526
NO PURCHASE DATA544 7527
NO PURCHASE DATA545 7528
NO PURCHASE DATA546 7529
NO PURCHASE DATA547 7530
NO PURCHASE DATA548 7531
NO PURCHASE DATA549 7532
NO PURCHASE DATA551 7533
NO PURCHASE DATA552 7534
NO PURCHASE DATA553 7535
NO PURCHASE DATA554 7536
NO PURCHASE DATA555 7537
NO PURCHASE DATA557 7538
NO PURCHASE DATA558 7539
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 56 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 12 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA559 7540
NO PURCHASE DATA560 7541
NO PURCHASE DATA561 7542
NO PURCHASE DATA562 7543
NO PURCHASE DATA563 7544
NO PURCHASE DATA564 7545
NO PURCHASE DATA565 7546
NO PURCHASE DATA566 7547
NO PURCHASE DATA567 7548
NO PURCHASE DATA568 7549
NO PURCHASE DATA569 7550
NO PURCHASE DATA570 7551
NO PURCHASE DATA571 7552
NO PURCHASE DATA572 7553
NO PURCHASE DATA573 7554
NO PURCHASE DATA574 7555
NO PURCHASE DATA575 7556
NO PURCHASE DATA576 7557
NO PURCHASE DATA577 7558
NO PURCHASE DATA578 7559
NO PURCHASE DATA579 7560
NO PURCHASE DATA580 7561
NO PURCHASE DATA581 7562
NO PURCHASE DATA582 7563
NO PURCHASE DATA583 7564
NO PURCHASE DATA584 7565
NO PURCHASE DATA585 7566
NO PURCHASE DATA586 7567
NO PURCHASE DATA587 7568
NO PURCHASE DATA588 7569
NO PURCHASE DATA589 7570
NO PURCHASE DATA590 7571
NO PURCHASE DATA591 7572
NO PURCHASE DATA593 7573
NO PURCHASE DATA594 7574
NO PURCHASE DATA595 7575
NO PURCHASE DATA596 7576
NO PURCHASE DATA597 7577
NO PURCHASE DATA598 7578
NO PURCHASE DATA599 7579
NO PURCHASE DATA600 7580
NO PURCHASE DATA601 7581
NO PURCHASE DATA602 7582
NO PURCHASE DATA603 7583
NO PURCHASE DATA604 7584
NO PURCHASE DATA605 7585
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN607 7586
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN609 7587
NO PURCHASE DATA610 7588
NO PURCHASE DATA611 7589
NO PURCHASE DATA612 7590
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 57 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 13 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA613 7591
NO PURCHASE DATA614 7592
NO PURCHASE DATA615 7593
NO PURCHASE DATA616 7594
NO PURCHASE DATA617 7595
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC618 7596
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC619 7597
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN620 7598
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN622 7599
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN623 7600
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN624 7601
NO PURCHASE DATA625 7602
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN626 7603
NO PURCHASE DATA627 7604
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN629 7605
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN631 7606
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN632 7607
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN633 7608
NO PURCHASE DATA/WITHDRAWN634 7609
NO PURCHASE DATA635 7610
NO PURCHASE DATA638 7611
NO PURCHASE DATA639 7612
NO PURCHASE DATA640 7613
NO PURCHASE DATA641 7614
NO PURCHASE DATA642 7615
NO PURCHASE DATA643 7616
NO PURCHASE DATA644 7617
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC645 7618
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL646 7619
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC647 7620
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC648 7621
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC649 7622
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC650 7623
NO PURCHASE DATA651 7624
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC652 7625
NO PURCHASE DATA653 7626
NO PURCHASE DATA654 7627
NO PURCHASE DATA655 7628
NO PURCHASE DATA656 7629
NO PURCHASE DATA657 7630
NO PURCHASE DATA658 7631
NO PURCHASE DATA659 7632
NO PURCHASE DATA660 7633
NO PURCHASE DATA661 7634
NO PURCHASE DATA662 7635
NO PURCHASE DATA663 7636
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC664 7637
NO PURCHASE DATA665 7638
NO PURCHASE DATA666 7639
NO PURCHASE DATA667 7640
NO PURCHASE DATA668 7641
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 58 of 87
Reason Deemed IneligibleClaim # Ref. No
Rejected Claims
URETHANE
MC66N Page 14 of 14
MC66N128 06-Nov-17 2:02 PM
NO PURCHASE DATA669 7642
NO PURCHASE DATA670 7643
NO PURCHASE DATA671 7644
NO PURCHASE DATA672 7645
NO PURCHASE DATA673 7646
NO PURCHASE DATA674 7647
CORRECTED CLAIM REJECTED IN FULL/INSUFFICIENT DOC675 7648
NO PURCHASE DATA676 7649
NO PURCHASE DATA677 7650
NO PURCHASE DATA678 7651
NO PURCHASE DATA679 7652
NO PURCHASE DATA680 7653
NO PURCHASE DATA681 7654
NO PURCHASE DATA683 7655
NO PURCHASE DATA684 7656
Claim Count: 678
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 59 of 87
EXHIBIT E
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 60 of 87
Paul Costa, Esq.Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.One South Broad Street, Suite 2300Philadelphia, PA 19107
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
Description Quantity Rate Amount
Fees
Notice Dissemination
Enter name and address records into database (hard copy) 68 $0.45 $30.60
Imaging, Document Management & Storage
Sort Mail 289 $0.45 $130.05Prep Mail 9.9 Hrs. $544.50Scan Mail (per img.) 1,179 $0.09 $106.11Document Storage - Paper (per box/per month) 46 $1.50 $69.00Document Storage - Electronic (per img./record per month) 64,952 $0.008 $519.62
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 72 of 87
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
Description Quantity Rate Amount
Fees
Grand Total $94,295.06
INVOICE
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 73 of 87
Please Remit To :
Garden City Group, LLC1985 Marcus Avenue, Suite 200Lake Success, NY 11042
-Or-Garden City Group, LLCOperating A/CSignature Bank1225 Franklin AvenueGarden City, NY 11530
ABA # - 026013576A /C # - 1501168781Tax ID # - 58-0506554Swift Code - SIGNUS33
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
` Description Amount
Project Expenses
For the period: Feb 01, 2017 through Feb 28, 2017
Postage $22.08
Total $22.08
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 74 of 87
Paul Costa, Esq.Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.One South Broad Street, Suite 2300Philadelphia, PA 19107
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
Description Quantity Rate Amount
Fees
Notice Dissemination
Printing of Claim Form 10,204 $0.36 $3,673.44Enter name and address records into database (electronic) 462 $0.065 $30.03Enter name and address records into database (hard copy) 464 $0.45 $208.80Remails 71 $0.65 $46.15
Imaging, Document Management & Storage
Sort Mail 1,722 $0.45 $774.90Prep Mail 15 Hrs. $825.00Scan Mail (per img.) 1,816 $0.09 $163.44Document Storage - Paper (per box/per month) 46 $1.50 $69.00Document Storage - Electronic (per img./record per month) 34,561 $0.008 $276.49
Claim Validation
Process Claims/deficiency responses 74 $6.95 $514.30
Contact Services
IVR (per minute) 1,670 $0.32 $534.40CSR/Live Operator including transcriptions of recorded messages (per minute)
1,500 $0.85 $1,275.00
Monthly maintenance charge 3 $100.00 $300.00Management of call center 21 Hrs. $2,480.00Handling of class member communications 56.3 Hrs. $6,167.00
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 83 of 87
Paul Costa, Esq.Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.One South Broad Street, Suite 2300Philadelphia, PA 19107
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
Description Quantity Rate Amount
Fees
Notice Dissemination
Enter name and address records into database (electronic) 402 $0.065 $26.13Enter name and address records into database (hard copy) 21 $0.45 $9.45Remails 1 $0.65 $0.65
Imaging, Document Management & Storage
Sort Mail 84 $0.45 $37.80Prep Mail 0.9 Hrs. $49.50Scan Mail (per img.) 70 $0.09 $6.30Document Storage - Paper (per box/per month) 30 $1.50 $45.00Document Storage - Electronic (per img./record per month) 19,581 $0.008 $156.65
Contact Services
IVR (per minute) 204 $0.32 $65.28CSR/Live Operator including transcriptions of recorded messages (per minute)
132 $0.85 $112.20
Monthly maintenance charge 2 $100.00 $200.00Handling of class member communications 4.2 Hrs. $519.00
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 85 of 87
Paul Costa, Esq.Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.One South Broad Street, Suite 2300Philadelphia, PA 19107
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
Description Quantity Rate Amount
Fees
Notice Dissemination
Printing of 6 pg. Notice 12,000 $0.37 $4,440.00Enter name and address records into database (electronic) 9,437 $0.065 $613.41Enter name and address records into database (hard copy) 91 $0.45 $40.95Remails 27 $0.65 $17.55
Imaging, Document Management & Storage
Sort Mail 1,444 $0.45 $649.80Prep Mail 0.9 Hrs. $49.50Scan Mail (per img.) 64 $0.09 $5.76Document Storage - Paper (per box/per month) 17 $1.50 $25.50Document Storage - Electronic (per img./record per month) 27,589 $0.008 $220.71
Contact Services
Standard set-up and design $2,500.00IVR (per minute) 685 $0.32 $219.20CSR/Live Operator including transcriptions of recorded messages (per minute)
450 $0.85 $382.50
Monthly maintenance charge 1 $100.00 $100.00Management of call center 2.1 Hrs. $226.00Handling of class member communications 3 Hrs. $384.00
Website Services
Standard set-up and design $2,500.00Monthly maintenance charge 1 $100.00 $100.00Website updates 2 Hrs. $250.00
Project Management 133.5 Hrs. $16,683.00
Systems Support 15.5 Hrs. $2,659.00
Quality Assurance 23.2 Hrs. $3,753.00
Total Fees $35,819.88
Total Project Expenses (See Exhibit A) $6,809.17
Grand Total $42,629.05
INVOICE DATE7/6/2016
5/29/2015
PERIOD START
INVOICE NUMBER20426
THROUGH DATE6/15/2016
INVOICE
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 86 of 87
Please Remit To :
Garden City Group, LLC1985 Marcus Avenue, Suite 200Lake Success, NY 11042
-Or-Garden City Group, LLCOperating A/CSignature Bank1225 Franklin AvenueGarden City, NY 11530
ABA # - 026013576A /C # - 1501168781Tax ID # - 58-0506554Swift Code - SIGNUS33
Project Name: Urethane Antitrust Litigation
` Description Amount
Project Expenses
For the period: May 29, 2015 through Jun 15, 2016
Postage $4,196.77P. O. Box Rental/Renewal $2,612.00Copy Charges $0.40
Total $6,809.17
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:04-md-01616-JWL Document 3281-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 87 of 87