Filed: Jul. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT RONALD WATERMAN'S MOTION FOR CHECK NOT CASHED Re: Dkt. No. 9539 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the response filed by the indirect purchaser class to the Court's June 17, 2016 order and the "motion for check not cashed" filed by Mr. Ronald Waterman. Dkt. Nos. 9539, 9540. Plaintiffs state that Mr. Waterman's check has been verified as a part of the initial distribution of the indirect purchaser class settlement, and that there is no record that
Summary: ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT RONALD WATERMAN'S MOTION FOR CHECK NOT CASHED Re: Dkt. No. 9539 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the response filed by the indirect purchaser class to the Court's June 17, 2016 order and the "motion for check not cashed" filed by Mr. Ronald Waterman. Dkt. Nos. 9539, 9540. Plaintiffs state that Mr. Waterman's check has been verified as a part of the initial distribution of the indirect purchaser class settlement, and that there is no record that ..
More
ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT RONALD WATERMAN'S MOTION FOR CHECK NOT CASHED
Re: Dkt. No. 9539
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the response filed by the indirect purchaser class to the Court's June 17, 2016 order and the "motion for check not cashed" filed by Mr. Ronald Waterman. Dkt. Nos. 9539, 9540. Plaintiffs state that Mr. Waterman's check has been verified as a part of the initial distribution of the indirect purchaser class settlement, and that there is no record that the check issued to Mr. Waterman was returned due to an undeliverable address. Dkt. No. 9541-1 (Rust Decl., ¶ 8).
Plaintiffs also state that the claims administrator is in the final phase of distributing payments to the underpaid/unpaid claims and late claims pursuant to the Court's January 4, 2016 Order Authorizing Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds. See Dkt. No. 9499. Plaintiffs object to reissuing a new check to Mr. Waterman, but state that "[i]n the event that there are still residual amounts left after this round of distribution, and subject to the Court's approval, the IPPs may recommend that the remaining funds be used for reissuing all uncashed checks that had a stale date on a pro rata basis." Dkt. No. 9541 at 3.
Based upon this record, the Court finds that the claims administrator followed the court-approved notice and distribution procedures with regard to Mr. Waterman. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to order that a check be reissued at this time. However, if there are residual amounts after the current round of distribution, the Court finds that it would be equitable to use those funds to reissue a check to Mr. Waterman on a pro rata basis (along with other claimants who did not cash their checks). In the event of such a distribution, Mr. Waterman has requested that the new check be sent to him, in care of Mrs. Gloria Thomas, 14 Mallon Road, Dorchester, Massachusetts 02121-3814.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
