The opinion
USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JAMES CONTANT, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
: 17 Civ. 3139 (LGS)
-against- :
: ORDER
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., :
Defendants. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, Class Counsel filed a letter requesting review of an
unresolved dispute with Claimant AMA Capital LLC and stating Class Counsel’s position on the
dispute (Dkt. No. 490);
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, AMA filed a response in opposition (Dkt. No. 497);
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2021, Class Counsel filed a reply (Dkt. No. 503);
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, a group of settling defendants filed a letter requesting
an opportunity to be heard if the dispute is resolved based on the appropriate class definition
(Dkt. No. 506);
WHEREAS, Class Counsel advances four reasons for denying AMA’s claim:
(1) untimeliness, (2) insufficient documentation, (3) failure to meet the class definition, including
through purchase of access to a trading platform and use of a prime broker, and (4) the potential
for duplicate recovery of claims submitted in this case and in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark
Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 13 Civ. 7789 (“FOREX”) (Dkt. No. 490);
WHEREAS, the timeliness argument is rejected. The settlement permits Class Counsel to
“accept late-submitted claims for processing by the Claims Administrator.” (Dkt. No. 420-2
§ XI.d.ii). Class Counsel accepted the late claim, and AMA expended resources to supplement its
claim based on the acceptance;
WHEREAS, the factors courts consider in addressing untimely class action settlement
claims, the Pioneer factors, all weigh in favor of accepting AMA’s claim. The factors are:
“1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; 2) the length of the delay and its potential effect on
judicial proceedings; 3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable
control of the movant; and 4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Cassese v. Wash. Mut.,
Inc., No. 05 Civ. 2724, 2013 WL 5502831, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2013) (citing Pioneer Inv.
Servs. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The danger of prejudice to
other claimants is minimal, the length of the delay was minimal, AMA’s claim was untimely
because AMA did not receive actual notice of the settlement claim deadline until the day it filed
its claim and AMA acted in good faith;
WHEREAS, Class Counsel’s documentation argument is accepted. The settlement
requires claimants to support their claims “by such documents or proof as Class Counsel and the
Claims Administrator, in their discretion, may deem acceptable.” (Dkt. No. 420-2 § XI.d.i). The
Claim Form, which the Court approved, states claimants “must submit detailed transactional
records.” (Dkt. No. 467). As the Claim Form makes clear, detailed transactional records are
necessary “for purposes of calculating [claimants’] pro rata claimant award.” (Id.);
WHEREAS, additional information is necessary for claims that were denied for reasons
other than insufficient documentation. It is hereby
ORDERED that AMA’s claims already accepted for payment shall be accepted by Class
Counsel and the Claims Administrator for calculating AMA’s pro rata award. It is further
ORDERED that, of the denied claims, any that lack detailed transactional records are
denied. It is further
2
ORDERED that judgment is reserved on any claims denied for reasons other than
insufficient documentation. It is further
ORDRED that class counsel, settling defendants and AMA shall submit letters not to
exceed five pages by November 12, 2021, further addressing AMA’s dispute regarding the
settlement class definition, including through purchase of access to a trading platform and use of
a prime broker, and failure to identify duplicate transactions
Dated: October 29, 2021
New York, New York □
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE