Memorandum of Law in Support of Distribution — Wilson v. Peloton

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK · Doc. 109 · 2025-04-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
IN RE PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., 
SECURITIES LITIGATION 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:21-cv-02369(CBA)(PK) 
 
CLASS ACTION 
 
 
 
 
LEAD PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR 
DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND 
 
 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
2094

 
i 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 
I. 
THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR’S ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS 
SHOULD BE APPROVED ................................................................................................ 2 
A. 
Overview Of The Claims Administration Process.................................................. 3 
B. 
Timely Eligible Claims And Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims Should Be 
Accepted ................................................................................................................. 4 
C. 
Ineligible Claims Should Be Rejected .................................................................... 5 
D. 
Claims Received After January 6, 2025 Should Be Rejected As Untimely ........... 6 
E. 
The Five Disputed Claims Should Be Rejected ...................................................... 6 
II. 
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND TO AUTHORIZED 
CLAIMANTS SHOULD BE APPROVED ........................................................................ 8 
III. 
PAYMENT OF EPIQ’S OUTSTANDING FEES AND EXPENSES FROM THE 
SETTLEMENT FUND SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED ................................................... 10 
IV. 
RETENTION OF PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ............ 11 
V. 
RELEASE OF CLAIMS ................................................................................................... 11 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 12 
 
 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
2095

 
ii 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Cases                                                                                                                                     Page(s) 
In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., 
No. 00 Civ. 0648 LAK RLE, 2004 WL 3670993 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2004) ...........................6 
In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Sec. Litig., 
No. 05 Civ. 5323(LTS), 2013 WL 324153 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2013) ...................................4, 5 
Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 
485 U.S. 224 (1988) ...................................................................................................................9 
In re Citigroup Inc. Sec. Litig., 
199 F. Supp. 3d 845 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)........................................................................................9 
Meyer v. United Microelectronics Corp., 
2022 WL 43345 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2022) ..................................................................................8 
In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 
383 F. App’x 43 (2d Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................4 
Poirer v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc., 
No. 22-CV-2283 (PK), 2025 WL 552607 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025) ........................................5 
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., 
No. CV-12-00555-PHX-DGC, 2020 BL 245619 (D. Ariz. June 30, 2020) ............................10 
 
 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
2096

 
1 
Lead Plaintiff and Settlement Class Representative Richard Neswick (“Plaintiff”), on 
behalf of himself and the Class, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of his 
Motion for Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.1  For the reasons set forth herein and in the 
accompanying Declaration of Melissa Mejia in Support of Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for 
Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (“Mejia Distribution Declaration” or “Mejia Distrib. 
Decl.”) filed herewith, prepared on behalf of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq” 
or the “Claims Administrator”), Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter the 
proposed Distribution Order, submitted herewith.   
If entered by the Court, the Distribution Order would, among other things: (i) approve 
Epiq’s administrative recommendations accepting and rejecting Claims submitted in the above-
captioned action (the “Action”); (ii) authorize distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to 
Authorized Claimants whose Claims have been accepted; (iii) authorize Epiq’s distribution plan; 
(iv) authorize payment of Epiq’s fees and expenses incurred and to be incurred in the 
administration of the settlement; and (v) grant the release of claims related to the administration 
or taxation of the Settlement Fund.  
Pursuant to the Stipulation, Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton” or the “Company”), John 
Foley, Jill Woodworth, Hisao Kushi, and Brad Olson (collectively, “Defendants”) have no 
interest in the relief sought by this motion.  See Stipulation ¶16 (“The Settlement is not a claims-
made settlement.”). 
INTRODUCTION 
On July 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kuo issued the Decision and Order (“Final Approval 
 
1  
Unless otherwise noted, the following conventions are used herein: (a) all emphases are 
added; (b) all internal citations and quotation marks are omitted; and (c) all capitalized terms 
have the meaning ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 
17, 2023 (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 80). 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
2097

 
2 
Order”) granting final approval to the $13,950,000.00 cash settlement between Plaintiff, on 
behalf of the Class, and Defendants under the terms set forth in the Stipulation, and dismissing 
the Action with prejudice.  ECF No. 106.   
Epiq, under Class Counsel’s supervision, provided the requisite notice of the pendency 
and Settlement of the Action to potential Class Members, processed the Proof of Claim forms, 
calculated Recognized Loss amounts, and performed related work consistent with the 
Stipulation, and the Decision and Order preliminarily approving the settlement (“Preliminary 
Approval Order” or “PA Order”), ECF No. 91.  See generally Mejia Distrib. Decl.  
Epiq has completed the processing of Claims, including Claims submitted after the May 
21, 2024 Claims-submission deadline but postmarked or received on or before January 6, 2025, 
and related work.  As a result, the Claims Administrator is now prepared to distribute the Net 
Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants in accordance with the Plan of Allocation.  
ARGUMENT 
I. 
THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR’S ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS 
SHOULD BE APPROVED 
Pursuant to the Stipulation and the Preliminary Approval Order, all Class Members 
wishing to obtain their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund were required to timely submit 
a completed Proof of Claim Form with supporting documentation to Epiq, postmarked or 
received on or before the submission deadline of May 21, 2024.  See, e.g., PA Order 25-26 ¶15; 
Stipulation ¶28. 
As detailed in the accompanying declaration, Epiq received and reviewed all Claims 
submitted by potential Class Members through January 6, 2025.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶3.  Epiq 
prepared exhibits detailing: (i) all timely eligible Claims postmarked or received on or before the 
Claims submission deadline (Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶41, Ex. D-1); (ii) all late but otherwise 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
2098

 
3 
eligible claims that were postmarked or received after the Claims submission deadline but on or 
before January 6, 2025 (Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶41, Ex. D-2); and (iii) all rejected Claims that were 
deemed ineligible through Epiq’s deficiency process (Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶41, Ex. D-3).  
A. 
Overview Of The Claims Administration Process  
To avoid undue repetition, Lead Counsel respectfully refers the Court to the Mejia 
Distribution Declaration filed herewith for a detailed description of the factual and procedural 
background of the claims review and administration process.  
Briefly, Epiq sent 684,263 Postcard Notices and received and processed 157,043 Claims.  
Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶¶3-4.  Epiq reviewed all Claim Forms and supporting documentation to 
determine, among other things, whether each claimant had purchased or acquired Peloton 
securities during the Class Period and whether the claimant was in fact a Class Member or 
whether the claimant was an excluded person.  Id. at ¶¶6-15.   
Epiq made substantial efforts to provide claimants with a fair opportunity to cure 
deficiencies in their Claims.  As set forth in the Mejia Distribution Declaration, Epiq sent a 
Notice of Deficient Claim Form Submission (“Deficiency Notice”) to claimants who submitted 
Claims by mail or email that Epiq determined contained deficiencies.  Id. at ¶¶19-20.  Such 
deficiencies included incomplete supporting documentation, a Claim Form that did not indicate 
an eligible transaction, or missing signatures.  Id. at ¶19.  Epiq sent 5,932 Deficiency Notices to 
claimants in an effort to inform the claimants of the steps needed to remedy the deficiencies.  Id. 
at ¶19.  The Deficiency Notice informed the claimant that the appropriate information or 
documentary evidence needed to complete the Claim must be submitted within twenty (20) days 
from the date of the letter, or the Claim would be recommended for rejection to the extent the 
deficiency or ineligibility was not cured.  Id. at ¶20.  
Those who submitted Claims electronically were notified of their Claims’ ineligibility or 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
2099

 
4 
deficiency by email in a Transaction Report listing the data that was incorrect or incomplete.  Id. 
at ¶22.  
Epiq received and processed claimants’ responses to the Deficiency Notices and 
Transaction Reports.  Id. at ¶¶21, 23.  If a claimant’s response corrected the defects in the Claim, 
Epiq updated the database to reflect the change in the Claim’s status.  Id. at ¶¶21, 23.  To date, 
five (5) claimants have requested review by the Court of the Claim determination made by Epiq 
(the “Disputed Claimants”).  Id. at ¶¶24-32.  They are discussed in §I.E, infra. 
B. 
Timely Eligible Claims And Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims Should Be 
Accepted 
Epiq has determined that 79,213 Claims should be accepted.  Id. at ¶42.  Of those Claims, 
77,425 were postmarked or received on or before the Claims submission deadline (“Timely 
Eligible Claims”) and 1,788 were postmarked or received after the Claims submission deadline 
but on or before January 6, 2025 (“Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims” or “Late Claims”).  
Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶42, Exs. D-1, D-2.  The total Recognized Losses calculated pursuant to the 
Plan of Allocation for the Timely Eligible Claims is $1,267,654,926.89 and the total Recognized 
Losses for the Late Claims is $316,447,438.11.  Id. at ¶42.  Epiq recommends, and Class 
Counsel agrees, that the Late Claims should be deemed timely and included in the Settlement 
distribution.  See Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶37. 
“[A] district court overseeing [a] settlement distribution has inherent power to accept late 
claims . . . .”  In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05 Civ. 5323(LTS), 2013 WL 
324153, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2013).  In determining whether to allow a late-submitted claim 
to a settlement, the Court “should examine the equities.”  In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 383 F. 
App’x 43, 45 (2d Cir. 2010).  “[T]here is an implicit recognition that late claims should 
ordinarily be considered in the administration of a settlement of a complex action.”  
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
2100

 
5 
Authentidate, 2013 WL 324153, at *2.   
The equities weigh in favor of accepting the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims here.  
The Preliminary Approval Order provides that “Class Counsel may, in its discretion, accept late 
submitted claims for processing by the Claims Administrator so long as distribution of the Net 
Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants is not materially delayed thereby.”  ECF No. 91 at 26 
¶15.  Epiq believes that no delay in the processing or distribution of the Net Settlement Fund has 
resulted from provisionally accepting the Late Claims, see Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶37, and there 
has been no prejudice to any Authorized Claimant in provisionally accepting the Late Claims.  
Therefore, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court approve Epiq’s recommendation to 
include the 1,788 valid Late Claims in the Settlement distribution.  See Poirer v. Bakkt Holdings, 
Inc., No. 22-CV-2283 (PK), 2025 WL 552607, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025) (accepting 1,818 
valid claims, including 768 that were filed late, where plaintiffs contended that the late claims 
“have not caused delay in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise prejudiced 
any Authorized Claimant”). 
C. 
Ineligible Claims Should Be Rejected 
Epiq has completed the processing of the Claims received through January 6, 2025 and 
recommends 77,830 Claims for rejection.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶¶39-40; Ex. D-3 (schedule of all 
ineligible claimants).  Most of the Rejected Claims either have no Recognized Loss (62,652 
Claims) or no eligible purchases/acquisitions during the Class Period (13,453 Claims).  Id. at 
¶40.  The remainder of the ineligible claims were rejected because the Proof of Claim contained 
defects that were never cured (1,478 Claims), were withdrawn or voided by request (103 
Claims), or were duplicative of another claim (144 Claims).  Id.  Lead Plaintiff respectfully 
requests that the Court approve Epiq’s recommendation to reject the 77,830 Claims deemed 
ineligible.  
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
2101

 
6 
D. 
Claims Received After January 6, 2025 Should Be Rejected As Untimely  
There must be a final cut-off date after which no more Claims may be accepted so that 
there may be a proportional distribution of the Net Settlement Fund without further delay and 
expense for the Class.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶38; see In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 
Civ. 0648 LAK RLE, 2004 WL 3670993, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2004) (“In any class 
settlement, it is necessary to establish a cutoff date to bring closure to the action.”).  Accordingly, 
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order that any Claim or any responses to Deficiency 
Notices or Transaction Reports received after January 6, 2025 be rejected as untimely.  See 
Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶38.  
E. 
The Five Disputed Claims Should Be Rejected 
As set forth in detail in the Mejia Distribution Declaration, 5 claimants disputed the 
Claims Administrator’s determination of ineligibility.  All 5 of the claimants did not have a 
Recognized Loss under the Plan of Allocation, for the reasons set forth in the Mejia Distribution 
Declaration at ¶¶24-32.   Lead Counsel has reviewed the documentation the claimants provided 
and the correspondence between Epiq and the claimants.  After reviewing this information, Lead 
Counsel agrees that the 5 disputed claims should be rejected for having no Recognized Loss.   
Briefly, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, a 
claimant must have a Recognized Loss pursuant to the Plan of Allocation.  See ECF No. 98-3 at 
10.  A claimant’s Recognized Loss depends upon, inter alia, when the Peloton security was sold, 
and if sold, for what amount.  Id.  Disputed Claimants Nos. 1-3, and No. 5 bought shares 
potentially eligible to participate in the Settlement Fund between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 
2021 at 9:57 a.m., and held their shares through August 2, 2021.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶¶25-29, 
32.  Thus, Section I.c. of the Plan of Allocation applies.  Id.; see also ECF No. 98-3 at 11.  Under 
that provision, “the Recognized Loss per share is the lesser of: (i) the price of inflation on the 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
2102

 
7 
date of purchase/acquisition as provided in Table 1 [of the Plan of Allocation]; or . . . (ii) the 
purchase price minus the average closing price for the Common Stock during the 90-Day 
Lookback Period, which is $110.40.”  ECF No. 98-3 at 11.  For each of these Disputed 
Claimants, the “lesser of” amount was the second provision, which resulted in a negative 
number.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. at ¶¶25-29, 32.  The Plan of Allocation provides that a Recognized 
Loss calculated to be a negative number “shall be set to zero ($0.00)).”  ECF No. 98-3 at 11.  
The relevant information for Disputed Claimant Nos. 1-3, 5 are set forth below: 
Disputed 
Claimant 
No. 
Date Purchased 
Price of 
inflation on 
date 
purchased 
Purchase 
Price per 
share 
Purchase 
price minus 
$110.40 
Recognized 
Loss 
1
April 22, 2021
$13.23
$100.60
-$9.80
$0
22
November 20, 2020
$22.84
$102.52
-$7.88
$0
3
April 1, 2021
$19.71
$105.93
-$4.47
$0
5
November 19, 2020
$22.84
$97.01
-$13.39
$0
 
 
Disputed Claimant No. 4 bought 140 shares on October 16, 2020, but sold them on 
November 30, 2020.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶30.  The Plan of Allocation provides that a share sold 
before March 18, 2021 has a Recognized Loss per share of $0 because it was sold before any 
corrective disclosures.  See ECF No. 98-3 at 10 (“[I]f a share of Peloton Common Stock was sold 
before March 18, 2021 (the earliest Corrective Disclosure Date), the Recognized Loss for that 
share is $0.00, and any loss suffered is not compensable under the federal securities laws.”).  
Thus, Disputed Claimant No. 4 has no Recognized Loss either.  
 
2  
Disputed Claimant No. 2 also bought shares on November 5, 2021, after the Class Period.  
Those shares are not eligible to participate in the settlement and are not reflected in this chart.  
See ECF No. 98-3 at 11 (providing that for “each share . . . purchased or otherwise acquired after 
May 5, 2021, at 9:57 a.m. ET, the Recognized Loss per share is $0.00”).  
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
2103

 
8 
II. 
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND TO AUTHORIZED 
CLAIMANTS SHOULD BE APPROVED 
The Mejia Distribution Declaration sets forth a plan for distribution of the Net Settlement 
Fund to Timely Eligible Claims and Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims (i.e., Authorized 
Claimants), in accordance with the Plan of Allocation.  Pursuant to the plan, Epiq will mail 
letters to Authorized Claimants whose payment amount is less than the $10.00 minimum check 
amount set forth in the Notice, advising them of the fact that their pro rata share of the Net 
Settlement Fund is below the minimum threshold for payment.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶46(a)(ii).  
After setting aside a 5% reserve of the Net Settlement Fund to address any tax liability or claims 
administration-related contingencies that may arise, Epiq will then distribute checks (or 
effectuate wire transfers where applicable), to all other Authorized Claimants whose pro rata 
share of the Net Settlement Fund amounts to a distribution of $10.00 or more.  Id. at ¶46(a)(iii).  
See Meyer v. United Microelectronics Corp., 2022 WL 43345, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2022) 
(allowing “remaining 5% of the Net Settlement Fund [to] be held in reserve [] to address any tax 
liability and claims administration-related contingencies that may arise”). 
To encourage Authorized Claimants to cash their distribution checks promptly and to 
avoid or reduce future expenses relating to uncashed checks, all checks for distribution should 
bear the notation “DEPOSIT PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF 
NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ISSUE DATE.”  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶46(a)(iv). 
As set forth in the Notice at 14, if any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the 
Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to contact claimants who have not 
cashed their payments, but no earlier than six (6) months after the initial distribution, the Claims 
Administrator should consult with Lead Counsel to determine if a redistribution of the remaining 
Net Settlement Fund (including any funds not depleted from the 5% reserve) is cost effective.  
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
2104

 
9 
Id. at ¶46(a)(iii), (b).  Such redistribution would go to Class Members who cashed their initial 
distribution check and would receive a minimum of $10.00.  Id. at ¶46(b).  Determining whether 
such a redistribution is cost effective requires taking into consideration payment of any 
additional costs and expenses that would be associated with a redistribution.  Id.  These 
redistributions shall be repeated until it is no longer feasible to conduct any further distributions 
of the Net Settlement Fund.  Id. at ¶46(c).  Any de minimis balance that still remains in the Net 
Settlement Fund at that point shall be donated to the CII Research and Education Fund (“CII-
REF”), in accordance with the Notice.   See id.; ECF No. 98-3 at 14 (providing that if funds are 
left over after all feasible redistributions are made “such remaining balance will then be 
distributed to a non-sectarian, not-for-profit organization identified by Lead Counsel”).   
CII-REF is an appropriate recipient—or “cy pres designee”— of any residual Settlement 
Funds because it “reasonably approximate[s] the interests of the class.”  In re Citigroup Inc. Sec. 
Litig., 199 F. Supp. 3d 845, 852 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).  This Action was brought under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Stipulation at 
2.  The purpose of the Exchange Act is “to protect investors against manipulation of stock 
prices.”  Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 230 (1988).  As the Class consists of all persons or 
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Peloton securities during the Class Period and were 
damaged thereby (Stipulation ¶I.vv), its members are located throughout the nation.  Consistent 
with the case law, the cy pres recipient should relate to protecting investors from securities fraud.  
CII-REF is a nonpartisan tax-exempt organization under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
Code, which “focuses on educating the public, investors, corporations, and other financial market 
participants and policymakers about topical issues, including corporate governance, shareholder 
rights, investment, capital markets, accounting standards and securities litigation.”  See 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
2105

 
10 
www.ciiref.org (last visited Apr. 24, 2025).  CII-REF is therefore a suitable recipient of any 
residual funds in this shareholder class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  
See Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., No. CV-12-00555-PHX-DGC, 2020 BL 245619, at *7 (D. 
Ariz. June 30, 2020) (approving CII-REF as the cy pres recipient to be “a suitable recipient of 
any residual funds in this shareholder class action alleging violations of the federal securities 
laws” because “there is a nexus between the plaintiff class” and CII-REF). 
III. 
PAYMENT OF EPIQ’S OUTSTANDING FEES AND EXPENSES FROM THE 
SETTLEMENT FUND SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED 
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider an application for an award of fees and 
reimbursement of expenses relating to the Claims Administrator’s implementation of the terms 
of the Stipulation.  Stipulation at ¶49.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Settlement Fund may be 
used to pay Notice and Administration Costs, which include all expenses incurred in connection 
with distributing the Notices to the Class and the costs of the Claims Administrator, among other 
things.  See Stipulation ¶¶1(gg), 12.   
Epiq was retained to supervise and administer the notice procedure and to process Claims 
in connection with the Settlement.  See PA Order 24 ¶7.  As Claims Administrator, Epiq was and 
is responsible for, among other things, printing and mailing copies of the Postcard Notices to 
Class Members and nominees, effecting publication of the Summary Notice of the Settlement, 
processing and reviewing the filed Claims, preparing the tax returns for the Settlement Fund, 
calculating the pro rata distribution amount by calculating each Authorized Claimant’s 
percentage of the Net Settlement Fund in accordance with the Plan of Allocation, and 
distributing the Net Settlement Fund to accepted claimants.  See generally Mejia Distrib. Decl.; 
PA Order 24-26, ¶¶7, 11-15; Stipulation ¶¶1(g), 21-22, 24, 28. 
In connection with that work, Epiq has incurred a total of $833,171.77 in administrative 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
2106

 
11 
fees and expenses, which includes $127,619.00 in reimbursements to brokers and nominees for 
expenses they incurred in connection with mailing the Postcard Notices to potential Class 
Members or providing the relevant information for Epiq to do so.  Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶45; 
Notice at 14 (providing that brokers and nominees are entitled to reimbursement from the 
Settlement Fund).  To date, Epiq has received no payment for its fees and expenses.  See Mejia 
Distrib. Decl. ¶45.   
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court authorize payment to Epiq of the outstanding 
balance of $833,171.77 for costs and expenses already incurred, and the reservation of 
$23,606.75 for anticipated costs and expenses related to the initial distribution.  See id.  If the 
cost of the initial distribution is less than $23,606.75, the excess will be returned to the Net 
Settlement Fund.  Id.   
IV. 
RETENTION OF PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 
Plaintiff also requests that the Court permit Epiq to destroy any paper copies of the Proof 
of Claim forms and all supporting documentation one (1) year after the Initial Distribution, or the 
Second Distribution if it occurs, and electronic copies of the same one (1) year after all funds 
have been distributed.  See Mejia Distrib. Decl. ¶46(e).    
V. 
RELEASE OF CLAIMS 
To allow the full and final distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, Plaintiff respectfully 
requests that the Court bar any further Claims against the Net Settlement Fund beyond the 
amount allocated to Authorized Claimants, and release and discharge from any and all claims 
arising out of the claims administration all persons involved in the review, verification, 
calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims submitted herein or 
otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund.  See Stipulation ¶33. 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
2107

 
12 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Motion for Distribution 
of the Net Settlement Fund should be granted, and the [Proposed] Distribution Order should be 
entered. 
Dated: April 25, 2025  
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 
 
By: 
/s/ James M. Wilson, Jr.  
 
James M. Wilson, Jr.  
 
James M. Wilson, Jr.  
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor 
New York, NY 10017 
Telephone: 212-983-9330 
Facsimile: 212-983-9331 
 Email:   jwilson@faruqilaw.com 
 
 
   
 
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel for 
the Settlement Class 
Case 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK     Document 109     Filed 04/25/25     Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
2108

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.463443.109.0.pdf

Size

493,514 bytes

SHA-256

fe8b4194b7fab6cb6248603a1227a4d2730d0d09317fa36ebadd02d021bc67b5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.463443.109.0.pdf

Original

archive.org