Objection of John C. Kress and Maureen

~\I l\~l l l\1 1\~ l~l U\\\\\\\\\\*\\\\
\\l\\ll \\\I\ lllll
*
1 0 2 0 7 1 0 8 8 5
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
KILEY STROUD,
Individually, and on Behalf of
Those Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
)
~ MA\. S
A1'E Of Q\(ll' ~1'¥ .JS. ·
S1' E\IELANO C
Case No. CJ-2003-968-L
Cl:
f:'' 9"'
M~ o~ 'l.U\3
vs.
eMACHINES, INC., A FOREIGN
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
. .qne
,\,,·nee QI
'
ul\l'
\Ji
.
- i~ '""''"'""""
\ r1 \ \1b~~\'"\UNU'"'
court C\e )
)
JOHN KRESS & MAUREEN CONNORS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AWARD, & NOTICE OF:INTENT TO
APPEAR AT FAIRNESS HEARING
COMES NOW, John Kress and Maureen Connors 1 by and through their counsel of record and
hereby file their Objections to Proposed Settlement and Attorneys' Fees Award, & Notice of
Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing, through their counsel of record Mr. Douglas Smith seeking
20 minutes of time to present their objections at the fairness hearing, and set forth the following:
I.
The proposed settlement is unfair to the class members as it requires unnecessary
criteria to be submitted by the class members in order to prove entitlement to benefits
under the Settlement.
Class members are required to run a gauntlet of onerous requirements just to receive the
opportunity to obtain a voucher that is good for nothing more than used computer equipment. If
they decide they do not want a used computer, they can submit the voucher for a reduced cash
Exhibits A, B and C are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as the Affidavits of each respective
objector setting forth their respective purchase of the eMachines at issue in this case, along with copies of their redacted
Driver's Licenses. Objectors also object to the settlement agreement language in par 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 requiring their
depositions and striking those objections unless they appear Objectors are not parties, and no basis exists for ordering such
depositions of non-parties, as it violates due process and is designed only to intimidate and harass objectors.
reward of only $62.50. But the criteria imposed upon the putative class members to get such
"relief' is not supported in similar cases and unprecedented in the invasive nature of the
requirements made of class members.
A trial court's approval of a settlement is reversed under an abuse of discretion standard
when an "erroneous conclusion of law" is made, or the settlement approval "had no rational basis
in the evidence" Cactus Petroleum v. Chesapeake Operating, 222 P.3d 12, 20 (Okla., 2009).
Before approving the proposed settlement, this Court "must find that the settlement is fair,
adequate and reasonable and is not a product of collusion between the parties." Bayhvlle v. Jiffy
Lube Intern.. Inc.. 146 P.3d 856, 859 (Okla. Civ. App., 2006).
None of the Objectors has a proof of purchase dating back from over a sixteen (16) year
period, nor were the eMachines in question stored or maintained by the Objectors during such
period.
For the reasons provided below, this proposed settlement is unfair to the class members
and Objectors, and is not adequate and reasonable, and on the draconian requirements placed
upon Objectors and class members is direct evidence of the collusion the parties in reaching
settlement.
This Court should deny the proposed settlement at this time, and require the parties to put
together a claims process that encourages participation of the class members without mandating
production of receipts and serial numbers of the eMachines in question spanning a 16 year
period, when much larger class actions covering similar subject matter lack such draconian
prov1s1ons.
a)
Class Members should not be required to produce proofs of purchase or
photographic documentation of the eMachine in question in order to have the right to
2
recover a benefit under the Settlement.
Class Counsel and the Defendant have made class participation so difficult, that many
otherwise eligible class members, including the Objectors will not be able to receive benefits.
The Settlement Agreement provides that "Proof of Purchase" is required, including receipts,
invoices, credit card statements, cancelled checks "or other similar third party documentation that
references or evidences the purchase of an Affected Computer or a photograph of the Affected
Computer's model and Serial Number, or the return of the designated portion of the Post Card
Notice or a Claim Form by a Certified Class Member whose name is in the Notice Database(s) ..
." (Settlement Agreement, referred to herein as "Stlmt Agrmt", p. 12, par. 1.47). However, Class
Counsel and Defendants know quite well that no one keeps receipts for over sixteen (16) years.
And given the changes to the technology during that time period, there is little chance that
anyone has kept an eMachine that became outdated technology. Indeed, a similar settlement that
was approved in California for over 1 Billion Dollars in relief to class members was endorsed by
the Attorney Generals in the States that were included in such settlement because class members
were not required to submit proof of purchase, because it was not realistic that class members
would have kept such documentation.
This approach is considered more "consumer friendly", as discussed by class counsel,
Joseph Alioto in the Star Tribune on January 18, 2013:
Given an easy way to get $25 to $100 or more, Minnesotans responded in greater
numbers than any other state except California... The settlement is considered one of the most
consumer -friendly class action lawsuits in recent years. Since few consumers were expected to
have receipts from purchases made six to 12 years ago, no proof of purchase was required, Alioto
said. Nor were consumers required to produce a manufacturer or model number, in case the item
had been discarded.
·
3
(Exhibit D, Star Tribune article titled "Thousands file claims in monitor settlement" attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein). This makes good sense, and should be the standard
utilized in this Court. Few class members will have receipts for over 16 years. Fewer still will
have kept or stored their defunct eMachine. Instead, consumers should simply be asked "a few
questions" like the class members in LCD, in which Michigan consumers did not need to produce
any proofs of purchase:
Consumers will be asked a few questions about the number of LCD flat screen TV's,
monitors, and laptops they purchased from 1999 to 2006. Consumers are eligible if they lived in
Michigan or 23 other states at the time the products were purchased. Consumers do not need to
provide receipts or other proof of purchase for small claims.
(Exhibit E, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein, CBSLocal.com posting,
"Michigan Residents Encouraged to Investigate LCD Claims" November 14, 2012). Here, Class
Counsel has set an unrealistic threshold for class members to overcome just to submit a claim, by
producing either a proof of purchase for a defective product that was likely discarded over 16
years ago, along with the product itself. Why? In order to discourage claims from being filed, to
minimize the payout to class members in exchange for a windfall of attorneys' fees by making the
process of filing claims so draconian and complex, that the very process will discourage
participation. This is the perfect sell out of the class: the Defendant pays very few claims, while
class counsel receives millions of dollars in fees for endorsing a settlement for which the class
members cannot establish entitlement to the offered benefit.
The Missouri Attorney General has issued a recent statement on this very subject, noting
that in the LCD case "the claims process is very simple and only consists of a few questions
about the number of LCD flat screen TVs, monitors and laptops that were purchased from 1999
4
to 2006." (Exhibit F, attached hereto, Missouri Attorney General's News Release, "Attorney
General Koster reminds Missourians that December 6 is the deadline to file claims in billion
dollar LCD-screen price-fixing settlement" dated December 3, 2012). Instead, the parties to this
proposed settlement involving eMachines provide the class members with a process for
determining eligibility for claims that actively discourages participation, by imposing a
documentary burden created to prohibit claims from being made by otherwise eligible class
members.
Indeed, class members have no idea of whether or not their computer is covered in the
eMachines settlement unless they "check to to see if your eMachines computer is one of the
models listed above by looking on the computer. The model number is usually displayed on the .
front of the computer. You may also be able to find it in the User's Guide that came with your
computer or on your receipt." (Frequently Asked Questions: 6. How do I know if my computer is
covered by the Proposed Nationwide Settlement?). Essentially, if you threw out your eMachine.
computer, or no longer have your receipt(s) you cannot establish entitlement to compensation.
Rather than simplifying the claims process, Class Counsel and Defendant require information
that no one maintains for a 16 year period.
In the LCD settlement, another attorney touting the ease with which the class members
could receive their benefit stated that "even businesses claiming many purchases won't need
proof as long as the claim isn't unusually large compared to the number of employees, Amkraut
said in a release." (Exhibit G, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein,
[email protected] "Own an LCD TV, computer monitor or laptop? You may be eligible to
cash in on $1.1 billion settlement", dated November 13, 2012).
5
Over 23 states participated in the LCD settlement- and none of their consumers had to go
through the red tape strung about the class members as proposed in this settlement before the
Court- none of them had to produce a receipt or proof of purchase (Exhibit H, attached hereto,
Rapid City Journal, "Rapid City men part of $1.1 billion class action lawsuit", November 17,
2012) ("Filing a claim does not require proof of purchase or receipts.").
This Court should adopt the claim form or eligibility approach utilized in the LCD
Settlement, requiring only that class members confirm they purchased an eMachine product
during the relevant time period that qualifies as one or more of the models identified in the
Notice. A copy of the LCD Claim Form is attached hereto (Exhibit I, attached hereto). Notable,
the LCD claim form does not require the serial number of the television, monitor, notebook,
laptop or computer. Nor does it require a copy of the class member's photo ID.
This Court should require Class Counsel and Defendant to create a claims process that is
designed to be simple to access and utilize with the goal of providing recovery to the· class
members in the least restrictive manner available, as was done in the LCD Settlement. .
b ) Class members should not be required to provide copies of their photo ID in
order to make a claim, as such requirement is designed to intimidate and harass class
members and discourage the filing of claims.
In an unprecedented maneuver, Class Counsel and Defendants demand that class
members provide a copy of their "Photo ID" in order to make a claim. On the claims website, the
following information is found:
Photo ID
The copy of the photo ID that is required to make a claim may mask (black out) all private
6
information and need show only the name and photograph. That is, you may black out the
personal information on the copy of your ID, but your photograph and name must be
legible.
(Home Page, www.emachinesfloppydisksettlement.com). However, Class Counsel fails to
disclose why this information is necessary, much less how it relates in any way to the filing of a
claim or establishing entitlement to the benefit. For example, it does not corroborate any
addresses or warranty information, as it does not seek the address of the claimant. In fact,
obtaining the photo ID of the class member does nothing more than link a photographic image
with their name filed on the claim form. It has no useful purpose.
But it has a chilling effect and impact upon the class members. In an age where identity
theft. is rampant, it is incumbent upon class counsel to establish the need for such information,
when by their own admission it corroborates nothing concerning eMachine purchase or
membership in the Class.
This Court should prohibit the production of photo ID by the class members, as it is
unnecessary, for harassment purposes only and serves no legitimate purpose related to this
litigation.
II.
The proposed settlement is unfair to class members, as it provides for a "credit
certificate" that can only be exchanged for used computer equipment or a reduced cash
value, amounting to nothing more than a coupon for additional product of Defendant with
an overinflated value.
7
The judiciary is told to be wary of settlements where the relief provided to the class
members is coupon based, or not cash, and a court should determine whether the proposed
coupons "have a secondary market in which they can be discounted and converted to cash",
"compare favorably with bargains generally available to a frugal shopper" and "are likely to be
redeemed by class members." Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges (3d
ed. 2010), Rothstein & "Willging (p. 16, Hot Button Indicators- 1. Coupons). As discussed below,
the "credit certificate" or coupon, is good only for refurbished merchandise sold by Defendant,
and does not provide the class member with the full face value of the certificate, and as
previously discussed such certificates are unlikely to be redeemed because the majority of class
members threw away their eMachines along with the proofs of purchase.
a)
The "credit certificate" does not redeem for its full value, can only be used
for the purchase of one computer, and class members do not receive the· difference or a
refund of any unused credit.
The collusive nature of the settlement reached is amply demonstrated by the "relief'
provided to the class members. If class members are lucky enough to have an eMachine left
around the house during the last 16 years, or a receipt, they are then entitled to a "credit
certificate" that is good for $365.00 worth of credit at a website, www.secondipity.com (Stmt
Agrmt, p. 32, par. 7.2). However, a review of the website in question shows that the majority of
the "goods" offered are refurbished or used computer equipment (Exhibit J, attached hereto).
Class Members are limited to trading their credit certificate in for one used computer, despite the
8
fact that many products offered are well below the $365.00 credit offered, which would give
class members the opportunity to recover multiple items and obtain the maximum value of the
credit certificate (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 32, par. 7.1; par 7.2(f); Exhibit J). And class members are
required to pay for the shipping of their new "used" or "refurbished" computer- even though the
difference of the credit left would likely cover such shipping (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 33, par. 7.2)
("Shipping, if not free on the Replacement Computer Website, will be borne by the Claimant, as
long as shipping is not free to other non-class shoppers and for other products on a basis that
does not discriminate against Claimants.").
Nor are class members entitled to the difference, or any residual credit that is unused from
the credit certificate:
In the event that a Claimant with an allowed claim selects items that cost less than $365,
.. , .
such Claimant shall not be entitled to the difference in cash or credit ... The Replacement
Computer Website shall not retain credits for future use ;by a Claimant who used less than all of
the $365 credit.
(Stlmt Agrmt, p. 35, par. 7.2(f)). This is specifically designed to minimize the recovery of those
class members who did not discard their eMachine and proof of purchase during the last 16
years, by forcing claimants to purchase computer equipment that exceeds the value of the credit
certificate to gain the full benefit, or take less of a benefit by losing the difference on the credit
certificate.
Not surprisingly, Class Counsel and Defendant fail to provide these details to their class
members on the their website www.emachinesfloppydisksettlement.com under "Frequently
9
Asked Questions." This aspect of the settlement is a far cry from "fair and reasonable" and
"adequate" under the standards promulgated by the court of appeals in Bavhvlle v. Jiffy Lube
Intern.. Inc .. 146 P.3d 856, 859 (Okla. Civ. App., 2006).
This is nothing more than a "coupon settlement", and although valid in Oklahoma courts
under very defined circumstances, have the caveat of being approved when "they are also of
beneficial value to a significant number of class members since they contain no requirement of
filling out and mailing in a proof of claim. Jiffy Lube Intern. Inc .. 146 P. 3d at 860. Here, not only
is the credit certificate coupon require filling out and mailing a claim form, but as described
above requires unusual requirements such as proof ofreceipt(s) or a photographic evidence of the
serial number of the offending eMachine- along with a copy of the claimant's photo ID. Under
Jiffy Lube's reasoning, this Court should refuse to approve the settlement, as the "credit
certificate" offered to class members is not a beneficial value to a significant number of class
members.
b) The cash value of the credit certificate is disproportionate to the value of the
settlement to each class member, and the obtainment of cash is a difficult process that is
hindered by the parties to eliminate the likelihood of a cash payout to each class member,
making the settlement unfair and inadequate.
Each credit certificate can be redeemed for $62.50 (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 35, par. 7.3). Why
$62.50? Class Counsel and the Defendant do not divulge how this formula was arrived at, or
why class members are not eligible to redeem the full value value of the credit certificate for
cash. Instead, class members are required to wait fifteen (15) days after receiving their credit
10
certificate "and after having accessed the Replacement Computer Website at least on one (1)
occasion to see the products available on said site" before returning the credit certificate to cash
(Stlmt Agrmt, p. 35, par. 7.3).
So, for those class members who only want cash, they are required to take a credit
certificate, wait 15 days, and shop a website they have no interest in perusing. Class members
are made to wait, because many of them will forget about the credit certificate, and if it is not
returned within 45 days after the 15 day period has run, they are stuck with the worthless
certificate, and have no opportunity to redeem it for cash:
If a Claimant wishes to exchange his or her returned goods credit certificate for cash, he
or she must place in the mail or hands of a courier service the election form within a window of
time [i] beginning after fifteen ( 15) days of first being in possession of that returned goods credit
certificate and [ii] ending forty-five (45) days thereafter.
(Stlmt Agrmt, p. 36, par. 7.3). None of this information is disclosed to class members on the
website www.emachinesfloppydisksettlement.com under "Frequently Asked Questions."
However, the parties Settlement Agreement mandates such disclosures, stating that "The time
limits for exchanging returned goods credit certificates for cash shall be prominently explained
on the face of the certificates and explained on the web sites required by this agreement." (Stlmt
Agrmt, p. 36, par. 7.3).
Because the credit certificates do not have the reputed value of $365 that can be used to
purchase new computers with the ability to exhaust the entire credit offered on multiple
transactions, and since the cash value is substantially lower than the stated value of the credit
11
certificate, this Court should deny the settlement until such time as the parties propose a
settlement that adequately addresses these deficiencies, along with forcing class members to wait
15 days to redeem the certificates for cash but no later than 45 days to receive the cash benefit.
III.
The Settlement was the result of collusion between the parties as evidenced by the
failure of Class Counsel and eMachines to reveal to the Court and class members the basis
for an award of attorneys fees for 50 Million Dollars payable to Class Counsel as credit
certificates and the existence of a clear sailing provision between the parties.
The Pocket Guide admonishes parties who demonstrate to the Court that their exists an
imbalance between the cash value of the settlement and the attorneys fees:
An imbalance between the cash value of the settlement to the class as a whole and the
agreed amount of attorney fees is a prime indicator of collusion by settling attorneys. For
example, in a settlement with both monetary and nonmonetary relief, ifthe attorneys receive the
lion's share of the cash and the class receives primarily nonmonetary relief, including future
warrants, coupons, and the like, you should look for solid information to justify the imbalance.
Likewise, you should scrutinize an agreement that provides that attorneys receive a
noncontingent cash award and that class benefits are contingent on settlement approval and
claims made.
Pocket Guide (3d ed. 2010), p.20, 5.Collusion: "Reverse auctions" and the like). Here, Class
Counsel is offering the class a chance, or an opportunity to collect a credit certificate allegedly
worth $365-after unrealistic conditions are satisfied to qualify. Undoubtably, the class benefits
12
offered here are contingent upon "settlement approval and claims made". Yet Class Counsels'
recovery is not contingent upon any event, and they are guaranteed a pay out of 50 Million
Dollars, to which Defendant agrees it will not object to such fee application (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 38,
par. 10.1). This is what is referred to as a "clear sailing provision", and courts continue to reject
settlements containing such provisions. Jn re Bluetooth. 654 F.3d 935, 946-947 (9th Cir., 2011)
("A clear sailing arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys' fees separate and apart
from class funds ... carries the potential of enabling a defendant to pay class counsel excessive
fees and costs in exchange for counsel accepting an unfair settlement on behalf of the class")
accord, Staton v. Boeing Co .. 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir., 2003); Murrqy v. GMACMortg.
Corp.. 434 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2006); Crawford v. Equifax Pavment Servs.. Inc.. 201 F.3d
877, 882 (7th Cir. 2000).
The clear sailing provision agreed to between eMachines and Class Counsel is set forth
below:
Settling Defendants and Acer agree not to object to an application for attorneys' fees by Class
Counsel to the extent that application for fees does not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the $365
returned goods credit certficates available to Certified Class members (agreed to be 4,000,000).
Accordingly, Class counsel will apply for, and Settling Defendants and Acer agree not to object
to, an attorneys' fee of 800,000 (4,000,000 X .20) of the same $365 returned goods credit
certificates that are awarded to Certified Class Members on a per Unit basis under this Settlement
Agreement. .. Returned goods credit certificates awarded to Class Counsel are eligible to be
exchanged for the same amount of $62.50 cash per each returned goods credit certificate.
13
(Stlmt Agrmt, p. 3 8, par. 10.1 (c)). Class Counsel is pulling in 50 Million Dollars. One has to
consider if Class Counsel is required to show their photo ID before loading their duffel bags up
with millions of dollars, while they leave the class members with nothing but used computer
equipment after they succed in navigating endless red tape keeping them from making claims.
Not surprisingly, Class Counsel was quick to protect their fees by making certain they would not
have to submit a Claim Form nor are they required to access the Replacement Computer Website
in order to take their trunk loads of cash (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 40, par. 10.l(f)).
Such attorneys fees are not only unsupported under the law, but they are not supported
under the facts of the settlement. Because of the collusion between the parties, this Court should
deny an award of attorneys fees under these circumstances, and require Class Counsel to prove
their entitlement to fees.
IV.
The Settlement is unfair and not reasonable, as Class Counsels' attorneys fees' ,, · l·
cannot be corroborated by either the common fund doctrine or any fee shifting provision.' .
Here, the "common fund/benefit" theory is an exception to the general rule that attorneys
fees are not recoverable absent some statutory authority therefore or an enforceable contract. Fent
v. State ex rel Dept. ofHuman Services. 2010 Ok 2 (Okla. 111912010). In Fent, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court prohibited the payment of attorneys fees out of a "common fund" when no such
fund was created:
When an individual's efforts succeed in creating or preserving a fund that benefits
similarly situated non-litigants, equity powers may be invoked to chruge that fund with attorney
fees for legal services rendered in its creation or preservation. The created or preserved fund
14
,.
must be brought under the direct supervision of the court. The idea is that those who benefit
from the fund's preservation should contribute to the expense of litigation. In the case at bar.
there is no fund from which attorney fees can be paid - this was not a suit brought in order to
preserve or protect a fund that benefits the petitioner and others.
Fent. 2010 OK 2, par. 27 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Following the rationale of the
Court in Fent, Class Counsels' demand for a fee award of 50 Million Dollars must fail, because
by the parties own admission, no common fund was created. Indeed, no reference is made to any
"fund" or source of funds, instead Class Counsel references that "Settling Defendants andAcer
have determined that there are approximately 4.0 million Units entitled to the Per Unit ·
Settlement. The parties agree that the evidence supports a face value for the Per Unit Settlement
of $365 per Unit." (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 37, par. 7.5). Notable, no reference is made that 4.0 million
; class members exist. Because if they did, Class Counsel would have to concede that they are
entitled to reimbursement for their eMachines purchases, which would then lead to discussion of
the unrealistic requirements for proving entitlement to a claim as described above.
Perhaps most damaging to the lack of common fund, is the admission that "Payment of
these fees shall be in addition to and shall not decrease or increase the Per Unit Settlement"
(Stlmt Agrmt, p. 40, par. 10.l(e)). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said that "a court of equity
may allow counsel fees to an attorney who has created a fund does not apply where there has
been neither a creation, addition, nor protection of a 'common fund'; and does not apply where
the benefit is merely incidental." Fisher v. Superior Oil Co. of Cal.. 390 P.2d 521, 523 (Okla.,
1964).
15
Without a common fund, no recovery is possible for Class Counsel, and their fee
application should be denied. The common benefit doctrine originates from the common fund
exception, under which "the successful plaintiff is awarded attorney fees because his suit creates
'a common fund, the economic benefit of which is shared by all members of the class." Hall v.
Cole. 412 US. 1, 5, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 1946 (1973); accord, Rosenbaum v. MacAllister. 64 F.3d
1439 (C.A. JO (Colo.), 1995).
In the event that Class Counsel declares that their fees are based upon a fee shifting
statute, Objectors expressly reserve the right to challenge such fee application when it is filed
with this. Court, or to challenge the existence of a common fund, if Class Counsel asserts such as
their basis for entitlement to payment of attorneys' fees.
This Court should deny the 50 Million Dollars sought by Class Counsel as attorneys' fees,
for the reasons set forth above.
V.
.
_,•.
The release of claims by the class members is overly broad and· lacks co'llsideration
as it releases claims of class members without providing any benefits to such persons unless
they prove existence of a proof of purchase or photographic documentation of the serial
number of the offending eMachine, and violates the due process rights of class members
who cannot satisfy the current criteria for filing a claim.
And the final atrocity in this settlement is the relinquishment of all claims that class
members have against Defendants, despite the fact that they do not have receipts or photographic
evidence of serial numbers from eMachines that would entitle them to receiving a benefit under
the settlement.
16
Under the "Frequently Asked Questions" apparently everyone is a class member if they simply
purchased on or more of over seventy-five (75) models offered on or after December 31, 1997 (
"5. How do I know ifl am part of the Proposed Nationwide Settlement Class?"). No mention is
made that you are a class member only if you have a receipt or photographic evidence of the
existence of the eMachine serial number. The only requirement for class participation is that you
purchased an eMachine during the last 16 years from eMachines or an eMachines authorized
reseller.
But as noted above, the "devil is in the details", and class members do not recover any
·funds or benefit, without receipts or photographic proof of the existence of the eMachine.
Meanwhile, the Defendants and Class Counsel have completed the sell-out 'Ofthe class by
.Iii
•
releases "any and all known and unknown claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action,
:t
·'!
waiving all their legal rights (Stlmt Agrmt, p. 56, par. 16.1 ). The Certified .Settlement Class
.1 :• -
rights, or ,remedies, including damages or injunctive relief, that have been ·or could have been
•· pleaded or asserted in the Action or in any FDC Related Action, or that relate to or arise from the
purchase, use, service, ownership or possession of an Affected Computer Model ... ". Id. This is
a win-win for the Defendants, and stockpiles cash for Class Counsel at the same time while class
members who cannot provide proofs of purchase or photographic evidence of their eMachine
purchase get nothing while releasing all their claims against Defendants.
Notable, the parties do not define class membership to constitute persons who have a
proof of purchase or photographic evidence of their purchase of an eMachine. The release is
overly broad, and lacks consideration for the release of claims for those class members who
cannot satisfy such criteria as described above in Section I.
17
Here, "plaintiffs in a class action may release claims that were or could have been pied in
exchange for settlement relief." Wal-Mart Stores. Inc .. v. Visa US.A .. Inc .. 396 F.3d 96, 106 (2nd
Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The problem is the only people receiving "settlement relief' are
those that have receipts or proof of purchase or a photograph of the serial number of an emachine. All the remaining class members get nothing. Therefore, should this Court deny relief
under Section I above, then only parties that should be released are those persons submitting a
claim under the current criteria subject to approval of the court. Rule 23(e) provides that "trial
judges bear the important responsibility of protecting absent class members," and must be
"assured that the settlement represents adequate compensation for the release of the class claims."
Sullivan v. DB lnvs.. Inc .. 667 F.3d 273, 319 (3rd Cir., 2010). Here, the parties wish for this
Court to approve settlement that does not compensate the majority of the class members, but still
eviscerates their rights by releasing all their claims against Defendants.
A release of claims without consideration results in a settlement that is not fair,
reasonable or adequate, and is a settlement that a trial court cannot approve. Reynolds v.
Beneficial Natl. Bank. et al.. 288 F.3d 277, 282-284 (7th Cir., 2002).
WHEREFORE, objectors John Kress and Maureen Connors pray that this Court enter its Order
with the following:
1) Requiring the parties to propose a different means of processing claims for class members
that does not require proof of purchase, identification of the model number or photographic
evidence of the serial number of the eMachine in question in order to recover a benefit, including
utilizing a claims form similar to that used in the LCD settlement;
18
2) Requiring that the credit certificate be redeemable for the full value of $365.00 in cash for
those class members who elect not to purchase products from secondipity.com, and providing
class members with the difference of their purchase price in cash or credit from the retailer at the
choice of the class member;
3) Requiring that the credit certificates are redeemable for cash for one (1) year, instead of during
a 45 day window period to give class members sufficient opportunity to redeem the certificates
for cash;
4) Not require a 15 day waiting period forcing class members to visit the secondipity.com
website before redeeming their credit certificate for cash;
5) Deny Class Counsels' application for attorneys fees in the amount of 50 million dollars in its ·
entirety, and instead require Class Counsel to submit claims data showing the number of claims
~
-: -. .
:
made and basing their attorney's fee on the percentage of claimants who receive the benefit
calculated at the value of $62.50 per claim, and not $365 in an amount not to exceed 25% of the
value of such claims made with an evidentiary hearing;
6) If this Court refuses to alter the criteria necessary to file a claim under Section I above, then
entry of an order limiting the release of claims of the class members to include only those
persons who have filed a claim; and
7) Any other relief this Court deems necessary within the premises.
19
104 East Eufaula
Norman, OK 73069
(405) 360-2660
Fax: (405) 360-6702
Steve A. Miller (8758 CO)
Steve A. Miller, PC
1625 Larimer Street, No. 2905
Denver; CO 80202
Ph# 303-892-9933
· Fax: 303-892-8925
Email: sampcO [email protected]
Jonathan E. Fortman (40319MO)
Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC _·
10 Strecker Rd., Suite 1150
Ellisville, MO 63011
Ph# (314) 522-2312
Fax: (314) 524-1519
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Objectors
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 8th day of March, 2013 this document and its exhibits were filed with the Clerk of Court
and were deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid addressed to Mr. Wayne A Reaud
and David C. Lawrence:
Clerk of the Co laintiff, Certified
!District Court of Class
Cleveland
Representatives,
'County, State of
&Inansel
200 S. Peters
c/o Wayne A. Reaud
;Norman, OK
The Reaud Law Firm
!73069
801 Laurel Street
eaumont, Texas
77701
1
cer, Settling
Defendants and Settlin
Defendants' Counsel
c/o David C. Lawrenc
·n, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer & Feld, LLP
300 W. 6th Street,
Suite 1900
-------'----------~-------
104 East Eufaula
Norman, OK 73069
(405) 360-2660
Fax (405) 360-6702
21
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. KRESS
I swear under oath and penalty of perjury that all the information supplied in the objection, the matters
stated in support of the objection and in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and belief as set forth below:
1) My name is John C. Kress, Esq., and I reside at 6706 Michigan Avenue, St. Louis MO 63111, and
my phone number is (314) 631-3883, and I hold a valid driver's license in the State of Missouri,
Pl6626200land I purchased an eMachine product, eMonster 500a in Cleveland, Ohio during the Fall
of 2000 from Wal-Mart or SAM's Club Warehouse.
2) I am a class member in Stroud v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. CJ -2003-968-L
3) I did keep my receipt during the past thirteen(13) years, but at one point discarded it along with the
eMachine in question, as the system did not appear to work properly and was replaced with another
computer system.
·
4) My detailed statement of the objections is attached hereto and filed with this Coµrt and'incorporated
.
herein along with the explanation of the basis for such objection and legal authorities relied upon.
5) Mr. Doug Smith intend to appear at the fairness hearing and present my objectioh~.t~ th~.~~~
requiring approximately 20 minutes.
·
··.· · ·· ' · ·· ·
6) I do not intend at this time to call any witnesses at the fairness hearing, but reserv,e the righ( fo do so
based upon Class Counsels' response to my objections;
'·· · · ·
·
.
.
. '
7) The exhibits I intend to have offered at the fairness hearing are attached to the obJ~.tio~s that are
incorporated herein, and reserve the right to add additional exhibits based upon ClaS's Co~~el~'
response to my objections.
AFFIANT FURTIIER SAYETH NOUGH
SAMUEL W. FORDER
NsotaryT Public - Not~ Seal
I
TA5'TE oi: MISSOURI
. t: Lows Coun!Y
My Colllllliss19n ~xpires: Jone 21 2016
. Comm1ss1on # 2
'
=
,,,,
'
r,
Maureen Connors, of 7827 Ames Road, Parma Ohio 44129, phone number 216-323···
6659. email at [email protected] and driver's license number
i~~ue<l in Ohin RS842797 state:
under penalty of perjury and affirmed under oath:
1) all of the information supplied in the objection. the matters stated in
support of the objection and in this affidavit itself are true and correct,
and
2) that I have personal knowledge of all statements contained rn this
aff iclavi t.
3) I incorporate the attach~d Objections filed on my behalf that provides my
statement of objection and legal authorities relied upon~
4) my counsel intends to appear on my behalf at the fairness hearing for
approximately 20 minutes for my objection to be presented;
5)
T do not anticipate calling any witnesses at this time; and my exhibits
are attached to the Objection that will be offered at the Fairness Hearing,
and other exhibits may be offered after counsel responds to my objection.
6) I am a member of the class Stroud v. eMachines,
In~ .•
Case No. CJ-2003-968-
L.
7) I purchased an eMachines computer from Walmart in Cleveland Ohio sometime
in 2001.
8) I do 11ot have my receipt because I mailed it in for a rebate which 1 never
received. To the best of my recollection, I purchased a T1801. I am basing
this on my memory, pictures of the model and the operating system (Windows
Millennium) it ran.
9) I used the computer and I regularly had problems with it. The CD rom drive
stopped working, the floppy drive would not read disks, and it frequently
froze and needed to be rebootE::d.
10) I had a second compute-r that I used when the emachint? would not work after
rebooting several times or after taking the CD/disk out and putting it back in
over and over again. The computer was replaced after about 18 months of
' ·····..... ·
frust,ated use.
~
.
... ,.
Ma~~C,onnors
..
~~v.\.41. .r~
AFFIRMED TN MY PRESENCE this gtn day of Marc{--~~.,_.;\
\ •
i.
\i.~
,,.-
MA~A~~~ii:'ARY
.--···
,..·,· .
,·,
··.-
--- ,,,.
"'
J MY COMMISSIO!l E:cl'IR~ U{llJ.J1U18
Qi
~7n..~tft~ ~//~z ~
Nolfu.y Public
·'
-·.
·,
~.
l
.,._
Log In I Register I My account
I Subscribe Oigital
Home delivery I eEdltion
StarTribune business
1
News Local Sports Business Politics Opinion Lifestyle Entertainment
=11[611
Economy
Your Money
Top Workplaces
Ads by Google
Home
Biogs+ Columns
Obituaries Classifieds Autos Housing
Dayton budget plan
Business Finder
Business
Thousands file claims in monitor settlement
Official Settlement Site
Article by: JOHN EWOLDT, Star Tribune
Deepwater Horizon Settlements.
Official Court-Authorized website.
Those who bought LCD TVs, monitors or laptops might get their cash as soon as May.
www.deepwaterhorizonsettlements.com
ADVERTISEMENT
in case you missed it
Ill
Yahoo CEO will regret
telecommuting policy
.
Snow makes a colossal
mess in Twin Cities
schools and streets
Hartman: Will Saunders be next Wolves
GM?
Wild GM ponders numerous trade deadline
options
C.J.: Immature Prince treats borrowed
1of3
Updated: January 18, 2013- 9:43 PM
fan gear»
1
comments
O resize text O
print
buy reprints
.
•
more from business
Given an easy way to get $25 to $100 or more, Minnesotans
responded in greater numbers than any other state except California.
Hockey Is back!
Get your MN
Wild gear.
Shop Now»
Consumers had until Dec. 6 to file a class-action claim against nine
LCD screen manufacturers such as Hitachi, LG, Sharp, Samsung and
Toshiba, who were found guilty of price fixing.
my job
Nearly 30,000 Minnesota consumers and small businesses filed
claims on 471,578 panels. Minnesota is one of 24 states participating
in the suit. Nationwide, more than 235,000 consumers and
businesses made claims made on 10.5 million panels, even though
several million Americans were potentially eligible to apply.
whistleblowing
The amount of money that each consumer will get per screen is still
being determined, but estimates range from about $65 for monitors
and laptops to $125 for TVs, according to Alison Buckneberg, a
communications specialist at Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis, one of
a dozen law firms that managed the $1.1 billion settlement in a San
Francisco court.
Cash For
Settlement
rocks»
Nominate your
company now »
,~,
steals »
,,
Ads by Google
~
- St.m'lttllme
Save
Now!
Need an Advance on your Structured Settlement or Annuity?
Get it now.
morel»
ADVERTISEMENT
Fed survey: US economy
growing throughout country
Fired employee sues
Deutsche over
Ads by Google
Have A How-To
Question? Ask Our
Members For Help,
Inquire Now!
lnguireHow.com
SenecaOne® Cash Advance
Save 50% off or
SenecaOne com
ADVERTISEMENT
guitar Ilka his own before tossing it
When the class-action was first announced, estimates ranged from
$25 to $250. The suit covers flat-panel TVs, computer monitors and
laptops purchased between January 1g99 and December 2006.
Consumers who filed claims were originally told that refunds would be
mailed in early 2013. It's still possible to meet that deadline if the suit
clears several hurdles, said San Francisco attorney Joseph Alioto,
who co-led the case against the manufacturers.
On Jan. 31, the U.S. District Court will have a hearing to approve the
final part of the settlement. After attorneys' fees from nearly 100 law
firms, Alioto estimates that the amount of the distribution for
consumers and businesses will be $775 million.
Other factors that may delay the checks include verifying claims made
by large businesses that are potentially getting millions of dollars,
rejecting claims sent by claimants living in states not included in the
settlement and handling objections to the settlement.
Alioto said the objections could cause a delay of two to three years,
but he plans to ask the judge to allow claims to be processed despite
the objections.
"Unless ifs a substantial enough issue to delay, I will ask for an
expedited distribution so that checks could be sent as soon as three
months after the judge issues her order on January 31." he said.
The settlement is considered one of the most consumer-friendly
class-action lawsuits in recent years. Since few consumers were
expected to have receipts from purchases made six to 12 years ago,
no proof of purchase was required, Alioto said.
Nor were consumers required to produce a manufacturer or model
number, in case the item had been discarded. Many class-action suits
only provide consumers a discount on a future purchase, but the LCD
suit offered cash with the exact amount to be determined.
2 of3
Stocks edge up following
record day for the Dow
The $1.1 billion settlement is the largest-ever antitrust settlement for a
class-action suit on behalf of people who bought a product from
intermediaries such as retailers, wholesalers and distributors. "It's
twice as big as the next-largest settlement," Alioto said.
John Ewoldt• 612-673-7633
Ads by Google
Official Settlement Site
Deepwater Horizon Settlements. Official Court-Authorized website.
www.deeowaterholizonsettlements.com
O resize text O
comments
print
buy reprints
From Around the Web sponsored links
Ex-rwolves coach Flip Saunders involved in bid to buy
team (SI.com)
Is Jennifer Aniston's Bikini Too Small? (Celebrity Toob)
5 Tips to Reading a Restaurant Menu (and Getting the
Best Deal) (MoneyNing)
How to Get it All AND Cancel Cable (Daily Finance)
Alleged Samsung Galaxy S4 Design Leaks in New
Photos (LAPTOP Magazine)
Search Showdown: iPhone 5 vs Samsung Galaxy S Ill
(Chango)
More from Star Tribune
Romney says loss hit hard, thought he was going to
win - then he saw Florida exit polls (Politics)
American cardinals controlling message ahead of
conclave simply by talking - within limits
(StarTribune.com)
Cast comings and goings at 'Downton Abbey'
announced for the British drama's 4th season
(StarTrlbune.com)
Hax: His hugs with an ex stir wife's anger
(StarTribune.com)
Lileks: You know what else the state should ban on
Sundays? (Local)
Minnesota's Banham named to All-Big Ten First Team
(StarTribune.com)
(?)
Statliibune
News
Local
Sports
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
(612) 673-4000
i Search the Star TribL
Business
Politics
Opinion
Lifestyle
Entertainment
Obituaries
Classlfleds
Autos
Housing
a
Jobs
Company
Subscriber Services
Website
Buy Ads
Store
Connect with Us
About the StarTMbune
Advertising
Directory + Contacts
Jobs at the StarTribune
Newspaper in
Education
Tours
Newspaper Subscriptions
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Ad Choices
Site Index
Online Ads
Newspaper Ads
Article Archives
Contact Us
Send a press release
Digital Access
oEdltion
Vacation Holds/Billing
Newsletters
Classifieds
Back copies
Commercial Reprints
Permissions
0
Become a Fan
'G
FoliowUs
[~
RSS
Vita.mn: Entertainment
Business Listings
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
,::.f'.j,
3 of 3
Newspaper Subscriptions
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks
(==~
eEdition
(]!
RSS
c~-9.
Newsletters
~CBS S62
'uHw
ti& i i
_j_J
Q
FOLLOW US
Home
News
Latest News
Health
Sports
Politics
Local
Best Of
Business
Tech
Events
Autos
Watch+Llsten
Entertainment
Sp1mgBIATING
March14·17 §Si'fOWpLACE
LOCAL
I of 4
Your Home
Weather
Health
Traffic
National
~42°
Search
Buy Tickets
Places
World
More
LOGIN
Deals
Gallerias
Autos
Biogs
REGISTER
Circulars
Michigan Residents Encouraged To
Investigate LCD Claims
November 14, 2012 9:42 PM
View Comments
12
LANSING CNWJ/AP) - Michigan residents and
businesses could receive payments from a pricefixing settlement involving liquid crystal display
screens.
State Attorney General Bill Schuette said a
billion-dollar fund I!!' was created over an illegal
conspiracy by 1O manufacturers to raise prices of
Top Sponsored Articles
Hat panels used in TVs, monitors and laptop
The Ultimate App to Manage Your Digital
Music
computers.
istockphoto
Filed Under
Eligible consumers may collect $25, $100, $200 or more depending
Business, Daily J AM.
Local, News
upon the number of products purchased. Businesses with large
Are Online Shoe Clubs a Shortcut to Shoe
Nirvana?
purchases could recoup thousands of dollars.
New Muscle Building Science Lets Smaller
Guys Bulk Up Fast
Related Tags
Class-action Lawsuit,
computers, laptops, lawsuit,
LCD, LG, Samsung,
setuement, Sharp, Toshiba,
Tvs
Consumers will be asked a few questions about the number of LCD
flat screen TVs, monitors, and laptops they purchased from 1999 to
2006.
Consumers are eligible if
they lived in Michigan or 23 Sponsored Units
Check ANYONE in
Lawrence
other states at the time the
products were purchased.
Consumers do not need to
provide receipts or other
proof of purchase for small
Did you know that your
record is Public? Search
Anyone Instantly!
www.instantcheckmate.com
claims.
Weird Loophole in
Kansas
"When corporations fix
(MAR 2013): If you pay for
car insurance you better
prices,
~
is up to the state
attorneys general to
read this ...
FOLLOW CBS DETROIT
www.ConsumerFinanceDaily.com
r-·------··----·--1
protect consumers and
"",'Testosterone Trick
enforce state antitrust
This weird ingredient has
helped Kansas man boost
testosterone, energy, and
laws; SChuette said in a
statement. "This settlement
sends a clear message
that consumer's rights
stamina.
www.forcefactor.com
must be protected, and I
Buy a fink here
encourage eligible
Michigan citizens to file a claim."
Manufacturers who settled in the case include Samsung, Sharp, LG
Electronics and Toshiba.
Dec. 6 is the deadline to file claims.
Claims may be flied by going to www.lcdclass.com or by calling
855-225-1886.
2of 4
More Videos
l
[ii1ow OCBSdetro1tl{s.708 followers J
j
Hot And Hot
(Snakkle)
Ex-Teacher Pleads Guilty In Child Porn Case
5 Signs a Caregiver Is Stealing From You
~g;JS ~
(Canng.com)
Danica Patrick on
,
Missing: 13-Year Old Destanle Miller
News Latest News Local Politics Autos Health
all g Photo
1-696 Reopens After Overpass Jumper Killed
Shoots, and Double Standards cw Make!tportsBYL<atri\t Sports
Lions
Tigers
Pistons
Why You Shouldn't Buy A Hybrid( nsumerCar
.ll!llclJ.l!ll!_n LalNJler Faces 'Double Penaltv' Dnig
J
J
Best Othaf'I!? & Culture Shopping & Styre Food &
Why Smoking Is Worse Than You Thouifitvel & Out~oors ~ntertalnme_nt
(LWesc..,,..
Michigan Fugitive Shot, Kiiied By Officers In
,
10 Things Y<
Sales
(R
Neve~uy
3h~p~d
s:3ca~°':~d'! 1 ~~:
All rights reseived.
[whars th••l
Q comments
1
1
Watch Tt:lf!fsten
GaraHe
M chlgan Matters
Other
Weather
Events
Deals
Watch Video
Traffic
Audio On Demand
School Closings
World
Biogs
Galleries
Red Wilmlrs--Mlcflrimm--ftliclhhltanr51:atlr---.....J
RevleWS)
'91\JBS
F•c-ok social plugln
National
D(lBIB DlllNOW~~ Family & Pets
OPINION: Emergency Manager Won't Work In
Se""'lfff¥·?Ys1'~"'JR\M~re
• Life's Full Of Second Chances In 'Safe Haven' By
1
Program Gut:i'i'° f:,,q88'M.troit CBS Local
* •O
• The Reunion Project- Ticket-To Ride (2111)
r--:--:--:--:--:--:--:---:-t-~i.FE~~Eit-~r~B6~!-:Wl'N.Jf-Hew'Sl'llldl~M;Elo:--91':+-fhe.Tlffjl!'Carrie Diaries' Matt Letscher, Only Castmate
Leave:ii TTiessag~.•;
Who Remembers ·sos, Learns From The Kids
Discussion
Detroit Business Listings
~
Privacy Policy
Restaurants Bars & Clubs Shopping Professional Services
I
SEARCH LISTINGS
I
I Ad Choices I Tenns of Use I EEO Reports I Deals I WWJ.TV Public File I WKBD-TV Public File
Powered by WordPress.com VIP
MOST COMMENTED
• Opinions Mixed As State Takeover Looms
In Detroit
986 comments · 2 days ago
·------··----···-------~------·
Comment feed
m
Subscribe via email
Red Wings Won't Make A Huge Splash Al
The Deadline
2 comments · 1 hour ago
Man Arrested After 'Dine And Dash' At Buffalo
Wild Wings, Police Chase
6 comments · 25 minutes ago
Comcast To Firearms Shops: Your Money's No
Good Here
509 comments · 2 hours ago
3 of4
Attorney General's News Release
December 3, 2012
Attorney General Koster reminds Missourians that
December 6 is the deadline to file claims in billion dollar
LCD-screen price-fixing settlement
Jefferson City, Mo. - Attorney General Chris Koster is reminding Missouri consumers and businesses that
the deadline is December 6 for filing claims for a cash refund from a billion dollar settlement fund. The fund
is made up of settlements with 10 manufacturers over an illegal conspiracy to raise the price of LCD flat
panels. LCD screens are used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptop computers.
"Consumers and businesses can get a considerable amount of money as a result of this settlement," Koster
said. "We encourage Missourians to file their claims online before the December 6 deadline."
Eligible consumers could collect $25, $100, $200 or more depending upon the number of televisions,
monitors, and laptop computers purchased. Businesses with large purchases could recoup thousands of
dollars. The claims process is very simple and only consists of a few questions about the number of LCD
flat screen TVs, monitors, and laptops that were purchased from 1999 to 2006.
Consumers and businesses are eligible for payments if they were residents of Missouri or one of the other
settling states or the District of Columbia at the time of purchase. The other 23 states included are: Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Missourians can file online on the Attorney General's website at ago.mo.gov.
1of1
IN YOUR COMMUNITY: JOBS
LOCAL BUSINESSES
AUTOS
Michigan
Set your local edition •
NEWS
! BUSINESS ISPORTS
REAL ESTATE
RENTALS
OBITUARIES
FIND N S~CE AN AD
Sign in I Join
35°
5-day I Satellite
RS.SPORTS
CLASSIFIEDS
~
Search
ENTERTAINMENT
LOCAL
Statewide Automotive News Ann Arbor Jackson & Lansing Mid-Michigan Metro Detroit West Michigan Jobs Blog
Newsletters
Own an LCD TV, computer monitor or lapto1
be eligible to cash in on $1.1 billion settleme:
(http://connect.mlive.com/user/MellssaAnders/lndex.html) By Melissa Anders I [email protected]
(http://connect.mlive.com/user/MellssaAnders/posts.htmij
·
on November 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM, updated November 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM
._..&int.(http:/iblog_mllve-COmibusiness,.,lmpact/printirtml2enti:y:l2012Lt.L.__.__._______ _; ___ _
/own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html)
we're be:rc to hc:l
/ads/click_lx.ads/w
/own_an_lcd_tv_co
/L22/1939273154/!
/ArbMort02_Ml_Bu
/516c6348544539E
LANSING, MI - Michigan
consumers have the chance to
cash in on a $t.1 billion
settlement fund for a classaction lawsuit involving LCD
flat screen 1Vs, computer
monitors and laptops.
Consumers and businesses that
bought certain TFI'-LCD
(thin-film transistor liquid
crystal display) flat panels from
1999 to 2006 can file claims for
cash payments of $25-$200 or
more, based on the number of items purchased.
AP File Photo
Michigan is among 24 states that are included in a class-action lawsuit that alleged
1 of7
Sponsored By:
certain LCD manufacturers illegally conspired to raise prices of the panels.
(http://info.crit~
/informations?infor
Eligible claimants must have purchased the products while living in one of the
participating states or the District of Columbia but may be living anywhere now.
Consumers do not need to provide receipts or other proof of purchase for small claims.
Attorney General Bill Schuette on Tuesday encouraged eligible consumers to file a claim
before the Dec. 6 deadline.
Los Angeles attorney David Amkraut (http://www.lcclmoney.com/) estimates
that claimants will be able to receive $so to $i50 per TV and $25 to $75 per monitor or
computer, noting that individual payouts could triple if there aren't many claims.
"Even businesses claiming many purchases won't need proof as long as the claim isn't
unusually large compared to the number of employees," Amkraut said in a release
(http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/11/prweb10091189.htm).
Ten manufacturers (https://lcdclass.com
/DEFENDANTSANDSE'ITLEMENTAMOUNTS.aspx) settled in the case,
including Samsung, Sharp, LG Electronics and Toshiba.
Visitwww.lcdclass.com(http://www.lcdclass.com) to learn more about the
settlement, see if you qualify and file a claim.
Email Melissa Anders at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]).
Follow her on Twitter: @MelissaDAnders (https://twitter.com
/ #!/MelissaDAnders).
Computers
Find the best new computer for you!
EverythingElectronics.net
Laptop Computer Sale
Black Friday Laptop Sale! Buyers Guide For Laptop Computers.
SavingsPortal.net
Best LCD TV
Our experts have done the research so you don't have to!
www.Bestcovery.com
Find top Computer Desktop
Compare prices at BEST-PRICE.com & save up to 75% on Computer Desktop!
www.Computer-Desktop.BEST-PRICE.com
! Tweet)@
Related Stories
2of7
Email
campaignid=10747
displayid=97 d7e4e
MICHIGAN
(http://www.mlive.com/business
/index.ssf/2012/1 O
/smartphone_review_long_battery.html
Smartphone review: Long battery life,
terrible camera on budget-friendly
Samsung Stellar
(http://www.mlive.com/business
/index.ssf/2012/1 o
/smartphone_review_long_battery.html
""-·::::::.:;:,~=:;:, """'•-
(http://www.mlive.com/artprize
/index.ssf/2012/09
/artprize_mobile_app_for_android_sma
ArtPrize mobile app for Android
smartphone goes live just hours
before vote opens
(http://www.mlive.com/artprize
/index.ssf/2012/09
/artprize_mobile_app_for_android_sma
Add Your Comment
(http://www.mli\
What will t]
(http://wwv
Check your loc<
Mark Torregross
with your neight
(http://www.ml
Sign in with your Mlive.com or Facebook account (https://signup.mlive.com/si!
0/o2Fwww.mlive.com 0/o2Fbusiness 0/o2Findex.ssf 0/o2F20120/o2F11°/o2Fown_an~t4.!fbi@
5 comments so far
I
Most Recent
Sort By: '------~
Pause Live Updates •
(http://wwv
arugone (http://connect.mlive.com/user/arugone/index.html)
(http
://co
nnect
.mliv
e.co
m
/user
/aru
gone
/inde
x.ht
3 of7
The last class action law suit I filed a claim on said I would get
$50-$200 all depending on how many claims they received. Well many
of those people that bought all the under rated garden tractor must
have read the posting like the one's here and not many filed claims. I
got a check for $943.00 on that one. So don't file on this law suit and
maybe I'll get another big check.
Thank you non-filer's
WJ (http:/ /mlive.com/)
3 Months Ago (http://mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11
/own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html/post/2012-11-14
/1352900104-170-42.html)
·~
S1
1\1
(http://jobs.
Most Comm
61 5 Tim Skubic
(http:hMri\.~~~
/politi,§pearan~
/index~x.sst/~
12013/{f.f-skubit
/tim_suwdq;
comments)
ml)
-----·~-,,··-~-·~··---~,------------·----------------
uncleburt (http://connect.mlive.com/ userI uncleburt
/index.html)
393 Detroit Lio1
~~?~~~wi
Ya. It's a farce. Don't anyone file or tell anyone else of this scam. Thank
you.
/index~§f0 itJlo
/2013/6~ments;
liJ (http:/ /mlive.com/)
/detr01t lions
counlie,all ~
(http :lli'AlfiV~~
3 Months Ago (http://mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11
/ own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html/post/2012-11-13
/ 1352859894-259-510.html)
·~
~r::e~11~~~~
/2013/83wn_hall_
/town_°li~n.:.m;
commentS)
191 State Polle
Melissa Anders I [email protected]
(http://connect.mlive.com/user/ MelissaAnders
/index.html)
I don't think the state attorney general would urge citizens
to participate in a scam.
liJ (http:/ /mlive.com/)
3 Months Ago (http://mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11
/own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html/post/2012-11-14
/1352907130-251-590.html)
·~
(http:mnW,~~~
~=:e~'t~~~
12013/{fjputles_•
51
/depuil~f-qf!-
year-of~8W~
comments)
l 4S Student de
{Wij!
/news
gl(~J,
/index
x.ss •
120131 ~ dent_d:
/studefi'elle'ilfJ
commentS)
See more co
(http:,.
Brandon M (http://connect.mlive.com/user/brandon_mcauley
/index.html)
The "Next" button on the File claim page didnt work for me. Also, the
last 4 of your SS seems a BIT much to me tbh.
liJ (http://mlive.com/)
3 Months Ago (http://mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11
/own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html/post/2012-11-13
/ 1352846098-795-185.html)
·~
Lansing Watcher (http://connect.mlive.com/ user /SamMichigan
/index.html)
(http
4of7
Nope. We bought our first LCD device only about 3 years ago, so I guess
[l> (http://info.crite
/informations?infor
campaignid=10747
displayid=2e9ddfb<
://co
nnect
I don't get my $25. Then again, I have friends who paid over $3K a few
years ago for a big screen TV. I just bought a 55 incher for $850.00.
Guess I'm still ahead of the game.
liiJ (http:/ /mlive.com/)
3 Months Ago (http:/ /mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11
/own_an_lcd_tv_computer_monitor.html/post/2012-11-13
/ 1352843158-827-412.html)
·~
Best of MLive.com
(http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf
(http://Www.mlive.com/politics
/2013/03
/index.ssf/2013/03
/michigans_unemployment_rate_remai /michigan_poll_gov_rick_snyder.html#i
Unemployment rate remains
,Poll: Snyder, GOP face uphill path to
,r~-election (http://www.mlive.com
unchanged in January
(http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf
/pcilitics/index.ssf/2013/03
/michigan_poll_gov_rick_snyder.html#i
/2013/03
/michigans_unemployment_rate_remai
MLive Sections
(http://www.mlh
/2013/03
!justin_verlandE
,Verlander tells 1
teammate (http
/tigers/index.ss
/justin_verlandE
More on MLive
News
Jobs
Forums
Post a free
(http://www.mlive.cdjllttp://www.mlive.corry (http://www.mlive.cochissified ad
Ab OU t U s
I
•
/news/)
/jobs/)
/forums/)
(http://www.mlive.co
ML1ve Media ~roup Contact Us .
Business
Autos
Photos
/classifieds/free/)
(http://www.ml1vemE(tibgri114pM11Vm~ve.co1 (http://www.mlive.cdjllttp://autos.mlive.corpJihttp://photos.mlive.Smltlyour car
/contactus/)
/business/)
Real Estate
'.photogallery/)
(http://www.mlive.co
Our Team
(http://www.mliveme4tilfo.;JratJ~
Sports
(http://realestate.mlive.c~
/placeadl)
/abou~team/)
(~ttp://mlivemediagro P(fi~//www.mlive.c°"Joartment Rentals
(http://videos.mlive.c:Setilf!ent your
/Jobs/)
/sports/)
(http://realestate.mlivet.cWeather
home
Advertise
(http://~.mlive.ccMQ
.
High School Sports /for-rent/)
(http://www.mlive.cdjllttp://www.mlive.co
/advertise/)
(http://www.mhve.co (http://highschoolsp@tsssifili!Ss:om/)
/weather/)
/placead/)
/aboutus/index.ssf?
Entertainment
(http://classifieds.mlive.~ job
Apartments and
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 of7
/aboutus/content
/faq.html)
Subscriptions
Newspaper
(http://www.mlivemediagroup.com
/subscribe/} I eReplica
(http://www.mlive.com/ereplica/) I
eNewsletters {http://www.mlive.com
/enewsletters/)
Newsstand Locator
{http://www.mlive.com/locator/) I RSS
(http://www.mlive.com/rssl)
I
I
t
; (http://www.mlive.cc:t:ocal Deals
(http://www.mlive.cc:flentals
/entertainment/)
(http://www.mlive.co!T) /jobs/)
{http://realestate.mliv .
Living
/deals/}
(http://www.mlive.cc:t:ocal Businesses
/living/)
(http://businessfinder. live.com)
Opinion
Business Resource
(http://www.mlive.cc:fienter
/opinion/)
(http://www.mlive.corrl
Obituaries
/business-resource- j
{http://www.mlive.car:enterl)
Follow
/for-rent/)
Site Map
(http://www.mlive.co
/sitemap/)
Us
Twitter (http://twitter.com/mlive) I
/deathnotices/)
Facebook {http://facebook.com
/mlive)
Your Regional News Pages
1
The Grand Rapids Press (http://www.mliv m!2Pa~~~6.com/sub~6<:Pa~and-raeids-okssl) Google+ (https://plus.google.com
.
. (nttp:;1www.nilfve.co,mrg7Avww.m11 e.com . f.u/0/118382608325892108926)
The Muskegon Chronicle (http://www.mhv "}~dlf-%W>'tfr;fom/subfi~c~e&WNskegon-chrrcletJ
The Kalamazoo Gazette {http://www.mliver;a~~up.com/subs'~,B~kafggiazoo-gazette/)
Jackson Citizen Patriot {http://www.mliveiedi~yro~comLsubs...~~~~son-citizen-datriotl)
\n .11
.m 1ve.cqntfp.11www.m11ve.com
AnnArbor.com (http://www.annarbor.com/ e'/6s ~~
/kalamaz /)
I
1r
The Flint Journal (http://www.mlivemediagrouo,~
subscribe/fl t-1ournaW
ns1n
1 ue.ro1
The Saginaw News (http://www.mlivemediagr_oup ..com/subscrib
news/\
1nnp:11www.n111ve.~
w.mffve.coi
1
I
·The Bay
Ci~"~' ~ttp/fflww.mU'"med !:~::::~::E::"j
/flint/)
/muskegon/)
Grand Rapids
Saginaw
(http://www.mlive.cc(http://www.mlive.co
/grand-rapids/}
/saginaw/)
Mobile
Mobile View (http://mobile.mlive.com/) I
Mobile Apps (http://www:mlive.com ·
/mobile-device/) I Tablet Apps
{http://www.mlive.com/mobile-device/)
6 of7
I
(http://www.advancedigital.com/)
AD\'.'.:r\NCE
D l G r T AL
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (http://www.mlive.com
/useragreementl) and Privacy Policy (http://www.mlive.com/privacypolicyl) (Revised November 1, 2011)
© 2013 Michigan Live LLC. All rights reserved (About Us (http://www.mlive.com/aboutusl)).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with
the prior written permission of Michigan Live LLC.
Community Rules (http://www.mlive.com/forums/index.ssf?rules.html) apply to all content you upload or
otherwise submit to this site. Contact interactivity management. (http://www.mlive.com/forums
/index.ssf?rules.html)
[;::>Ad Choices (http://www.advance.net/advancedigitalUserAgreementPP/#opt_out)
7 of7
Joii'flliit
Advanced Search
45°
I Privacy I About Our Ads
sponsored by
News
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
j
I
IRapid City men part of $1.1 billion
class action lawsuit
0
23
f
Print
l!
Email]
'-----~'--
Deals, Offers and Events
Olson Towing, Inc. provides fast and reliable towing services
We offer in home consultations!
Darlene is a certified kitchen designer, and
can create a kite...
Rapid City! Before You Buy, Save $50 On Your
Home Inspection w/ Inspection Services LLC!
Inspection Services LLC offers the most comprehensive
home ins ...
~('
Sati!Haven
Safe Haven Pet Resort Is Your
Doggie Daycare Of Choice
I@ ?ET RESORT.
We ate your •doggie daycare• of choice
because we are your ·ho ...
Eric Pickar, left, and his client, Chris Bessette, stt in the conference room Friday at Bangs,
1
McCuHen Law Firm in Rapid City. Ten LCD flat-screen manufacturers, including Epson, Hitachi,
~.~~~~~
LG. Sharp, Samsung and Toshiba have agreed to pay $1.1 binion in Iha largest antitrust
consumer class action in history. Pickar is the local counsel on Iha case, and Bessette is a class action
L
J
-
representative.
November 17, 2012 6:30 am • Andrea J. Cook Journal staff
Two Rapid City friends played a key role in a record-setting
$1 .1 billion settlement obtained recently from a successful
lawsuit they helped file against 1O LCD flat-screen TV
manufacturers over price-fixing allegations.
We provide personal training for $ 50 per session, unless you
(3) Comments
Qualifying consumers
to share $1.1 billion
: settlement
Consumers and businesses in 24
states and the District of Columbia
l of 4
The massive class-action settlement that was years in the
making provides an opportunity for cash settlements for
people who bought certain flat-screen TVs or computer
monitors over the past few years.
Rapid City attorney Eric Pickar and his client, Chris
Bessette, do not expect huge personal gain from the
settlement reached with electronics manufacturers AU
Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa, Epson, Hannstar, Hitachi,
LG, Sharp, Samsung and Toshiba.
But they do expect that their efforts and diligence will help
thousands of people qualify for a piece of the nation's
largest anti-trust consumer class action in history.
"That money is spread out all over the nation," Pickar said
Friday.
on4oy
including TVs, computer monitors
and laptops, between 1999 and
2006 are eligible for a share of a
i $1.1 biHion class action settlement
with AU Optronics, Chimei,
Chunghwa; Epson; Hannstar,
Hitachi, LG, Sharp, Samsung and
Toshiba
April~?
Residents in ihe following states are
eligible to share in the settlement:
r Arizona; Mansas, California;
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa; Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi,· Mis$ouri,
Nevada;New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina;. North Dakota;
Rhode Island, South Dakota;
Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia
and V(ISCOIT!;iin.
The settlement applies to LCD flat-screens used in
computer monitors, televisions and laptop computers
between 1999 and 2006.
Pickar, an attorney for Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foy and
..,1,,.... l,.._
who bougnt a flat-screen product,
1.so...
~·«
~......
<-
••
M
·~-
View more CoolAds >
These ads may contain time-sensitive infoonation and offers.
Please checi< willl OU'~ to coofirm availability.
The deadll"" for filing a claim is
Dec. 6. To file a Claim, go to
www.LCDclass.com. Filing a claim
does not require proof of purchase
or receipts.
Most Read
Articles
Comments
Facebook
Simmons, filed the lawsuit in federal court in South Dakota
on Bessette's behalf in February 2007. Bessette agreed to
• Missing boy; 3, was protected by his dog
act as the representative for all affected individuals in South Dakota, Pickar said.
• Police identify victims in motel suicide
Lawyers and clients in 23 other st~tes and the District of Columbia filed similar lawsuits. Those
case were ultimately consolidated into one case heard by U.S. District Judge Susan llston of San
Francisco.
The manufacturers in Taiwan, Korea an~ Japan conspired to inflate the prices of LCD monitors,
Pickar said. The Asian manufactures held "crystal meetings" to agree on prices that were passed
• Being homeless in Rapid City: When carpet is
your comforter, and a train whistle is your
alarm
• Suicide pact could be reason two bodies were
found at Gold Star Motel
• Lakota spiritual and cultural leader pleads
guilty to drug charge
on to retailers, he said.
"They would get together and have these meetings where they would conspire to artificially raise
Classifieds
the price of the LCD components," Pickar said. "Sometimes, they would conspire to set the price
at $65 more than it would normally go."
Jobs
Cars
Bessette, 28, bought a flat-screen product from a retailer between the years covered in the lawsuit,
which qualified him to represent South Dakota consumers, Pickar said. Bessette was willing to
Poll
commit the time necessary to the lawsuit, he said.
Over the past five years, Bessette was interviewed by attorneys and made a trip to California to
prepare for the trial. A settlement was reached this summer before the cases went to court.
During one deposition, Bessette was asked how he felt about suing people he didn't even know.
Bessette responded, "They didn't worry about my feelings when they set the prices for my
products."
Bessette has no idea what, if any, direct financial gain he will get from the settlement. But just
being involved in the case was an incredible experience, he said.
And it's gratifying to know that he was part of something big, said Bessette, who works in
telecommunications.
Do you support creation of a state athletic
commission that would for the first time
regulate boxing, kickboxing and mixed-martial
arts?
0 Yes, I'm with lawmakers who say the state
should regulate the events so they are fair and safe
0 No, I'm with Gov. Dennis Daugaard who
believes creating a commission would legitimize
these "sports" and likely increase the number of
events
j
View Results
Recent Blog Posts
"Once I got more into the case and reading the files .•. it was incredible the level that it went to the
heads of companies and the amount of money that was being made and lost," Bessette said. "It
was hand to believe."
The Department of Justice criminally prosecuted many of the leaders of the companies involved in
2of 4
BLOGMORE: Is it a JohnsonHerseth war or a figment of
Republican imagination?
j
5 hours ago
the price fixing, Pickar said. Those convicted have served or are serving prison sentences in United
(0)
States prisons. "There were a lot of guilty pleas," he said
Moving on
"The best thing that can happen as a result of this case is that something like this will not happen
6 hours ago
again," Bessette said.
Anyone who made a retail purchase of an LCD item between 1996 and 2006 can file a claim to
share in the settlement. Consumers have until Dec. 6 to file a claim at www.LCDclass.com.
(1)
HALLWAYS: Pastor reads scripture
to council before praying sectarian
prayer
The court will decide how the settlement will be distributed, which is why it is important for
individuals and businesses who bought the products or components from the companies to make
a claim.
Proofs of purchase or receipts are not needed. Consumers will receive a check, not a credit slip,
Pickar said. Typically, affected consumers will be eligible for up to $200, he said.
Response to Open Forum March 4
"It's hard times right now; every little thing can help," Bessette said.
March 05. 201312:19 pm
Contact Andrea Cook at 394-8423 or [email protected]
(0)
SONIC HEDGHOG
March 05, 2013 8:00 am
View (3) Comments
More News Stories
Business Search Directory
Slash pile bum
turns into
!07-acre fire
Daugaard signs
veterans bills in
Capitol rotunda
600 8th grade
girls attending
science
conference
Plan guides
protection of
tribal sacred sites
Find:
Home contractors, pizza, beauty salons
Near:
City & State, or Zip Code
Sponsored Links
Recommendations
Feds charge 10 for drug trafficking on reservation
(rap;dcityjournal.com - Rapid City, South Dakota)
!Search)
Discount Hip Reolacement
Buy cheap Hip Replacement & save at
Browse the full business directory
BEST-PRICE.com: the shop expert!
Yellow Hair, William
(<apidcilyjournal.com - Rapid City, South
WWW.Hip-Replacement. BEST-PRICE.com
Dakota}
Police trying to confirm identity of pedestrian
injured in wreck (rapidcityjournaJ.com - Rapid City, South
HiD Pain Symptoms
Learn Mam Causes of Hip Joint Pain
Options & Treatments
+ Surgery
www.performanceosm.com
Dakota)
Man Featured On 'Storage Wars' Dies Of Suicide
(National Memo)
Public Arrest Records
1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access Full Backgroun<
Checks Instantly.
InstantCheckmate.com
Copyright 2013 Rapid City Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
Services & Other Sites
Rapid City Businesses
3 of 4
Rapid City Jobs
Mobile
Contact Us
Subscriber Services
(0)
4 of 4
Advertising Information
Events Calendar
Black Hills 2 Go
Sturgis Rally Daily
Butte County Post
Meade County nmes
Chadron Record
Hot Springs Star
NIE
Parade
Commercial Printing
Dealer Services
1111111111m11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
• a
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
•
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
01
Page 1of2
LCD FLAT PANEL CONSUMER CLAIM FORM
Complete this Claim Form to receive a payment from Settlements totaling almost $1.1 Billion. It is expected
that a minimum payment of $25.00 will be distributed to eligible Class Members that submit a valid Claim Form. Your
claim must be submitted online or postmarked by December 6, 2012.
Consumers (individual or business) in 24 states and the District of Columbia that indirectly purchased an LCD Flat
Panel which has been incorporated into a TV, monitor or notebook computer can get a payment from the Settlements.
"Indirectly" means that you purchased the LCD Flat Panel from someone other than the manufacturer of the flat
panel. You must answer the three Eligibility Questions below, by checking the box, to see if you are eligible.
PART 1: ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS
Did you reside in one of the following states or the District of Columbia between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006: Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin?
Yes
No
Did you buy a television, monitor and/or notebook computer containing an LCD Flat Panel within one of these states or the
District of Columbia, for your own use and not for resale, while residing in that state or the District of Columbia between January
1, 1999 and December 31, 2006?
Yes
No
Did you buy a television, monitor and/or notebook computer containing an LCD Flat Panel from a company other than the
following LCD Flat Panel manufacturers: AU Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa, Epson, HannStar, Hitachi, LG, Samsung, Sharp or
Toshiba? For example, if you purchased one of these products from a retailer like Best Buy or a computer manufacturer like
Dell, your answer should be "Yes." The brand of product does not change your answer. So, if you bought a Samsung-branded
television or a Toshiba-branded notebook computer from Best Buy your answer is still "Yes." However, for example, if your only
purchase was a television or notebook computer bought directly from Samsung or Toshiba, your answer would be "No."
No
You are eligible for payment only if you answered "Yes" to all three Eligibility Questions above. To get a
payment you must submit your Claim Form online at www.LCDclass.com or complete Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Claim
Form and mail it to: LCD Claims, P.O. Box 8025, Faribault, MN 55021-9425. You cannot file a claim if you answered "No"
to any of the Eligibility Questions.
If you have questions about your eligibility to participate or on how the Settlement Fund will be distributed, you should
review the Class Notice and other documents at the website. You can also call 1-855-225-1886 if you have any questions.
PART 2: PURCHASE INFORMATION
Enterthe total numberof the following products you purchased from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006 which
contain an LCD Flat Panel. Only include qualifying products for which you answered "Yes" to the three Eligibility Questions:
Total Number ofTelevisions
Total Number of Monitors
Total Number of Notebooks
All claims are subject to audit and large claims will require verification.
111111111111111111111111111111
-
8
2
g
2
-
11111111111111111111
-
C
F
-
•
PART 3: CLASS MEMBER INFORMATION
Type or print neatly in blue or black ink.
First Name
Last Name
Entity Name
Person to contact if there are uestions re ardin this claim:
Specify one of the following:
D Individual D Business (1-10 Employees) D Business (11-50 Employees) D Business (Greaterthan 50 Employees)
Number and Street or P.O. Box
Cit
State
Telephone Number (Day)
Email Address
Individuals:
Businesses:
Zip Code
IX IX IX I-~ -t" LJ ··I· l I
Provide your Federal Taxpayer Identification Number: rn-1 I I I I ' 1. ··+ ' I
Provide the last 4 digits of your Social Security Number:
PART 4: SIGN AND DATE CLAIM FORM
I (we) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the information provided in this Claim
Form is true and correct.
--1--1-Signature
Date
Print Name
Title (if you are filling out this form for a business)
Claims may be audited and any false or fraudulent claim is subject to prosecution.
REMINDER:
Please make sure that you:
1. Complete all four parts of this Claim Form;
2. Sign the Claim Form;
3. Submit your Claim Form online or by mail postmarked no later than December 6 1 2012 to:
LCD Claims
www.LCDClass.com
OR
P.O. Box 8025
Faribault, MN 55021-9425
4. Keep a copy of the completed Claim Form for your records;
5. Retain your proof of purchase documentation until your claim is closed. You will be notified if
you are required to provide this documentation during the claim verification process.
Page 2 of 2
Sign in I
seco~ipity
New Customer? I
Your Account I Help I
ISearch
Better value, Better Life
,----------·
L
Portable Electronics
!
Products • Computers •
My Cart
Televisions
Computers
iPads & Tablets
Video Gaming
Other
~esktops - - - - - - - - ·
Brand
Acer(4)
Dell(3)
eMachine (3)
eMachines (1)
Gateway(S)
HP(4)
Category
Clearance (2)
Computers (23)
Price
$200.00 - $499.99 (19)
$500.00 - $999.99 (4)
ITop Selling
Showing 1-12 of 23 Results
View:
@:::::J Per Page
1
-
1of3
2
..
Gateway AMO A6-5400K
3.6GHz Windows 8
Gateway Intel i5-3330
3GHz SGB 1TB Windows
Acer AMO E-450 1.65GHz
Desktop PC I RL70-UR11P
MSRP: $448.00
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
MSRP: $599.99
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
MSRP: $499.00
Condition: New
$329.99
$424.99
$329.99
add to cart
!(
'!ff'
I
Checkout
M¥@1
FREE SHIPPING on all qualifying orders over $35
SHOP BY:
Sort By:
!
add to cart
!(
add to cart
!(
Next>
Clearance
W>t
Gateway,
Gateway 23" Intel
Pentium G645 2.9GHz
Acer Intel Pentium E6600
3.06GHz Desktop PC J...
Acer 23" Intel 15-3210M
2.5GHz Windows 8 All-In-
MSRP: $749.99
Condition: Light Use
MSRP: $449.99
Refurbished
MSRP: $999.99
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
$489.99
$249.99
$669.99
add to cart
Condition: Manufacturer
!(
add to cart
!(
add to cart
!(
...L
Gateway 20" AMO E-350
1.6GHzAll-in-One PC J...
Gateway Intel 13-2130
3.4GHz 6GB 1TB
Gateway AMO E-1200
1.4GHz Windows 8
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
MSRP: $499.99
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
MSRP: $399.99
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
$299.99
$369.99
$234.99
add to cart
!(
add to cart
!(
adt:I to cart
..L
!(
•
eMachlnes AMO Athlon II
X2 220 2.8GHz Desktop
eMachlne AMO E-300
1.30GHz Desktop I
Dell Intel Pentium G630
2.7GHz Desktop PC J...
MSRP: $398.99
Condition: Refurbished
MSRP: $399.99
Condition: Manufacturer
Refurbished
MSRP: $599.99
Condition: Refurbished
$324.99
$239.99
add to cart
!(
$229.99
add to cart
!(
$312.99
add
to cart
!(
,1
[ __
J
2
Next>
Feedback Fonn
2 of 3
..
Secondipity Gives
Help
Contact Us
Secondipity Blog
FAQ
Privacy Policy
About Secondipity
Shipping
Terms & Conditions
News &Media
Guarantee
Careers
Copyright liquidity Services, Inc. 2013. All rights reserved
3 of3
your email address