UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Transcription

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 153 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:2381
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION
LOAN LITIGATION
This Document Relates to:
All Cases
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL No: 2334
No: 1:12-cv-02949-JBG
Honorable Joan B. Gottschall
JOINT DECLARATION OF HANK BATES AND KENNETH GRUNFELD IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ (I) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT, AND (II) MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND PAYMENT OF SERVICE AWARDS
Hank Bates and Kenneth Grunfeld, under penalty of perjury, submit this Joint
Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Plaintiffs’ Service
Awards, and declare as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION.
1.
Hank Bates is a partner at Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, and Kenneth Grunfeld
is a partner at Golomb & Honik, PC (collectively, “Class Counsel”).
2.
We are counsel to plaintiffs Timothy Rowden, Zaneta Houston, Daphne Shorter,
Charles Madubuike, George Washington Jr., Margaret Washington, Pamela Patterson, Keonna
Brown, Heather Reyes, Ronald Topping, Kevin Goodwin, Douglas Glover, Shamira Jones,
William Reynolds and Terrance Patterson (“Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiff Class Representatives”) and
the Class in the above-captioned case (the “Action”).
3.
We submit this Joint Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement
of Expenses, and Service Awards, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below
based on our active participation in all aspects of the prosecution and settlement of this litigation.
4.
The proposed Settlement will establish a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of
$5,300,000. This Settlement Fund will be used to pay (i) Settlement Class Members’ benefits,
(ii) service awards to the Plaintiffs, (iii) attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses of Class Counsel; and
(iv) costs of settlement administration. See Settlement Agmt. (ECF 136) at ¶ 48(d).
5.
Class Counsel seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1.75 million, which is
approximately 33% of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of $38,633.07 in litigation expenses,
an estimated $600,000.00 of administrative costs (paid directly to the Settlement Administrator),
and Service Awards of $2,500 to each Named Plaintiff.
6.
As further detailed herein and the accompanying memoranda, from the outset of
the investigation and filing of the Action through the negotiation and drafting of the Settlement
now before the Court, Class Counsel have vigorously represented the interests of the Class to
obtain the best possible resolution. As a result of Class Counsel’s efforts, Plaintiffs were able to
obtain a Settlement that provides significant benefit to the Class and globally resolves this
consolidated Action. Accordingly, it is Class Counsel’s informed belief that the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class.
II.
SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION.
7.
In November 2011, Plaintiffs filed the first of a number of purported class action
complaints (the “Related Actions”) 1 against Liberty Tax alleging, inter alia, violations of state
refund anticipation loan laws and state consumer protection laws. The Related Actions alleged,
among other things, that Liberty Tax employed deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful business
1
The Related Actions include class action cases filed against Liberty Tax in nine states: Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
2
practices in the marketing, enrollment, and administration of Refund Anticipation Loans, shortterm loans or extensions of credit that are secured and repaid directly from the consumer’s IRS
tax refunds.
8.
On April 16, 2012, the Related Actions were consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to Judge Joan B. Gottschall in the Northern District of
Illinois as MDL No. 2334 In Re: Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (“the Litigation”).
(See ECF Nos. 1 and 2). A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on June 22, 2012. (ECF
No. 20).
9.
Following the filing of Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint, on June 25,
2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
and Formation of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee.
In accord therewith, Carney Bates &
Pulliam, PLLC and Golomb & Honik were appointed as Class Counsel, and Cafferty Faucher,
LLP was appointed Liaison Counsel. (ECF No. 21).
10.
In July 2012, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. (See
ECF Nos. 25-27). In response, Plaintiffs sought leave to conduct limited, arbitration-related
discovery (ECF Nos. 29-31), which the Court granted in part on October 4, 2012 (ECF No. 42).
As such, during the next several months, Plaintiffs and Defendant engaged in arbitration-related
discovery.
11.
On February 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 54), which was supplemented on
February 28, 2013 (ECF No. 63). Defendant filed its reply brief on March 15, 2013. (ECF No.
75).
3
12.
On February 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and
Stay of Briefing. (See ECF Nos. 104-105). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion without
prejudice, with the understanding that Plaintiffs’ request for class certification remains pending
as a placeholder, and no rights are waived. (ECF No. 106).
13.
On July 23, 2012, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. (ECF No. 118). Defendant filed a Notice
of Appeal on August 21, 2014, appealing the Court’s ruling. (ECF No. 121).
14.
On March 18, 2015, following arms’ length negotiations, including mandatory
mediation required by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before a
Conference Attorney for the Seventh Circuit’s Settlement Conference Office, the Parties reached
an agreement in principle to resolve the Litigation, which was memorialized in a Memorandum
of Understanding. Thereafter, the parties, with the assistance of the Settlement Conference
Office, worked together to use the terms and conditions contained in the Memorandum of
Understanding to develop the Settlement Agreement, including its exhibits. (See ECF No. 136.)
15.
On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Indicative Ruling to Effect Terms of
Class Action Settlement (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Indicative Ruling”), wherein Plaintiffs
requested an indicative ruling that the Court would accept limited remand from the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals to effect the terms of the Settlement, and, in turn, grant preliminary
approval of the Settlement, direct that notice be disseminated to members of the Class, and
schedule and conduct a Fairness Heating. (ECF No. 128.) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Indicative
Ruling was presented to the Court at a hearing on July 8, 2015. At the hearing, the Court raised
concerns that the objection provisions, as then written, might have a potential chilling effect on
objectors exercising their rights. Notwithstanding, on July 17, 2015, this Court entered an order
4
granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Indicative Ruling and stating “the Court is of the opinion and so
finds, that if the case is remanded to this Court by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, it will
grant the relief requested.” (ECF No. 128 at 1.)
16.
Following this Court’s July 17th Order, the parties filed a Motion for Remand with
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Seventh Circuit granted on July 29, 2015.
17.
Following remand, Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 134), which the Court granted on September 9,
2015 (ECF No. 139).
II.
THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS AND TERMS.
18.
Throughout the settlement discussions in this Action, the parties engaged in arms’
length negotiations. These negotiations were conducted by experienced counsel on both sides
who had a firm understanding of the Class’s claims and the Defendant’s defenses and who
vigorously and zealously advocated their respective clients’ position.
Accordingly, the
Settlement represents a non-collusive resolution to this litigation, reached by informed counsel
after arms’ length negotiations.
19.
Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant shall establish a non-reversionary, cash
settlement fund of $5.3 million (the “Settlement Fund”) for the benefit of eligible Settlement
Class Members.
20.
The Settlement defines the Settlement Class as follows:
All Liberty Tax customers in nine states – California, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Illinois, Arkansas,
Florida and New York – who used Liberty Tax for tax preparation
services and received a Refund Anticipation Loan or other loan
product, Electronic Refund Check, Electronic Refund Deposit or a
similar financial product provided by Republic Bank which were
facilitated by Liberty Tax from 2009 through 2012.
5
21.
In exchange for the consideration from the Defendant, the Action will be
dismissed with prejudice upon final approval of the Settlement, and the Settlement Class
Members will thereby release all claims which have been or could have been asserted against the
Defendant by any member of the Settlement Class in this Action, as set forth in the Stipulation.
III.
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND NOTICE.
22.
In its order preliminarily approving the Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval
Order”), the Court, among other things, conditionally certified the Class for settlement purposes,
and directed that notice be disseminated to the Class.
23.
In accord therewith, the Claims Administrator executed the class notice program
proposed to and approved by the Court. See Declaration of Settlement Administrator at ¶¶ 7-11.
24.
Specifically, the notice program in this case was accomplished through: (a)
individual postcard and email notices; (b) publication notice in USA Today; (c) posted notice on
the Settlement website www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com (collectively referred to as the “Class
Notices”). See Settlement Admin. Decl. at ¶¶ 4-11, 14. In addition, the settlement administrator
established a call center with a toll-free number and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system.
Id. at ¶ 15.
25.
The Class Notices advised Class Members of the essential terms of the
Settlement; the rights of Class Members to share in the recovery, to request exclusion from the
Class, or to object to the Settlement; the date, time and place of the final approval hearing; and
Class Counsel’s intention to file an application for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of
litigation costs, and service awards, as well as the proposed plan for allocating the Settlement
proceeds among Class Members. Thus, the Class Notices provided the necessary information for
Class Members to make an informed decision regarding the proposed Settlement.
6
IV.
THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL
26.
Class Counsel firmly believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
under applicable law. This assessment is based on Class Counsel’s extensive investigation and
research into the applicable facts and law, negotiations with counsel for Defendant, an analysis
of the benefits of settlement versus the risks of continued litigation, and Class Counsel’s past
experience in similar cases.
27.
While Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have a firm belief in the merits of
their claims, they also recognize the substantial risks in continued litigation. Specifically,
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have taken into account the expense and length of continued
proceedings necessary to prosecute Plaintiffs’ claims through trial and appeal, as well as the
uncertainties, risks, and difficulties associated with further litigation, including getting and
maintaining certification of this Action as a class action. Considering all relevant factors, it is
Class Counsel’s informed belief that the terms set forth in the Settlement now before the Court
confer substantial benefits on the Class, and should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
28.
Moreover, the favorable reaction of the Class further validates the reasonableness
of the Settlement. To date, not a single Class Member has filed an objection to any aspect of the
Settlement. Thus, the Settlement enjoys the overwhelming support of the Class.
V.
CLASS COUNSEL BELIEVE THE REQUESTED FEES AND EXPENSES
MERIT APPROVAL
29.
Class Counsel seeks attorneys’ fees of just over 33% of the Settlement Fund,
amounting to $1.75 million, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses of
$38,633.07. Based on a review of applicable factors, Class Counsel believes the requested fees
and expenses are reasonable and merit approval.
7
30.
Class Counsel are nationally recognized law firms that specialize in complex
litigation, with specific experience in class actions and consumer cases. They are highly
qualified, with each firm having a proven track record of successful prosecution of
significant class actions. The respective firm resumes are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2.
Indeed, both lead counsels’ and other Plaintiffs’ counsel firms’ rates were recently approved in
another class action case settled in the Northern District of Illinois. See In re: Discover Payment
Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, Case No.1:10-cv-06994 (Darrah, J.)
(Final Order and Judgment (5/10/2012).
31.
Class Counsel accepted this case on a contingency fee basis, and thus assumed
significant risk in prosecuting this matter. Further, given the requirements of this action, along
with the financial risk, Class Counsel was compelled to forego opportunities for other cases
and/or paid hourly work during the pendency of this action.
32.
Importantly, the requested fee award is consistent with the standard contingent fee
percentage in this legal market for comparable litigation. See Teamsters Local Union No. 604 v.
Inter-rail Transp., Inc., No. 02-1109, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6363, at *3-4 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 19,
2004) (“In this Circuit, a fee award of thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3%) in a class action is not
uncommon.”).
33.
Equally important, the Settlement Fund is non-reversionary, and thus will not be
diminished in any way based on the participation rate of Class Members.
34.
Class Counsel has incurred $1,657,297.05 in total lodestar, and have thus far
received no compensation in this matter. Class Counsel have devoted 3,716.30 hours to the
litigation consisting of, among other things, time spent investigating potential claims, analyzing
legal issues, drafting the complaints, conducting discovery, opposing Defendant’s attempt to
8
compel arbitration, seeking certification as a class action, engaging in settlement negotiations,
analyzing data, creating the settlement documents, settlement-related briefing, and speaking with
Plaintiffs and members of the Class. See Chart, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. These hours were
actually and necessarily incurred by Class Counsel and are entirely reasonable given the nature
of the work performed to prosecute the action and the substantial benefits achieved for the Class.
This amount includes an additional thirty (30) more hours from October through the conclusion
of this case, which includes filing Replies, responding to potential objectors, and presenting Final
Approval to the Court.
35.
The hourly rates billed by Class Counsel range between $425.00 and $650.00 per
hour for partners and $215.00 and $325.00 for associates. These rates are consistent with the
skill and experience of the attorneys in this case and the amounts charged by attorneys engaged
in comparable complex litigation. See, e.g., Kim v. Space Pencil, Inc., No. 11-3796, 2012 WL
5948951 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012) (in class action, finding reasonable rate of $375 for
associate with one year of experience and $797 for partner with 30 years of experience); Loretz
v. Regal Stone, Ltd., 756 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1211 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (in class action, $775-$900 for
partners, $350 for associate, and $225 for paralegal was reasonable); Zoom Elec., Inc. v. Intl.
Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 595, No. 11-1699, 2013 WL 2297037 at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 24,
2013) ($675 for partners, $300-$400 for associates, and $180-225 for paralegals is reasonable).
36.
Moreover, Class Counsel faced defense counsel that was likewise sophisticated
and experienced litigators. Further, it was only after the substantive terms of the Settlement had
been negotiated that the Liberty Tax agreed not to contest any award of attorneys’ fees and
expenses up to 33.3% (a full one-third) of the Settlement Fund.
9
37.
Lastly, the requested fee award represents a multiplier of 1.0559, which is
essentially no multiplier at all Consequently, Class Counsel submit that the time and labor
expended by counsel and the attendant lodestar/multiplier cross-check fully support the
requested attorneys’ fee as fair and reasonable.
38.
In sum, and as more fully set forth in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support
of Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fee Award, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Payment of
Service Awards to Plaintiffs, Class Counsel believe that the fee request is very reasonable given
the benefit obtained for the Class, the risks and complexity of the litigation, the time and effort
expended by Class Counsel, and the lack of any objections.
39.
Similarly, Class Counsel believe that the request for un-reimbursed out-of-pocket
litigation expenses should be approved.
$38,633.07.
The combined litigation expenses of Counsel are
The expenses incurred are reflected on the books and records maintained by
Counsel and are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, credit card statements, and
other source materials, and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. These out-of-pocket
costs are reasonable in amount and were necessarily incurred for the successful prosecution of
this Action.
VI.
PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE AWARDED A SERVICE AWARD
40.
Plaintiffs performed important and valuable services for the efficient litigation
and resolution of this Action. Specifically, they provided records, reviewed pleadings, and met,
conferred, and corresponded with Class Counsel as needed. The diligent efforts of Plaintiffs
assisted Class Counsel in reaching a favorable resolution to this litigation for the benefit of the
Class. Accordingly, it is Class Counsel’s belief that Plaintiffs should each be awarded a service
award. Cf. Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Because a named plaintiff is
10
an essential ingredient of any class action, an incentive award is appropriate if it is necessary to
induce an individual to participate in the suit.”).
41.
VII.
Accordingly, a service award of $2,500 to each named Plaintiff is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
42.
Based on our experience, and taking into consideration the risks of continued
litigation versus the certain and substantial relief afforded by the Settlement, it is our opinion that
the Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, in the best interests of the Class, and merits final
approval. It is also our view that, in light of the time and costs expended by Class Counsel, the
legal standards governing the award of fees and costs in class actions, and the results obtained,
the fees and costs requested by Class Counsel are well-warranted. Finally, it is our view, based
on our experience, that the Named Plaintiffs’ valuable contributions to this litigation warrant
Service Awards of $2,500.
We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on this 19th day of October, 2015.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Hank Bates, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
Golomb & Honik, PC
11
Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 153-1 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:2392
EXHIBIT 1
Table of Contents
The Firm’s Practice and Achievements .............................................................................................. 1
The Firm’s Attorneys ........................................................................................................................... 2
Allen Carney .................................................................................................................................... 2
Hank Bates ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Randall K. Pulliam ........................................................................................................................... 4
Curtis L. Bowman ............................................................................................................................ 5
Tiffany Wyatt Oldham ..................................................................................................................... 6
John Charles Williams ..................................................................................................................... 7
David Slade ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Leadership Positions............................................................................................................................. 8
ii
The Firm’s Practice and Achievements
Carney Bates & Pulliam is recognized as one of the country’s premiere firms in the areas of consumer
protection class actions, data privacy/security, securities fraud, environmental law and employment
discrimination.
The attorneys at Carney Bates & Pulliam are uniquely qualified to prosecute consumer protection
claims. For example, the firm has represented the State of New Mexico in numerous lawsuits against
some of the largest financial service companies in connection with their practice of deceptively
marketing and implementing Payment Protection Plans. Recently, the firm recovered over $100
million for credit card holders in various actions against Bank of America, Capital One, Chase,
Discover and HSBC.
Additionally, our attorneys possess expertise in issues related to complex accounting and financial
fraud cases. The firm’s attorneys include a CPA and a former investment banker with one of the
nation’s largest investment firms. The firm’s reputation for excellence in accounting fraud and other
complex class actions has been recognized on repeated occasions by federal and state court judges who
have appointed the firm to serve as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous cases throughout the country.
In this regard, the firm has successfully represented certain states throughout the country in matters
involving securities litigation such as in Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System v. Semtech
and In re Sterling Financial Corporation Securities Class Action, representing Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico and the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board.
The firm has been successful at protecting shareholders in “change-of-control” transactions seeking to
maximize shareholder value. For example, the firm represented shareholders of Nationwide Financial
in a going private transaction, and was able to negotiate more than $200 million for the public
shareholders in the form of an increased share price. In a similar matter, attorneys at the firm
represented shareholders of 7-Eleven and brokered an additional $140 million in the sales price.
The firm has positioned itself at the forefront of data security and data privacy litigation. Our
attorneys were appointed by the court as co-lead counsel in Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook,
Inc., 4:13-cv-05996-PJH (N.D. Cal.), a putative class action involving allegations of email interception
and violations of federal anti-wiretapping laws. In addition, we are counsel for the lead plaintiff in In
re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 0:14-cmd-02522-PAM-JJK (D.
Minn.), where we represent Umpqua Bank and a putative class of financial institution plaintiffs over
injuries suffered from one of the largest data breaches in history. We also were appointed to the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, 1:14-md-02583-TWT (N.D. Ga.), which is also a putative class action brought on behalf of
injured financial institutions in the wake of a massive retailer data breach. We are co-lead counsel in
Toyer Grear, et al. v Comcast Corporation, 4:14-cv-05333-JSW (N.D. Cal.), a putative class action
alleging violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, arising from the defendant’s practice
of providing its residential customers with wireless routers that secretly emit secondary, public Wi-Fi
networks over which the individual consumer had no control. We are also co-counsel in Michael
Levine, et al. v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-09687-RGK-SH (C.D. Cal.), a putative
class action brought on behalf of current and former Sony employees whose personal information,
along with that of their families, was compromised in a data breach.
1
Additionally, our attorneys handling environmental litigation possess expert knowledge in issues
related to groundwater and air pollution, toxic exposures, leaking pipelines and underground storage
tanks, oil field contamination, and pesticides. The firm pursues claims against corporate polluters and
governmental agencies on the state, local and federal level. For example, Carney Bates & Pulliam
served as co-lead counsel on behalf of the Quapaw Tribe in a case that involved natural resources
damages to tribe-related lands from lead and zinc mining, which resulted in an $11.5 million
settlement against Asarco, LLC, in addition to confidential settlements with four other mining
companies.
In the employment context, Carney Bates & Pulliam served as co-lead counsel in Nelson v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 04-00171 (E.D. Ark.), a nationwide race discrimination class action on behalf of AfricanAmerican truck drivers against Wal-Mart that provided $17.5 million in recovery, as well as
significant changes to Wal-Mart’s hiring policies and four years of court supervision of the settlement
terms.
In addition to its strong personnel, Carney Bates & Pulliam is well-capitalized, allowing it to dedicate
considerable resources and to advance expenses on a contingency fee basis to the fullest extent
necessary to achieve the best possible result for class members. As a result of its successful track
record and strong capitalization, the firm enjoys a high level of respect and credibility with the defense
bar and insurance carriers that often defend and insure corporations and their officers and directors.
As a firm, Carney Bates & Pulliam values practicing in a small environment where professional and
personal interaction among the partners, associates, paralegals, accounting staff and other personnel
allow for a true “team approach” to litigation strategy that fosters an energetic exchange of ideas. The
firm believes its size allows for a greater degree of independence, flexibility and satisfaction than a
large firm environment, without sacrificing the quality of representation necessary to achieve
successful results for its clients.
2
The Firm’s Attorneys
ALLEN CARNEY
Mr. Carney is a graduate of the University of Arkansas, earning a degree in Finance. Subsequently,
Mr. Carney graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law.
Allen Carney concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex litigation on behalf of investors,
consumers and employees. He has extensive experience in nationwide cases, including appointment as
lead counsel in dozens of securities and consumer class actions. He has successfully represented
investors and consumers in cases that achieved cumulative recoveries in the hundreds of millions of
dollars for plaintiffs.
Mr. Carney played a key role in litigating the various Payment Protection actions against the largest
credit card issuers. These actions resulted in significant recoveries for injured consumers. See
Kardonick v. JPMorgan Chase, S.D. Florida, $20 million; Esslinger v. HSBC Bank Nevada, E.D.
Pennsylvania, $23.5 million; In re Discover Credit Card Payment Protection, N.D. Illinois, $10.5
million; In re Bank of America, N.D. California, $20 million; Spinelli v. Capital One; M.D. Florida;
more than $100 million.
Mr. Carney was lead counsel in Semtech Securities Litigation, a federal securities fraud class action
that settled prior to trial achieving a significant recovery for investors. Additionally, he has served as
lead counsel in numerous other federal securities fraud class actions, including In re Lernout &
Hauspie Securities Litigation, No. 00-11589-PBS (D. Mass.) ($115 million settlement); In re
NewPower Securities Litigation, No. 2-CV-1550 (S.D.N.Y.) ($41 million settlement); In re DQE, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 01-1851 (W.D. Pa.); In re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation, No. CV00-9717 (DGT) (RML) (E.D.N.Y.); In re Central Parking Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 03CV-0546 M.D. Tenn.); In re Keyspan Securities Litigation, No. CV-01-5852 (ARR) (MDG)
(E.D.N.Y.); Paul Ruble, et. al. v. Rural Metro Corp., et. al., No. CV-99-822-PHX-RGS (D. Ariz.).
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Carney was a partner with Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. in the Little Rock,
Arkansas office, where he practiced extensively in the areas of complex commercial litigation, labor
and employment litigation, and business transactions. Allen was involved in a number of high-profile
cases, including the successful defense of Capital Cities/ABC News in an action brought by Tyson
Foods regarding the secret videotaping of chicken processing plants. He was also a Contributing
Author to "Arkansas Employment Law Letter," published by M. Lee Smith, 1995.
Mr. Carney is licensed to practice law in Arkansas state courts, the United States District Courts for
the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
and Eighth Circuits. Mr. Carney has argued before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Additionally, Mr.
Carney has appeared in numerous federal and state courts across the nation via admission pro hac vice.
3
HANK BATES
Mr. Bates graduated from Harvard College, where he was a National Merit Scholar. After college, Mr.
Bates attended the University of Manchester, Manchester, Great Britain on a Rotary International
Fellowship and then earned his juris doctorate from Vanderbilt University School of Law, where he
was awarded the Andrew Ewing Scholarship and Order of the Coif and served as Articles Editor of
Vanderbilt Law Review. Following law school, Mr. Bates clerked for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs,
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Mr. Bates focuses his practice on representing consumers, farmers, shareholders, small businesses and
governmental entities in class actions and complex litigation involving environmental law, consumer
fraud, securities fraud, employment issues, computer privacy, and corporate governance.
In the environmental context, Mr. Bates has represented numerous individuals and entire
communities in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma involving air pollution,
groundwater pollution and toxic exposures resulting in multi-million dollar recoveries and agreements
and court orders requiring remediation of contamination and compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations in the future. For example, Mr. Bates, as co-lead counsel for the
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, secured an $11.5 million settlement in a case against Asarco, LLC
involving damage to the Tribe’s land from lead and zinc mining, in addition to confidential settlements
from four other mining companies. Mr. Bates has also represented successfully numerous farmers in
cases involving crop damage by defective pesticides. In addition, he has represented numerous
conservation groups in actions to protect water quality, free-flowing streams from dams, critical
habitat for endangered species and to remediate pollution at decommissioned military sites.
In the consumer fraud context, Mr. Bates was co-lead counsel in Spinelli v. Capital One, M.D. Florida,
which resolved for more than $100 million. Mr. Bates is currently serving as court-appointed lead
counsel in two MDLs involving predatory tax refund loans – In re Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan
Litigation, MDL No. 2334 (N.D. Ill) and In re H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, MDL
No. 2373 (N.D. Ill). Mr. Bates is also lead counsel in several cases against airlines that have violated
international regulations regarding flight delays and cancellations.
Mr. Bates’ employment litigation includes acting as co-lead counsel in a nationwide race
discrimination class action on behalf of African-American truck drivers against Wal-Mart that
provided $17.5 million in recovery, significant changes to Wal-Mart’s hiring policies and four years of
court supervision of the settlement terms.
Mr. Bates is listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the category of Environmental Law and has been
named a “Super Lawyer” (among the top 5 percent of lawyers in Arkansas, Mississippi and
Tennessee) by Mid-South Super Lawyers Magazine in the area of Environmental Litigation.
Mr. Bates is active in the bar, currently serving as Arkansas State Coordinator for Public Justice. In
the past he has served as the Chairman of the Environmental Law Section of the Arkansas Bar
Association and as Vice-Chairman of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Pesticides,
Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know. In his community, he currently serves on the Board of
Directors for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
Mr. Bates is licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas, the State of California, the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
and Southern Districts of California.
4
RANDALL K. PULLIAM
Mr. Pulliam graduated from the University of Central Arkansas with a Bachelor of Business
Administration degree, where he was nominated for Outstanding Management Student in the
university's School of Business. Mr. Pulliam later earned his Master of Business Administration
degree from the University of Arkansas, with an emphasis in Finance. Mr. Pulliam earned his juris
doctorate from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) School of Law where he received
multiple American Jurisprudence Awards.
Mr. Pulliam has substantial experience in many areas of the securities industry, holding his Series 7
General Securities Representative license. Mr. Pulliam worked for Stephens, Inc. as an Equity Trader
for four years, where he executed in excess of $2 billion in securities transactions each year and
participated in the firm’s underwriting and Initial Public Offering allocation decisions. Prior to
working at Stephens, Mr. Pulliam worked as an investment banker for Crews and Associates, Inc.,
where he was responsible for buying municipal bonds for both individual and institutional investors.
Mr. Pulliam has been appointed lead counsel in dozens of successful class actions relating to consumer
and shareholder protection. Currently, Mr. Pulliam represents the State of New Mexico in a series of
lawsuits asserting causes of actions for violations of the Dodd-Frank Act and state law against seven of
the largest financial institutions in the world. Recently, Mr. Pulliam was co-lead counsel in a series of
consumer class actions related to the practice of credit card companies selling payment protection,
which resulted in significant recoveries for class members. See Kardonick v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
S.D. Florida, $20 million; Esslinger v. HSBC Bank Nevada, E.D. Pennsylvania, $23.5 million; In re
Discover Credit Card Payment Protection, N.D. Illinois, $10.5 million; In re Bank of America Credit
Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., N.D. California, $20 million; Spinelli v. Capital One;
M.D. Florida; more than $100 million.
Mr. Pulliam has also represented investors seeking financial recovery for losses suffered as a result of
securities fraud, as well as in “change-of-control” transactions seeking to maximize shareholder
value. Mr. Pulliam represented shareholders of Nationwide Financial in a going private transaction,
and was able to achieve more than $200 million to the public shareholders. In a similar matter, Mr.
Pulliam represented shareholders of 7-Eleven and helped negotiate an additional $140 million in the
sales price.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Pulliam had a successful law practice in a variety of legal areas,
including commercial litigation, where he gained extensive courtroom experience, successfully trying
several jury trials.
On the issues of securities fraud and fiduciary duty, Mr. Pulliam has been quoted in numerous
publications, including the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Pulliam has also
provided presentations about issues affecting institutional investors at conferences and to the boards of
numerous public and union pension funds, including being a panelist on the 2005 Institutional
Shareholder Services Annual Conference, The Fiduciary Responsibility to Claim Securities Class
Action Settlements. Mr. Pulliam is past chair of the Arkansas Bar Association Securities Law Section.
5
CURTIS L. BOWMAN
Mr. Bowman began his legal career in 1986, with the Department of Justice Honors Program, a
program created by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Mr. Bowman worked for the Tax Division of
the Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C. until October 1990. During his tenure with the DOJ,
Mr. Bowman tried dozens of cases involving diverse and complex issues including tax fraud,
amortization of core deposit intangibles, “Bivens” actions and judicial review ability of governmental
action. While at the Justice Department, Mr. Bowman litigated a matter making it clear that certain
action or inaction on the part of the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner is not subject to judicial
review. See Horton Homes, Inc. v. United States of America, 727 F. Supp. 1450 (1990), affirmed by
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently overturned prospectively by
Congress. During his tenure at the Justice Department, Mr. Bowman was recognized as the
“Outstanding Attorney” of the Tax Division (nationwide).
In 1990, Mr. Bowman returned to Little Rock, Arkansas, where he began his private practice of law
with the firm of Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. In 1993, Mr. Bowman became a partner of Jack, Lyon &
Jones and was head of the firm’s complex commercial and white collar defense litigation
sections. Mr. Bowman has been involved in a number of high profile cases, including the criminal
defense of a complex “Whitewater” matter wherein the former governor of Arkansas and his attorney
were indicted by the Whitewater prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. In that case, United States of America v.
John H. Haley , 898 F. Supp. 654 (1995), Haley and Tucker successfully argued to the District Court
that Kenneth Starr had exceeded his jurisdiction in prosecuting citizens of the State of Arkansas as
opposed to officers of the Executive Branch with whom Attorney General Reno had a conflict of
interest. That case was subsequently reversed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Bowman’s litigation experience is broad and includes both the prosecution and defense of cases
on behalf of individuals and classes involving death penalty matters; common law civil fraud;
securities fraud; RTC savings and loan litigation; general commercial litigation; white collar crime;
and tax matters. Mr. Bowman’s class action experience includes the successful defense of a string of
related class actions brought against Rapid Acceptance Corporation alleging that Rapid had charged
consumers an amount of interest in excess of the amount allowed by law.
Mr. Bowman was also actively involved in many of the firm’s securities class actions, particularly
those involving accounting fraud, and took the lead role for the firm in such cases as Rosa E. Garza v.
J.D. Edwards & Co. , U.S.D.C. District of Colorado, No. 99-1744, ( $15 million settlement); Betty M.
Lynch v. JDN Realty Corp., et al. , U.S.D.C. Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, No. 1:00CV-2539 ( settled for more than $40 million in cash and stock with 11% of the total settlement
allocated to Mr. Bowman’s clients); In re Phycor Shareholder Litigation , U.S.D.C., Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, No. 3-99-0807 ($11.2 million cash settlement); and In re Vision
America Securities Litigation , U.S.D.C., Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, No. 3-000279 ($5.9 million settlement).
6
TIFFANY WYATT OLDHAM
Ms. Oldham graduated cum laude from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville School of Law in
2001. She served as a member of the Board of Advocates and the W.B. Putman Inns of Court. In
addition, Ms. Oldham served as President of Phi Delta Phi honors fraternity. During her law school
career, Ms. Oldham participated in various trial competitions and moot court, where she was selected
as a semi-finalist in the spring rounds. Ms. Oldham has a Bachelor’s of Arts in English from the
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.
Ms. Oldham began her legal career with Carney Bates & Pulliam in 2002, and for over a decade now,
she has focused her practice on securities and consumer fraud class actions.
Ms. Oldham has had a significant role in several of the firm’s prominent cases, including: Spinelli v.
Capital One Bank, No. 08-CV-132-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla.); In re Semtech Corp. Securities Litigation,
No. 07-cv-7114 (FMOx) (C.D. Cal.); In re Fleming Companies, Inc. Securities and Derivative
Litigation, 5-030MD-1530 (TJW) (E.D. Tex.); In re Keyspan Securities Litigation, No. CV-01-5852
(ARR) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.); Freidman v. Rayovac Corporation, No. 02-CV-0308 (W.D. WI); In re IXL
Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:00-CV-2347-CC (N.D. Ga.); Asher v. Baxter
International, Inc., et. al., No. 02-CV-5608 (N.D. Il). Having prosecuted numerous class actions
through all stages of the litigation process, Ms. Oldham has experience with the full range of litigation
issues confronting investors and consumers in complex litigation.
Working together with her colleagues at Carney Bates & Pulliam, Ms. Oldham’s work has contributed
to hundreds of millions in recoveries for investors and consumers.
Immediately prior to joining Carney Bates & Pulliam, Ms. Oldham spent time overseas working for
the Japanese municipal government in Okinawa, Japan. In addition, Ms. Oldham worked as an intern
for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western Division of Arkansas, where she assisted in
researching bankruptcy issues and administrating bankruptcy proceedings.
Ms. Oldham is licensed to practice in the Arkansas state courts and the United States District Courts
for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. She is currently a member of the American, Arkansas and Pulaski County Bar
Associations. Ms. Oldham has experience in a multitude of legal fields including securities law,
corporate law, business litigation, real estate transactions, and insurance regulation.
7
JOHN CHARLES WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams graduated from Vanderbilt Law School in 2012. During law school at Vanderbilt, he
interned at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico and at the Tennessee
Justice Center, a public-interest firm focused on health care litigation. Additionally, Mr. Williams
served on Vanderbilt Law Review and Moot Court Board.
Following graduation from law school, Mr. Williams clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mr. Williams joined Carney, Bates & Pulliam in 2013, where he focuses his practice on consumer
protection class actions. Mr. Williams is licensed to practice in the States of Tennessee and Arkansas,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern
and Western Districts of Arkansas.
DAVID SLADE
Mr. Slade’s path to the law was a nontraditional one. After graduating from college at Yale, he moved
to New York City, working at various jobs in the music industry, forming a band, and spending several
years touring the country and recording albums. Throughout this period, his interest in the law was
nurtured by a side job as a trial assistant in the hormone therapy litigation, In re: Prempro Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. MDL 1507.
Following his work with the Prempro MDL, Mr. Slade attended the University of Arkansas at Little
Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. While there, he co-founded the Arkansas Journal of Social
Change and Public Service, an online, interdisciplinary publication for which he served as Editor-inChief. He oversaw the Journal’s inaugural symposium, as well as a variety of community engagement
efforts. In its first year, the Journal published submissions from authors throughout the world. Mr.
Slade graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law in
2013 with high honors.
At Carney Bates & Pulliam, Mr. Slade’s principal focus is on consumer protection, with an emphasis
on data privacy and data security. Extending his advocacy beyond litigation, Mr. Slade organized a
cyber safety training summit for Arkansas law enforcement and victim assistance professionals, in
conjunction with the National Organization of Victim Assistance (NOVA). In addition to his work in
the class action context, Mr. Slade is a member of the Volunteers Organization, Center for Arkansas
Legal Services (VOCALS), an organization committed to pro bono advocacy.
Mr. Slade is licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas and the U.S. District Courts for the
Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
8
Leadership Positions
Class Action, MLD and Complex Litigation Cases where the attorneys of Carney Bates & Pulliam
have held a leadership position of Lead or Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel or as a member of the
Executive Committee of Counsels:
In re AFC Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Case No. 1:03-cv-0817-TWT ($15 million settlement).
Anderson, et al. v. Farmland Industries, Inc., United State District Court for the District of
Kansas, Case No. 98-cv-2499-JWL (multi-party consolidated environmental litigation, Co-Lead
Counsel; confidential settlement).
In re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. CV-00-0717 (DGT) (RML) (Co-Lead Counsel; $15 million
settlement).
Brian Asher v. Baxter International, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 02 C 5608 (Co-Lead Counsel).
In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-md-2269-THE ($20 million
settlement; member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee).
Bland, et al. v. Petromark, Inc., et al., Circuit Court of Boone County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2003-3-2 (multi-party consolidated environmental litigation, Co-Lead Counsel).
In re Central Parking Corporation Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee), Case No. 3:03-0546 ($4.85 million settlement).
Desert Orchid Partners, LLC v. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No. 02-cv-553 ($24.5 million settlement; Co-Lead Counsel).
In re Discover Credit Card Payment Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practices Litig.,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. MDL No. 2217 ($10.5
million; Co-Lead Counsel).
In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 01-1851 (Co-Lead Counsel; $12 million settlement).
In re Dynacq International, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, No. H-02-0377 (Co-Lead Counsel).
Eli Friedman v Rayovac Corporation, et al., United States District Court of the Western
District of Wisconsin, Case No. 02-0308 ($4 million settlement).
Esslinger v. HSBC Bank Nevada, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:10-cv-03213-BMS ($23.5 million; Co-Lead Counsel).
9
In re Fleming Corporation Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Texarkana Division, No. 5-02-CV-178 (Co-Lead Counsel for 33 Act Claims; $93.75
million settlement).
Martin Gaynor v. Thorne, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County, Dept of
Chancery, Case No. 07-CH-14381.
Rosa E. Garza v. J.D. Edwards & Co. , United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, Case No. 99-1744, ($15 million settlement).
Hardin, et al. v. BASF, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
Western Div., Consolidated No. 00-CV-00500 SWW (multi-party consolidated environmental
litigation, Co-Lead Counsel; confidential settlement).
In re Keyspan Corporation Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. 01-cv-5852 (ARR) (MDG).
Kardonick v. JPMorganChase, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Case No. 1:10-cv-23235-WMH ($20 million settlement; Co-Lead Counsel).
King, et al., v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, District Court of Adams County, Colorado,
Case No. 02-CV-2018 (Co-lead Counsel; $2 million settlement of groundwater contamination case).
In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, No. 00-CV-11589-PBS (Co-Lead Counsel; $115 million settlement).
In re Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Case No. MDL 2334 (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel; currently pending
litigation).
Betty M. Lynch v. JDN Realty Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Case No. 1:00-CV-2539 (settled for over $40 million in cash and
stock with 11% of the total settlement allocated to Mr. Bowman’s clients).
Middlesex County Retirement System v. Semtech Corp. et al, United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Case No. 07-Civ-7183 (DC) (Co-Lead Counsel; $20 million
settlement).
David Montalvo v. Tripos, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, Case No. 4:03CV995SNL (Co-Lead; $3,150,000 settlement).
In re Monterey Pasta Company Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:03 CV 00632 MJJ (Co-Lead Counsel).
Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH (Co-Lead Counsel)
In re National Golf Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 02-1383-GHK RZX; ($4.175 million
settlement).
10
In re Nationwide Financial Services Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Case No. 08-CV-00249 ($5.05 per share increase in offer price; $232.8 million
value).
Nelson, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Case No. 04-CV-00171 (Co-Lead Counsel; $17.5 million).
In re NewPower Holdings Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 01-cv-1550 (CLB) (Co-Lead Counsel; $41 million settlement).
Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Gerard H. Brandi, et al., Common Wealth of Massachusetts
Superior Court, Middlesex County, Case No. CV 08-1057.
Pierce v. Ryerson Inc. et al., Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, Case No. 07 CH 21060.
City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. CBS Corp, United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08-CV-10816 (LBS).
In re Phycor Shareholder Litigation, United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, Case No. 3-99-0807 ($11.2 million cash settlement).
The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corp., United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, Case No.03-cv-0846-CVE-PJC ($11.5 million settlement in a case
against Asarco, LLC).
Paul Ruble, et. al. v. Rural Metro Corp., et. al., United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, Case No. 99-cv-822-PHX-RGS.
Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Pension Fund v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 07-81038-CIV-Hurley/Hopkins.
Simpson, et al., v. Koppers, et al., Pulaski County Circuit Court, Third Division, Case No. CV00-1659 (multi-party consolidated environmental litigation, Co-Lead Counsel; confidential
settlement).
Richard Slatten v. Rayovac Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, Case No. 02 C 0325 C (Co-Lead Counsel; $4 million settlement).
David Slone, et.al. v. Fifth Third, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Case No. 03-cv-00211 ($15 million settlement).
Smith v. Intuit, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case
No. 5:12-cv-00222 ($6.55 million cash settlement).
Spinelli v. Capital One Bank (USA), et al., United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Case No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ (more than $100 million settlement; Co-Lead Counsel).
State of New Mexico v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., et al., United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico, Case No. 1:13-cv-00503 ($2.15 million cash settlement).
11
State of New Mexico v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico, Case No. 1:13-cv-00472 ($2,146,750.00 million cash settlement).
In re Sterling Financial Corporation Securities Class Action, United States District Court of the
Southern District of New York, Case No. CV 07-2171(Co-Lead Counsel; $10.25 million settlement).
In re Supervalu, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, Case No. 02-CV-1738 (JEL/JGL) (Co-Lead Counsel; $4 million settlement).
Valuepoint Partners, Inc. v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Et al., United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 03-0989 ($3,225,000 settlement)
In re Vision America Securities Litigation , United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Case No. 3-00-0279 ($5.9 million settlement).
White v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Western Div., Case No. LR-C-98-362 (multi-party consolidated environmental
litigation, Co-Lead Counsel; confidential settlement).
Wise, et al. v. Arkansas Aluminum Alloys, Inc., et al., Miller County Circuit Court; Case No.
CIV-2003-14-1(multi-party consolidated environmental litigation, Co-Lead Counsel; confidential
settlement).
Yvon DuPaul v. H. Edwin Trusheim, et al. (Rehabcare Group), Circuit Court of the County of
St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 02 CC 3039 (Lead Derivative Counsel).
12
EXHIBIT 2
Golomb & Honik, P.C. is a boutique Philadelphia law firm that is nationally recognized
as having the intellect, persistence, experience, and resources to succeed in the most
challenging cases. We serve clients nationwide in the following practice areas:





Class Action Litigation
Commercial/Consumer Litigation
Toxic, Environmental, and Pharmaceutical Litigation
Mass Torts
Personal Injury
Success In The Most Difficult Cases
Over the last 25 years, Golomb & Honik has established an unmatched reputation for
successfully representing those victimized by medical or other professional negligence,
insurance or corporate wrongdoing, complex consumer and commercial transactions,
and significant highway and construction accidents. Many of our greatest successes
have come from cases that other firms declined to handle because of the complexity or
expense. With experience ranging from challenging environmental cases involving
chemicals and other toxins, to the most difficult class action and medical cases, our
team has the intellect, persistence, experience, and resources to produce unmatched
results.
Other lawyers turn to Golomb & Honik with their most important cases. Referrals are a
pillar of our practice. Leading attorneys across the nation refer their complex personal
injury, commercial, and toxic exposure cases to us—particularly those with a class
action or multi-plaintiff component.
A Focused Team
At Golomb & Honik we take an entrepreneurial approach. Every representation
undertaken by the firm receives the highest degree of attention, resources, and skill.
Our boutique size means that we are selective in what we accept and that every client
receives the hands-on attention of a senior partner.
The lawyers at Golomb & Honik are very active in professional and charitable
organizations; our partners have earned leadership positions in regional and national
trial bars and professional associations. We regularly instruct other professionals
through continuing legal education, and undertake pro bono work ranging from the
representation of 9/11 victims to assisting local underprivileged clients through
Volunteers for the Indigent Program.
Partner Profiles
Richard M. Golomb
Mr. Golomb is managing shareholder and a founding partner of Golomb & Honik, P.C.
He has more than twenty-five years experience representing the catastrophically injured
as a result of medical negligence, defective products and pharmaceuticals, construction
accidents and other personal injury claims. For the past fifteen years he has
represented victims of environmental exposures and wronged consumers in class
action litigation.
Early in his career, Mr. Golomb was an associate, and then shareholder, with a
Philadelphia personal injury firm for eleven years before striking out on his own in 1996.
Since 1998, Mr. Golomb has been a shareholder in Golomb & Honik, P.C. where he has
served as lead or co-counsel in many cases which resulted in million and multi-million
dollar verdicts and settlements for clients in individual and class action claims.
An active member of the bar, Mr. Golomb has served as President of the Philadelphia
Trial Lawyers Association; currently sits on the Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania
Trial Lawyers Association; and served as an officer of the American Association for
Justice (formerly ATLA) for three years. As a governor for the American Association for
Justice, Mr. Golomb has twice been recognized with the "Distinguished Service Award",
and was awarded with the “Citation of Excellence” by the American Association for
Justice for his pro bono service representing families victimized by the events of
September 11, 2001. Mr. Golomb also serves as a trustee of the Civil Justice
Foundation, fellow of the Roscoe Pound Institute, and serves as the American
Association for Justice Delegate to the Civil Justice Round Table. Additionally, he
served as an elected member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar
Association; as Chair of that body’s State Civil Committee; has served two terms as a
hearing officer for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board; and sat for four
years on the Judicial Selection and Retention Committee.
Mr. Golomb is a frequent lecturer and author who addresses trial advocacy subjects for
the plaintiffs’ and defense bar in areas such as expert witness preparation, evidence,
cross-examination and ethics.
Ruben Honik
Ruben Honik has nearly a quarter century of experience as a civil trial lawyer
representing plaintiffs across a broad range of tort cases. A founding partner of Greitzer
& Honik, Mr. Honik merged his practice with that of Richard Golomb (declared among
the Top 10 lateral moves for the year by the Legal Intelligencer) in 1998 to form Golomb
& Honik. While at the firm, and for many years before that, Mr. Honik has litigated cases
involving defective products, medical and other professional negligence, civil rights
violations, and vehicle and highway design defects. In the more recent past, Mr. Honik
has developed a national practice representing victims of environmental harm,
particularly those exposed to the toxin beryllium in residential and workplace settings.
In 2001, Mr. Honik was co-lead counsel in Cullen v. Whitman Education Group, a
federal RICO class action certified in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; it resulted in
the largest settlement of its kind against a publicly traded national chain of trade
schools. More recently, in Whisnant, et al. v. General Chemical Corp., Mr. Honik
represented thousands of chemically exposed oil refinery workers in connection with
individual and class claims certified for settlement in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
A past president of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ Association and the Pennsylvania
Trial Lawyers’ Association, Mr. Honik is a frequent lecturer. In addition, he was the longtime editor of The Verdict, the monthly newsletter of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers'
Association.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld
Ken joined Golomb & Honik in January, 2010 after many years defending
pharmaceutical manufacturers, national railroads, asbestos companies and corporate
clients in consumer protection, products liability, insurance coverage and other complex
commercial disputes while working at one of Philadelphia’s largest and most prestigious
defense firms. He brings with him a unique perspective and a wealth of trial and
appellate work experience in both state and federal courts in cases brought by injured
people, shareholders, State Attorneys General and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
In one important personal injury case defending a major pharmaceutical company’s
blockbuster medication, he successfully argued a summary judgment motion before the
esteemed Hon. Jack B. Weinstein in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, securing an early victory for his client and eliminating the need for a trial.
Today his practice focuses on representing consumers and payors in class actions
against pharmaceutical manufacturers, financial institutions like banks, credits card
companies and insurers, consumer electronics companies and other national corporate
defendants.
Ken received his undergraduate degree in 1996 from the University of Michigan and his
J.D. in 1999 from the Villanova University School of Law. He was a member of the
Villanova Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif.
Attorney Profiles
Steven D. Resnick
Mr. Resnick joined Golomb & Honik in January 2012. Prior to joining the firm, Mr.
Resnick was an associate at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, where his practice
was concentrated in securities fraud and consumer class action litigation, as well as
mass tort litigation.
Previously, Mr. Resnick was an associate at a Philadelphia law firm where he focused
on general civil litigation, medical malpractice, products liability and premises liability
claims. Mr. Resnick has also worked as a senior consultant for a class action claims
administration company, where he provided advice and counsel to dozens of class
action law firms regarding the resolution of class action cases and settlement
administration programs.
Mr. Resnick received his law degree from The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law, and he earned his undergraduate degree cum laude from
West Chester University. During law school, Mr. Resnick received the CALI Award for
the highest grade point average in Immigration Law. Mr. Resnick is a member of the
American Association for Justice and has served on the Board of Governors of the New
Lawyers Division. Recently, Mr. Resnick was honored as a Rising Star by Pennsylvania
Super Lawyers magazine.
Tammi Markowitz
Ms. Markowitz has extensive experience handling complex litigation matters, particularly
mass torts, product liability, and class action litigation for an array of corporate clients.
Prior to joining Golomb & Honik in 2012, Ms. Markowitz was an associate at Hoyle,
Fickler, Herschel & Mathes LLP where she played an integral role in litigating products
liability matters, coordinated discovery efforts on behalf of large class action defendants,
and briefed significant issues of law at the trial and appellate level. Earlier in her career
Ms. Markowitz represented pharmaceutical defendants at one of the country’s largest
and most prestigious law firms.
Ms. Markowitz graduated cum laude from Temple University School of Law and
received her undergraduate degree summa cum laude from the University of South
Florida. She sits on the Hearing Committee for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania and is a member of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar
Associations.
David Stanoch
David Stanoch focuses his practice on class actions and mass torts. He has extensive
experience representing clients in complicated matters involving antitrust, consumer
fraud, product liability, and white collar issues.
Mr. Stanoch has developed significant expertise in conducting all aspects of discovery
and substantive briefing. He has taken lead roles in deposing corporate and individual
witnesses in federal litigations, expert preparation and depositions, and negotiating with
government investigators. He has extensively briefed discovery and merits issues from
the pretrial stage forward, and has made substantial contributions towards posturing
cases for favorable settlements.
Prior to Golomb & Honik, Mr. Stanoch clerked for a federal district court judge, the Hon.
James F. McClure, Jr. (dec.) (M.D. Pa.). He also practiced at Dechert LLP for nearly
ten years. While there, he advised Fortune 50, 100, and 200 clients on matters
pertinent to complex and multi-district litigation, federal and state government
investigations, and regulatory matters. He has represented individuals and companies
in many industries, including: banking and consumer finance, biologics, chemicals, food
& agriculture, forest products, healthcare, mortgages, pharmaceuticals, and steel. Mr.
Stanoch now brings his substantial industry and legal knowledge to bear on behalf of
individuals who are fighting to vindicate there rights and interests.
David graduated magna cum laude from Temple University School of Law, and received
his undergraduate degree cum laude and general university honors from La Salle
University. He is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and is admitted
to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Staff
We have a dedicated and experienced support staff here at Golomb & Honik. While our
clients always get hands-on attention from attorneys, we understand that it takes a
motivated and cohesive team to manage complex cases. A number of our clerks,
paralegals and administrative assistants have over 20 years of legal experience,
specializing in the areas of class action, mass tort, and personal injury litigation.
Representative Cases, Settlements, And Reported Decisions
Bank Overdraft Litigation
Golomb & Honik has brought a number of class action complaints filed in state and
federal courts against state and national banks that have wrongfully employed unfair
and illegal business practices in charging overdraft fees to dramatically increase the
likelihood customers using debit, ATM, or check cards will overdraw their accounts and
be assessed fees. We are also proud to serve as one of only a handful of firms to serve
on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
MDL No. 2036, a coordinated, nationwide effort to bring to these banks to justice on
behalf of millions of Americans that have paid billions of dollars in overdraft fees to
banks. In the first overdraft case litigated, a judge ordered Wells Fargo to pay over
$200 million to a class of injured California bank customers. Bank of America alone has
agreed to settle with a nationwide class of plaintiffs for $410 Million, and the total
recovery for consumers in the MDL is now over $1 Billion.
Federal Express Class Action
Golomb & Honik sued Federal Express in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of over 200 truckers over wrongfully-terminated hauling
contracts. Despite an express clause in the contracts, Federal Express failed to provide
the truckers with proper notice of termination.
In Re: Budeprion XL Marketing & Sales Litigation, MDL No. 2107
Golomb & Honik has brought a number of class action complaints filed in federal courts
against the manufacturer and distributor of a generic version of a popular antidepressant medication under the Consumer Protection Laws of California and other
states. We also serve as liaison counsel in an MDL proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After United States District Judge
Berle Schiller denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on the preemption defense
and after plaintiffs fully briefed class certification, the parties reached a favorable
settlement on behalf of the proposed class.
Credit Card Payment Protection
Golomb & Honik leads a collaboration of firms bringing dozens of class action
complaints filed in federal courts across the country against over ten credit card
companies regarding “Payment Protection plans”, an add-on product of virtually no
value wrongfully marketed and sold to unsuspecting credit card holders. Nationwide
settlements have been reached in actions against at least five credit card companies
resulting in over $100 million in settlements for class members. Golomb & Honik also
serves as Deputy Attorney General to a number of state’s Attorneys General bringing
actions on behalf of their citizens against credit card companies regarding Payment
Protection and other protection-type products.
Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation
Golomb & Honik serves as co-lead counsel in litigation against national tax preparation
companies regarding their marketing and selling various illegal loan products secured
by individual’s tax refunds. These loans were sold in direct violation of a number of
states’ laws specifically enacted to regulate this type of practice and to protect the rights
of taxpayers.
Ford Windstar Class Action
Golomb & Honik represents a national consumer class of owners of approximately one
million Ford Windstars. Ford designed, developed and installed defective rear axles for
these vehicles, using an inexpensive, stamped metal product. Consumers purchased a
vehicle that would literally fall apart before its normal useful lifetime. Indeed, there
exists a real possibility that these axles could break while these vehicles, marketed
specifically to families, are operated at highway speed, causing serious injury or
fatalities. After Golomb and Honik filed this lawsuit, Ford instigated a recall of these
vehicles to fix or replace the defective rear axles.
Mattel Lead Paint Class Action
Golomb & Honik successfully represented plaintiffs in nationwide class action litigation
against a toy manufacturer distributing dangerous products to consumers. We served
on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and helped to negotiate a favorable settlement in
plaintiffs’ actions seeking medical monitoring.
Suzuki GSX-R1000 Motorcycle Class Action Settlement
Golomb & Honik negotiated a confidential settlement on behalf of a class of more than
26,000 members for damages allegedly caused from a design defect in the 2005 and
2006 models of the "sport bike" motorcycles. After this lawsuit was brought, Suzuki
initiated a voluntary safety recall to enhance the frame strength and safety. The United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida -- Miami Division approved the
settlement.
In Re Sterling Financial Corporation Securities Class Action
Golomb & Honik facilitated settlement of a multimillion dollar matter on behalf of
thousands of investors who were injured as a result of alleged violations of federal law.
In the summer of 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania created a $10.25 million settlement fund for the benefit of those investors
who acquired stock from 2004 through 2007 at allegedly inflated prices. It was
estimated that $13.5 million shares were damaged as a result of fraud.
Cullen, et al. v. Whitman Medical Corporation d/b/a Whitman Education Group,
Inc., et al., 197 F.R.D. 136 (E.D. Pa. 2000)
Golomb & Honik represented current and former students who sued a national
vocational school, alleging that they had been fraudulently misled as to the education
they would receive. Golomb & Honik served as co-lead counsel in this groundbreaking
consumer class action in which plaintiffs and absent national class members sought
education from a publicly traded corporation in the field of diagnostic medical
sonography. Golomb & Honik succeeded in demonstrating the chain of schools
fraudulently misrepresented the nature of the ultrasound program and otherwise failed
to provide the education represented. Students received federally guaranteed student
loans but were largely unable to obtain promised jobs in their area of study. The school
had no meaningful admissions criteria and often hired unqualified administrative and
educational personnel. Field placements did not materialize, and students were
unprepared to take qualifying exams. Students were stuck with loan repayments for
which they received little or nothing in return. In approving certification of the class, and
later the class settlement, the United States District Court said of counsel representing
plaintiffs that “[t]he skill of each of these attorneys is reflected both in settlement and in
the aggressive manner in which they pursued this litigation from start to finish.” Cullen,
197 F.R.D. at 149. The Court noted in conclusion, “the highly skilled class counsel
provided excellent representation both for named plaintiffs and absent class members.”
Id. The class settlement of $7.3 million was the largest common fund of its kind.
Whisnant, et al. v. General Chemical Corp., et al., No. 99-12286, Court of
Common Please of Delaware County, Pa.
Golomb & Honik successfully represented dozens of individual workers—and a class of
more than 1,000 additional workers—in a case arising from ongoing occupational
exposure to sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. For
more than a decade, workers at an oil processing facility were exposed to emissions of
sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide gasses from a neighboring plant. Those emissions
caused reactive airways disease and occupational asthma in many workers. In addition,
many others were exposed and require medical monitoring to detect the potential onset
of pulmonary disease. Following years of protracted litigation, and the bankruptcy of the
defendant polluter, Golomb & Honik achieved a multi-million dollar settlement against
the bankrupt polluter, instead of the pennies on the dollar that many other creditors
received.
Debiec v. Cabot Corp., et al., 352 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2003)
Golomb & Honik represented the plaintiffs in this seminal decision on the discovery rule
and the statute of limitations in latent disease cases involving beryllium exposure.
Summary judgment was overturned resulting in multi-million dollar settlements for
estates of victims, the first of numerous cases for this affected community of exposed
persons.
$1.5 Million for Estate of 9/11 Victim
On September 11, 2001, a motivational speaker giving a speech in the World Trade
Center was one of the thousands who lost his life after airplanes struck the twin towers
in a terrorist attack. In response to that tragic day, the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America created Trial Lawyers Care (TLC). TLC was a group of more than 2,000
lawyers from across the country who, on a pro bono basis, represented the victims of
9/11 and their families as they negotiated a complicated compensation system
established by Congress. Golomb & Honik lawyers had the privilege of representing the
motivational speaker’s family in this process—compiling hundreds of pages of
documents, completing the extensive forms necessary to obtain an “award” through the
compensation system, hiring economic experts, and attending a hearing in New York.
His family received more than $1.5 million.
Additionally, Golomb & Honik has received more than 50 verdicts or
settlements in excess of $1 million for their clients in individual cases.
EXHIBIT 3
Liberty Refund Anticipate Loan Litigation - MDL
Inception to October 2015
Lodestar - Inception to October 2015 - All Firms
Ademi & O'Reilly
Cafferty Clobes
Carney Bates
Gersowitz Libo
Golomb & Honik
Jackson & McGee
Janet Jenner
Ku & Mussman
Milstein Adelman
Robins Kaplan
Total:
Hours
134.70
134.10
1,591.90
50.00
1012.80
38.90
76.40
360.70
33.20
283.60
3716.30
Lodestar
$70,900.50
$78,489.00
$748,932.25
$25,000.00
$448,691.00
$16,839.00
$19,691.55
$151,844.50
$16,318.75
$80,590.50
1,657,297.05
Expenses - Inception to October 2015 - All Firms
Ademi & O'Reilly
Cafferty Clobes
Carney Bates
Gersowitz Libo
Golomb & Honik
Jackson & McGee
Janet Jenner
Ku & Mussman
Milstein Adelman
Robins Kaplan
Total:
Amount
$827.42
$1,068.16
$12,978.29
$350.00
$17,114.82
$830.33
$1,358.39
$4,101.33
$0.00
$4.33
$38,633.07
EXHIBIT A
6D LIFE
USA TODAY
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015
‘Dr. Ken’ needs better material, STAT
DR. KEN
ABC
egEE
Tonight, 8:30 ET/PT
We all benefit when TV opens
its doors, and screens, to a wider
range of people.
But we benefit far more if the
folks on our screens
actually come across
TV
PREVIEW
as real human beings
ROBERT
you could imagine
BIANCO
taking up space
somewhere on Planet Earth. And no matter how good
an imagination you might have,
stretching it far enough to encompass the denizens of Dr. Ken
is likely to be a daunting task.
Like ABC’s Fresh off the Boat
and Black-ish, Dr. Ken is built
around a group that has been too
seldom seen in an American comedy: In this case, an extended Korean-American family. But unlike
those far better shows, Ken is less
about any specific struggles such
families may face than it is about
finding new ways to repackage
the same jokes we’ve all heard a
thousand times.
And unlike those shows, it’s
trying to do so with a star who
seems incapable of breathing
fresh life into stale material.
Doctor-turned-performer Ken
Jeong stars here as a physician
with a loving family, a seemingly
busy practice and no bedside
manner. To drive that last point
home, Ken’s first exchange with a
patient is along the lines of
“What’s the diagnosis?” “You’re
fat.” The humor doesn’t get much
more sophisticated from there.
At home, Ken has a lovely wife,
Allison (Suzy Nakamura), who alternates between finding him annoying and amusing. They have
two children, Molly (Krista Marie
Yu), whom Ken wants to stop
from driving, and Dave (Albert
Tsai), whom Ken wants to stop
from growing up to be a mime.
RON TOM, ABC
Ken Jeong stars as a doctor with bad bedside manners and
Suzy Nakamura plays his wife in the ABC comedy Dr. Ken.
Ken also has very traditional parents, who provide the show with
one of its only funny twists.
At the office, Ken works with a
boss who hates him (Dave Foley),
a nurse who adores him (Jonathan Slavin), and a tough nurse
(Tisha Campbell) and a sweet resident (Kate Simses) who either
like or tolerate him. They can all
see through Ken’s gruff exterior
to the softie underneath — perhaps because they’ve all seen an
American sitcom before.
If you’ve seen Community or
The Hangover, you know Jeong
can be very funny in the right
role. But being funny and being
able to carry your own show are
not the same thing. In the early
going, Jeong displays a dangerously limited range: Every line is
either wheedling or raging. And
while he can deliver a line, he’s
less skilled at reacting to one.
There is talent in the supporting cast, and an opportunity to
tell stories other sitcoms can’t.
But so far, that talent and opportunity are being wasted. And
that’s to no one’s benefit.
To view more Classified listings,
visit: www.USATODAYClassifieds.com
NOTICES
LEGAL NOTICES
LEGAL NOTICES
x
LEGAL NOTICE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
If You Used Liberty Tax to File Your Taxes and Received a
Refund Anticipation Loan or other loan product, Electronic
Refund Check, Electronic Refund Deposit or a similar financial
product, You May be Eligible for a Payment from a
Class Action Settlement.
A federal court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
A $5.3 million proposed settlement
(“Settlement”) has been reached in a
class action lawsuit against JTH Tax,
Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax
Service, and Liberty Tax Inc. (formerly
JTH Holding, Inc.), collectively “Liberty
Tax,” including customers who received
a Refund Anticipation Loan or other
loan product, Electronic Refund Check,
Electronic Refund Deposit or a similar
financial product provided by Republic
Bank that was facilitated by Liberty Tax
(“Financial Products”) from 2009 through
2012, including products that allowed
Liberty Tax customers to choose to pay
their tax preparation fees by deducting the
amount owed from their tax refund for a fee
(typically $29.95 or more). The lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Case
No. 1:12-cv-02949 before the Honorable
Joan B. Gottschall.
What Is This Case About?
The lawsuit claims that Liberty Tax violated
state and federal law by misrepresenting
and omitting certain information regarding
the Financial Products, including but not
limited to the annual percentage rate and
finance charge associated with the Financial
Products. Liberty Tax denies the claims in
the lawsuit and maintains that it did nothing
wrong or illegal. The Court has not decided
which side is right.
Who Is Included?
The Settlement includes anyone who
received a Financial Product provided by
Republic Bank that was facilitated by Liberty
Tax from 2009 through 2012. Liberty Tax
has identified from its records those persons
who are included in the Settlement Class.
If you are not sure whether you are in
the Settlement Class, visit the Settlement
website www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com
or call the number listed below.
What Are The Settlement Terms?
Liberty Tax has agreed to establish a
Settlement Fund of $5.3 million that will
provide payments to Settlement Class
Members, net of any costs of administration
and notice of the Settlement, attorneys’
fees and expenses, and a service award to
the Settlement Class Representatives. The
amount any individual Settlement Class
Member will receive cannot be determined
at this time. Payments will be based on the
number of Settlement Class Members who
file claims. It is anticipated that, on average,
Class Members who submit claim forms
will receive between $30 and $100 for each
year a Refund Product was purchased. This
figure is only an estimate. Actual payment
could be more or less than this amount.
How And When Do I Get Paid?
Upon filling out and timely submitting
a Claim Form, which is available on the
website www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com,
you will be eligible to receive payment by
check after the Settlement is approved and
any appeals are addressed. Payment can
take time. Please be patient.
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
Kieselstein, P.C., Attn: Chad J. Husnick, Esq., Attn: Steven N. Serajeddini, Esq.,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
300 North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.,
Attn: Mark D. Collins, Esq., Attn: Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., Attn: Jason M.
Chapter 11
In re:
1
Madron,
Esq., 920, North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Co-Counsel to
Case
No.
14-10979
(CSS)
ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., et al.,
Energy Future Holdings Corp.: PROSKAUER ROSE LLP., Attn: Jeff J. Marwil, Esq.,
Jointly Administered
Debtors.
Attn: Mark K Thomas, Esq., Attn: Peter J. Young, Esq., Three First National Plaza,
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER CONFIRMATION OF THE CHAPTER 11 PLAN
70 W. Madison ST STE 3800, Chicago, IL 60602. O’KELLY, ERNST & BIELLI LLP,
FILED BY THE DEBTORS AND RELATED VOTING AND OBJECTION DEADLINES
Attn: David M. Klauder, Esq., Attn: Shannon Dougherty, Esq., 901 N Market St
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on September 22, 2015, the United States STE 100, Wilmington, DE 19801. Co-Counsel to the TCEH Debtors: MUNGER,
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) entered an order TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Attn: Thomas B. Walper, Esq., Attn: Todd J Rosen, Esq.,
[D.I. 6131] (the “Disclosure Statement Order”): (a) authorizing Energy Future Attn: Seth Goldman, Esq., Attn: John W. Spiegel, Esq., 355 S. Grand Ave 35th FL,
Holdings Corp. and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, Los Angeles, CA 90071. MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MUVANEY, & CARPENTER, LLP,
the “Debtors”) to solicit acceptances for the Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Attn: David P. Primack, Esq., 300 Delaware Ste 770, Wilmington, DE 19801.
Reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter Co-Counsel to Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC: CRAVATH,
11 of the Bankruptcy Code [D.I. 6122] (as may be modified, amended or SWAIN, & MOORE LLP, Attn: Michael A Paskin, Esq., Worldwide Plaza, 825
supplemented from time to time, the “Plan”);2 (b) approving the Disclosure Eighth Ave, New York, NY 10019-7475. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Attn: Richard
Statement for the Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Energy Future Levin, Esq., 919 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022-3908. STEVENS & LEE PC,
Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, including Attn: Joseph H. Hutson Jr, Esq., 1105 N. Market St STE 700, Wilmington, DE
all exhibits and schedules thereto [D.I. 6124] (as may be modified, amended 19801. THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
or supplemented from time to time, the “Disclosure Statement”) as containing DELAWARE, Attn: Richard L. Schepacarter, Esq., Attn: Andrea B. Schwartz, Esq.,
“adequate information” pursuant to section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code; 844 King Street, Suite 2207, Wilmington, DE 19801. Co-Counsel to the TCEH
(c) approving the solicitation materials and documents to be included in the Creditors’ Committee: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Attn: James M. Peck, Esq.,
solicitation packages; and (d) approving procedures for soliciting, receiving and Attn: Brett H. Miller, Esq., Attn: Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., Attn: Todd M. Goren,
tabulating votes on the Plan and for filing objections to the Plan.
Esq., Attn: Samantha Martin, Esq., 250 West 55th Street, New York, NY 10019.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, on August 27, 2015, the Court entered POLSINELLI PC, Attn: Christopher A. Ward, Esq., Attn: Justin K. Edelson, Esq.,
an Amended Order (A) Revising Certain Hearing Dates and Deadlines, and (B) Attn: Shanti M. Katona, Esq., 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1101, Wilmington, DE
Establishing Certain Protocols in Connection with the Confirmation of Debtors’ 19801. Co-Counsel to the EFH Creditors’ Committee: SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
Plan of Reorganization [D.I. 5771] revising that order entered by the Court on LLP, Attn: Andrew G. Dietderich, Esq., Attn: Brian D. Glueckstein, Esq., Attn:
July 2, 2015 [D.I. 4916] and (a) scheduling dates and deadlines in connection Michael H. Torkin, Esq., 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004. MONTGOMERY,
with the approval of the Disclosure Statement and the confirmation of the Plan MCCRACKEN, WALKER, & RHOADS LLP, Attn: Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq., Attn:
and (b) establishing certain protocols in connection with those proceedings in
Davis Lee Wright, Esq., Attn: Mark A. Fink, Esq., 1105 N. Market St 15th FL,
connection with the approval of the Disclosure Statement and the confirmation
Wilmington, DE 19801.
of the Plan, as applicable.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT the hearing at which the Court will
Obtaining Solicitation Materials. The materials in the Solicitation Package
consider Confirmation of the Plan (the “Confirmation Hearing”) will commence
are intended to be self-explanatory. If you should have any questions or if
at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on November 3, 2015, before The
you would like to obtain additional solicitation materials (or paper copies of
Honorable Judge Christopher S. Sontchi, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
solicitation materials if you received a CD-ROM), please feel free to contact
for the District of Delaware, located at 824 North Market Street, 5th Floor,
the Debtors’ Solicitation Agent, by: (a) calling the Debtors’ restructuring
Courtroom 6, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
restructuring website at:
PLEASE BE ADVISED: THE CONFIRMATION HEARING MAY BE CONTINUED FROM hotline at (877) 276-7311; (b) visiting the Debtors’
TIME TO TIME BY THE COURT OR THE DEBTORS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE http://www.efhcaseinfo.com; and/or (c) email to [email protected].
OTHER THAN BY SUCH ADJOURNMENT BEING ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT OR You may also obtain copies of any pleadings filed in these Chapter 11 Cases
BY A NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT FILED WITH THE COURT AND SERVED ON ALL for a fee via PACER at: http://www.deb.uscourts.gov. Please be advised that
the Solicitation Agent is authorized to answer questions about, and provide
PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE.
additional copies of, solicitation materials, but may not advise you as to whether
CRITICAL INFORMATION REGARDING VOTING ON THE PLAN
Voting Record Date. The voting record date is September 4, 2015 (the “Voting you should vote to accept or reject the Plan.
Record Date”), which is the date for determining which holders of Claims or Filing the Plan Supplement. The Debtors will file the Plan Supplement (as
Interests, as applicable, in Classes B9, C3, C4, and C5 are entitled to vote on defined in the Plan) no later than fourteen days before the Confirmation Hearing
or such later date as may be approved by this Court and will serve notice on all
the Plan.
Voting Deadline. The deadline for voting on the Plan is 4:00 p.m. (Eastern holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote on the Plan, which will: (a) inform
Daylight Time) on October 23, 2015 (the “Voting Deadline”). If you received a parties that the Debtors filed the Plan Supplement; (b) list the information
Solicitation Package, including a Ballot and intend to vote on the Plan you must: contained in the Plan Supplement; and (c) explain how parties may obtain
(a) follow the instructions carefully; (b) complete all of the required information copies of the Plan Supplement.
BINDING NATURE OF THE PLAN:
on the ballot; and (c) execute and return your completed Ballot according to and
as set forth in detail in the voting instructions so that it is actually received by IF CONFIRMED THE PLAN SHALL BIND ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS AND
INTERESTS
TO
THE
MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
the Debtors’ solicitation agent, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC (the “Solicitation
Agent”) on or before the Voting Deadline. A failure to follow such instructions WHETHER OR NOT SUCH HOLDER WILL RECEIVE OR RETAIN ANY PROPERTY
OR
INTEREST
IN
PROPERTY
UNDER
THE PLAN, HAS FILED A PROOF OF CLAIM
may disqualify your vote.
IN THE CHAPTER 11 CASES OR FAILED TO VOTE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE
CRITICAL INFORMATION REGARDING OBJECTING TO THE PLAN
ARTICLE VIII OF THE PLAN CONTAINS RELEASE, EXCULPATION, AND INJUNCTION PLAN OR VOTED TO REJECT THE PLAN.
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE VIII.D. CONTAINS A THIRD-PARTY RELEASE. THUS, Dated: September 22, 2015
/s/ Jason M. Madron
Wilmington, Delaware
YOU ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE PLAN CAREFULLY BECAUSE
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Mark D. Collins (No. 2981), Daniel J.
YOUR RIGHTS MIGHT BE AFFECTED THEREUNDER.
Plan Objection Deadline. The deadline for filing objections to the Plan is DeFranceschi (No. 2732), Jason M. Madron (No. 4431), 920 North King
October 23, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) (the “Plan Objection Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Email: [email protected], defranceschi@
Deadline”). All objections to the relief sought at the Confirmation Hearing must: rlf.com, [email protected] -and- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
(a) be in writing; (b) conform to the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules and any INTERNATIONAL LLP, Edward O. Sassower, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice), Stephen
orders of the Court; (c) state, with particularity, the legal and factual basis for E. Hessler (admitted pro hac vice), Brian E. Schartz (admitted pro hac vice), 601
the objection and, if practicable, a proposed modification to the Plan (or related Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4611. Email: edward.sassower@
materials) that would resolve such objection; and (d) be filed with the Court kirkland.com, [email protected], [email protected]
(contemporaneously with a proof of service) and served upon the following -and- James H.M. Sprayregen, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice), Marc Kieselstein,
parties so as to be actually received on or before October 23, 2015 at 4:00 P.C. (admitted pro hac vice), Chad J. Husnick (admitted pro hac vice), Steven N.
Serajeddini (admitted pro hac vice), 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60654,
p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time):
Co-Counsel to the Debtors: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Attn: Edward O. Sassower, Email: [email protected], [email protected], chad.
P.C., Attn: Stephen E. Hessler, Esq., Attn: Brian E. Schartz, Esq., 601 Lexington [email protected], [email protected]
Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Attn: James H.M. Sprayregen, P.C., Attn: Marc Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession
1
The last four digits of Energy Future Holdings Corp.’s tax identification number are 8810. The location of the debtors’ service address is 1601 Bryan Street,
Dallas, Texas 75201. Due to the large number of debtors in these chapter 11 cases, which are being jointly administered, a complete list of the debtors and the
last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein. A complete list of such information may be obtained on the website of the debtors’
claims and noticing agent at http://www.efhcaseinfo.com.
2
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings set forth in the Plan.
What Will Be Decided
At The Fairness Hearing?
The Court will have a hearing on
December 3, 2015 to consider whether
to approve the Settlement, a request for
attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, as
well as service awards for the Settlement
Class Representatives. You can appear at
the hearing (see instructions below), but
you don’t have to. You can hire your own
attorney at your own expense to appear or
speak for you at the hearing. You can call
the toll-free number or visit the website to
learn more about how to exclude yourself
from or object to the Settlement.
What Are My Legal Rights?
You have three options:
• Remain in the Settlement Class.
If you are a Class Member and you do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will be bound by the terms
of the Settlement and give up your right
to sue regarding issues in this case. To
obtain a payment under the Settlement
Agreement, you must submit a Claim
Form. You can obtain and submit a Claim
Form at www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com.
All Claim Forms must be received by
January 2, 2016.
The
• Request to be excluded.
Court will exclude you from the
Settlement Class only if you mail a
request for exclusion to the Settlement
Administrator. The specific details for
excluding yourself from the Settlement
are in the detailed notice available at
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com. Requests
must be received by December 2, 2015.
If you do not exclude yourself, you will
release claims that were or could have been
made against Liberty Tax.
• Object to the Settlement, the
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses or the
Class Representatives’ Service Award.
If you do not exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class, you may object
to it by yourself or through an attorney
that you hire at your own expense. The
specific details for filing an objection
are in the detailed notice available at
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com.
Any
objection must be postmarked no later than
November 3, 2015. You will be bound by
the terms of the Settlement if your objection
is rejected.
How Can You Get More Information?
If you have questions or want a
detailed notice or other documents
about this lawsuit and your rights, visit
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com. You may
also contact the Settlement Administrator
by writing to Liberty Tax Settlement,
c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 750,
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0750, or by calling
1-844-271-4786. Please do not contact
the Court or Liberty Tax with questions
regarding this lawsuit.
By the Order of the Honorable Joan
B. Gottschall, United States District
Court Judge.
1-844-271-4786
Advertise in USA TODAY!
(800) 397-0070
[email protected]
Place your advertisement in
USA TODAY’s Marketplace
Classified section today!
x
LEGAL NOTICE
If You Bought Tom’s of Maine Products You May be Entitled to Cash from a Class Settlement
www.TomsProductsClassAction.com
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
about the packaging and advertising of Tom’s of Maine products.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that Tom’s of Maine mislabeled
its Products by describing them as “natural.” Tom’s of Maine
denies all the plaintiffs’ allegations and is entering into this
settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.
Am I a Class Member? You are a Class Member if you bought at
least one of the Tom’s of Maine Products from March 29, 2009
through September 23, 2015, for individual or household use and
not for resale. Excluded from the Class are Tom’s of Maine and
its board members, officers, and attorneys; governmental entities;
the Court presiding over the settlement; those with claims for
personal injuries, and those persons who timely and validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class.
What Can I Get From the Settlement? A fund of $4.5 million will
be created to pay Class Members for a portion of the cost of
products they purchased, for notice and claim administration costs
and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Tom’s will also make changes
to the labels for the Tom’s of Maine products and to its website.
Settlement Class Members may submit a properly completed
Claim Form and be eligible to receive a cash refund of up to $28.
These awards may be subject to pro rata upward or downward
adjustment depending on the number of claims approved. A
detailed Class Notice and copies of the Claim Form
are available at www.TomsProductsClassAction.com or by calling
1-888-897-9554.
yourself from the Class by December 29, 2015. The detailed
notice available at www.TomsProductsClassAction.com or by
calling 1-888-897-9554 explains how to exclude yourself from the
settlement. If you exclude yourself, you can’t get money from this
settlement if it is approved. If you’re a Class Member, you may
object to any part of the settlement you don’t like, and the Court
will consider your views. Your objection must be timely, in writing
and must provide evidence of your membership in the Class.
Procedures for submitting objections are set out in the detailed
notice available at www.TomsProductsClassAction.com or by
calling 1-888-897-9554.
The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at 11:00 a.m. on
January 28, 2016 in Miami, Florida. At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
and whether to approve the Class Representatives’ incentive
awards of up to $2,000 each and attorneys’ fees of up to
$1,035,000 plus expenses not to exceed $50,000. You may attend
the hearing, and you may hire your own lawyer, but you are not
required to do either. The Court will consider timely written
objections and will listen to people who have made a prior written
request to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will
decide whether to approve the settlement.
What If I Have Questions? This Notice is just a
summary. Detailed notice, as well as the Settlement
Agreement and other documents filed in this lawsuit
can be found online at www.TomsProductsClassAction.com. For
more information, you may call or write to the Settlement
What are My Options? To ask for a cash payment and stay in Administrator at 1-888-897-9554, Tom’s of Maine Settlement, c/o
the Class, you must send in a Claim Form by May 7, 2016. If you Dahl Administration, P.O. Box 3614, Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
do not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude or [email protected].
QUESTIONS? VISIT www.TomsProductsClassAction.com OR CALL 1-888-897-9554
Send your sales through the roof with an ad in Marketplace Today.
For more information on how to place your ad call: 1-800-397-0070
EXHIBIT B
PRESORTED
Ally
Settlement
Liberty
Tax Settlement Administrator
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Case:
1:12-cv-02949
Document #: 152-2 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#:237
U.S.
POSTAGE
Heffler Claims Group
POc/o
Box
8036
P.O. Box 750
PAID
CLAYSBURG, PA
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0750
Philadelphia,
PA 19101-8036
PERMIT #6
Reminder Regarding the Ally Financial Inc.
and Ally Bank Settlement
LEGAL
NOTICE
Recordatorio
sobre Orden de Consentimiento de
Ally
Financial
Inc. y Ally Bank
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH
LIBERTY TAX
THE BACK OF THIS CARD CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION INCLUDING
A WEBSITE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
WHERE YOU CAN OBTAIN MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT SUBMITTING
A CLAIM FORM
THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.
PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
Class Member
_____________
Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 152-2 Filed: 10/19/15
PageID3Number:
of 3 PageID
#:237
(Legal Notice)
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
If You Used Liberty Tax to File Your Taxes and Received a Refund Anticipation Loan or Other Loan
Product, Electronic Refund Check, Electronic Refund Deposit or a similar financial product,
You May be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.
A $5.3 million proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Liberty Tax regarding financial products provided by
Republic Bank available to Liberty Tax customers from 2009 through 2012, including products that allowed Liberty Tax customers to choose
to pay their tax preparation fees by deducting the amount owed from their tax refund for a fee (typically $29.95 or more). JTH Tax, Inc. doing
business as Liberty Tax denies the claims in the lawsuit and maintains there was nothing wrong with the practice. The Court has not decided
which side is right.
Who’s Included In The Class? Liberty Tax’s records show you are a Settlement Class Member. The Settlement Class includes anyone who
received a financial product provided by Republic Bank that was facilitated by Liberty Tax from 2009 through 2012.
What Are the Settlement Terms? Liberty Tax has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $5.3 million. You cannot receive a
payment unless you submit a claim form. Information regarding how to fill out and submit claim forms can be found online at
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com or by calling 1-844-271-4786. Claim forms may be submitted online.
Your Rights May Be Affected. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 2, 2015. If
you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by November 3, 2015. Instructions on how to exclude yourself or object are contained in the
detailed notice at the website listed below. The Court will hold a hearing on December 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2325 at 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 to consider whether to approve the settlement, Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement
of expenses, and service award for the Settlement Class Representatives. You can appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. You can hire
your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or speak for you at the hearing. For more information and the full terms of the Settlement,
call or visit the website.
www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com
1-844-271-4786
EXHIBIT C
Mike Hamer
Subject:
Legal Notice Ordered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
SendIncExpireDays:
SendIncExpires:
SendIncFlag:
SendIncReadReceipt:
SendIncSaveInSentItems:
SendIncSendMeACopy:
7
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS MEMBER ID NUMBER: XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Legal Notice) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS If You Used Liberty Tax to File Your Taxes and Received a Refund Anticipation Loan or Other Loan Product, Electronic Refund Check, Electronic Refund Deposit or a Similar Financial Product, You May be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement. A $5.3 million proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Liberty Tax regarding financial products provided by Republic Bank available to Liberty Tax customers from 2009 through 2012, including products that allowed Liberty Tax customers to choose to pay their tax preparation fees by deducting the amount owed from their tax refund for a fee (typically $29.95 or more). JTH Tax, Inc. doing business as Liberty Tax, denies the claims in the lawsuit and maintains there was nothing wrong with the practice. The Court has not decided which side is right. Who’s Included In The Class? Liberty Tax’s records show you are a Settlement Class Member. The Settlement Class includes anyone who received a financial product provided by Republic Bank that was facilitated by Liberty Tax from 2009 through 2012. What Are the Settlement Terms? Liberty Tax has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $5.3 million. You cannot receive a payment unless you submit a claim form. Information regarding how to fill out and submit claim forms can be found online at www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com or by calling 1‐844‐271‐4786. Claim forms may be submitted online. Your Rights May Be Affected. If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 2, 2015. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by November 3, 2015. Instructions on how to exclude yourself or object are contained the in detailed notice at the website listed below. The Court will hold a hearing on December 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2325 at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 to consider whether to approve the settlement, Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service award for the Settlement Class Representatives. You can appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. You can hire your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or speak for 1
you at the hearing. For more information and the full terms of the Settlement, call or visit the website. www.LibertyTaxSettlement.com 1‐844‐271‐4786 2
EXHIBIT D
September 24, 2015
Hank Bates, Esquire
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re:
Richard Golomb, Esquire
Golomb & Honik, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Liberty Tax Settlement
INVOICE
For services rendered and expenses incurred in the notification processes of the Settlement:
Set-up, format and proof notice, postcard notice, claim form:
Submit file to NCOA:
Print, address and mailing of postcard notices (651,727 @ $0.07):
Estimated postage:
Website creation:
Call Center/IVR set-up, training, design:
Publication (USA Today 10/02/2015):
Amount Due:
$
750.00
100.00
45,620.89
170,178.20
5,000.00
1,000.00
27,017.55
$249,666.64
Please submit payments to:
Heffler Claims Group; 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700; Philadelphia, PA 19102
If you wish to make payment by wire, please send an e-mail to the
Project Manager requesting the wire instructions. Thank you.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1700  Philadelphia, PA 19102  215.665.8870  Fax 215.665.0613
California | New Jersey | New York | Oklahoma | Oregon
www.HefflerClaims.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Transcription

Similar documents

Here For Pdf Version

Elizabeth M. Tannon | Of Counsel

EX_People_and_Culture_2_files/PEOPLE AND - GEO

Piikani Nation Waters

Juventud Presente No. 27

Greg Webb`s Verdicts and Settlements

Affordable Condos Coming to Larchmont

exhibit 4 - Allen v. Similasan

fulletons poblat DEF

Homecoming Packet 2015-2016 - Meeting Portal