Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation

Background

Class Counsel asked the court to resolve an unresolved dispute with AMA Capital LLC concerning AMA’s settlement claim. Class Counsel initially relied on four grounds for rejecting the claim: untimeliness, inadequate documentation, failure to satisfy the class definition, and the possibility of duplicate recovery from claims submitted in this case and in the separate FOREX settlement.

In an earlier order, the court rejected the timeliness argument but accepted the documentation argument and required further briefing. The court later denied the disputed claims because they lacked the detailed transaction records required by the settlement. AMA then moved for reconsideration. Plaintiffs separately moved for approval to disburse settlement funds, and AMA opposed that motion.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied AMA’s motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies a change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice. The court found that AMA did not identify any of those grounds and instead repeated arguments that had already been presented and rejected.

The court declined to consider additional evidence AMA submitted with its motion because AMA gave no basis for failing to submit it earlier. The court also rejected AMA’s argument that the Claims Administrator was required to review new transaction records submitted after formally rejecting part of the claim.

The settlement agreements required the Claims Administrator to communicate with a claimant before rejection to address correctable deficiencies. The court found that the Claims Administrator had communicated with AMA, allowed AMA to revise its claim, and reviewed AMA’s revised claim and transaction records before rejecting part of the claim. The court read the later procedure for contesting a rejection as similar to reconsideration, not as an opportunity to reopen the entire claims process with previously available evidence.

The court added that, even if AMA could submit additional documentation after rejection, AMA still had not identified duplicate transactions submitted in the FOREX settlement. The court stated that claims belonged in one settlement or the other and that AMA could not obtain duplicate recovery.

Disbursement of Settlement Funds

The court found that approval of the motion for disbursement was appropriate. It credited Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator with diligently administering the settlements, including efforts to notify potential claimants, handling nearly 4,000 calls and more than 700 emails, and processing 963 late claims. The court noted that $122,683.24 remained from funds budgeted for notice and settlement administration.

The court rejected AMA’s arguments against disbursement. It explained that granting the disbursement motion would not require immediate distribution. Distribution could occur after AMA’s appeal, consistent with the settlement terms and the appellate decision. The court also found that the proposed $50,000 reserve was immaterial because the funds would not be distributed until the appeal was resolved. If AMA prevailed, distribution under the current motion would not occur and a new motion would be required.

The court found no evidence that Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator treated AMA unfairly compared with similarly situated class members. It declined to turn the disbursement motion into a broader review of every settlement-administration decision. The court stated that a separate order granting the disbursement motion would issue, subject to revisions required by the dispute with AMA and its pending appeal.

Sealing Motions and Disposition

The court granted the motions to seal filed in connection with the reconsideration and disbursement motions, relying on reasons identified in an earlier order. It directed the Clerk to maintain specified documents under seal with access limited to the individuals identified in the related appendices and directed the Clerk to close the listed motions.

The express dispositions in this order were that AMA’s motion for reconsideration was denied and the sealing motions were granted. The order concerning disbursement was to issue separately.