Which cases apply to your company?

Air Cargo Antitrust Settlements

1:06-md-01775 US District Court Eastern District of New York

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Airfreight Shipping Services by, among other things, coordinating surcharges (such as fuel and security surcharges) and by agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. They claim that purchasers paid more for Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid.

This summary is for informational purposes only, based on SRG’s review of publicly available information regarding the settlement. Claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own, and more information can be found on the Court’s docket and on the claims administrator’s website www.aircargosettlement5.com.

Class

All persons or entities (but excluding Defendants, their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, as well as government entities) who purchased Airfreight Shipping Services for shipments to, from or within the United States directly from any of the Settling Defendants, any other Defendant, or from any of their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, at any time during the period January 1, 2000 up to and including September 11, 2006. Airfreight Shipping Services are defined as paid private air transport of freight or other cargo by an airline acting as a provider of such services.

Defendants

• AC Cargo LP
• Aerolineas Brasileiras A.A (Absa)
• Air Canada
• Air China Cargo Company Ltd.
• Air China Ltd.
• Air India
• Air Mauritius Ltd.
• Airways Corp. Of New Zealand Ltd.
• Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A.
• All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.
• American Airlines, Inc.
• AMR Corporation
• Asiana Airlines, Inc.
• Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
• British Airways PLC
• Cargolux Airlines International S.A.
• Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.
• China Airlines, Ltd.
• DAS Air Ltd. (DAS Air Cargo)
• Deutsche Lufthansa AG
• El Al Israel Airlines
• Emirates Airlines
• Ethiopian Airlines Corp.
• EVA Airways Corporation
• Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.
• Kenya Airways Limited
• KLM
• Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.
• Lan Airlines S.A. (Lan Chile)
• Lan Cargo S.A.
• Lufthansa Cargo AG
• Malaysia Airlines
• Martinair Holland N.V.
• Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd.
• Polar Air Cargo, Inc.
• Qantas Airways Ltd.
• SAS Cargo Group A/S
• Saudi Arabian Airlines, Ltd.
• Scandinavian Airlines System
• Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE, Ltd.
• Singapore Airlines, Ltd.
• Société Air France
• South African Airways (Proprietary), Ltd.
• Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd.
• Thai Airways International Public Co., Ltd.
• Viação Aérea Rio-Grandense, S.A. (Varig)

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Air Cargo Canada Antitrust Settlements

Court File 50389CP Ontario Court of Justice & Related Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Airfreight Shipping Services by, among other things, coordinating surcharges (such as fuel and security surcharges) and by agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. They claim that purchasers paid more for Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid.

Class

All persons or entities (but excluding Defendants, their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, as well as government entities) who purchased air cargo shipping services from any air cargo carrier for shipments within, to, or from Canada (except shipments to or from Canada and the United States) during the period from January 1, 2000 to September 11, 2006, including those persons who purchased air cargo shipping services through freight forwarders. Airfreight Shipping Services are defined as paid private air transport of freight or other cargo by an airline acting as a provider of such services.

Defendants

• AC Cargo LP
• Air Canada
• Asiana Airlines, Inc.
• Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
• British Airways PLC
• Cargolux Airlines International S.A.
• Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.
• Deutsche Lufthansa AG
• Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (KLM)
• Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.
• Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.
• Lan Airlines S.A. (Lan Chile)
• Lan Cargo S.A.
• Lufthansa Cargo AG
• Martinair Holland N.V.
• Polar Air Cargo, Inc.
• Royal Dutch Airlines
• Scandinavian Airlines System
• Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE, Ltd.
• Singapore Airlines, Ltd.
• Société Air France
• Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Automotive Parts Occupant Safety Systems Direct Purchasers Settlement

2:12-md-02311 US District Court Eastern Michigan Southern Division

Overview

In 2012, class action lawsuits were filed against Defendants by Plaintiffs, on behalf of direct purchasers of Occupant Safety Systems. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to suppress and eliminate competition for Occupant Safety Systems by agreeing to fix prices, rig bids and allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Systems in violation of federal antitrust laws. Therefore, direct purchasers of Occupant Safety Systems in the United States overpaid for those products. The Settling Defendants deny the allegations, but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation. The Court has not ruled on the Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendants’ defenses. This is a partial settlement with Toyoda Gosei and Tokai Rika only.

Class

Anyone that purchased Occupant Safety Systems in the United States directly from any defendant company between January 1, 2003 and February 25, 2015 may be eligible. “Occupant Safety Systems” are considered seat belts, airbags, steering wheels or steering systems, safety electronic systems, and related parts and components.

Defendants

• Autoliv, Inc
• Autoliv ASP, Inc.
• Autoliv Safety Technology, Inc.
• Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG
• Autoliv Japan Ltd.
• Takata Corporation
• TK Holdings, Inc.
• Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
• TRAM, Inc. dba Tokai Rika USA Inc.
• Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.
• Toyoda Gosei North America Corp.
• TG Missouri Corp.
• TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation
• TRW Deutschland Holding​
• Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Automotive Parts Wire Harness Products Direct Purchasers Settlement

2:12-md-02311 US District Court Eastern Michigan Southern Division

Overview

Beginning in 2011, class action lawsuits were filed against Defendants by Plaintiffs, who are direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to suppress and eliminate competition for Wire Harness Products by agreeing to rig bids and fix prices of Wire Harness Products in violation of federal antitrust laws. Therefore, direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products in the United States overpaid for those products. The Settling Defendants deny the allegations, but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation. The Court has not ruled on the Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendants’ defenses. This is a settlement with the Settling Defendants only. Plaintiffs are still pursuing the case against the non-settling Defendants.

Class

Anyone that purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from any defendant company between January 1, 2000 and December 13, 2016 may be eligible. “Wire Harnesses” are considered electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in motor vehicles. “Wire Harness Products” means wire harnesses and related products: automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, high voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, and speed sensor wire assemblies used in motor vehicles.

Defendants

• Chiyoda Manufacturing Corporation
• Denso Corporation
• Denso International America, Inc.
• Fujikura Ltd.
• Fujikura Automotive America LLC
• Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.
• American Furukawa, Inc.
• Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a Furukawa Lear Corp. and Lear Furukawa Corp.
• G.S. Electech, Inc.
• G.S. Wiring Systems Inc.
• G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.
• Lear Corporation
• LEONI Wiring Systems, Inc.
• Leonische Holding Inc.
• Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
• Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.
• Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.
• Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
• Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd.
• Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.
• K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.
• Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.), Inc.
• Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
• TRAM, Inc.
• Yazaki Corporation;
• Yazaki North America, Inc.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Settlement

US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, MDL 2406, 2:13 cv-20000-RDP

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that Settling Defendants violated antitrust laws by entering into an agreement not to compete with each other in selling health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products in the United States and Puerto Rico, as well as agreeing to other means of limiting competition in the market for health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products.

The settlement includes net proceeds (after covering legal and administrative fees) of approximately $1.78 billion for eligible fully insured plans, and approximately $120 million for self-funded groups.

Eligible Individuals, Insured Groups and Self-Funded Groups will also benefit from changes by the Settling Defendants to make their practices more competitive.

Class

Individuals, Insured Groups (including both employers and other groups), and Self-Funded Accounts (including both employers and other groups), that purchased, were covered by, or were enrolled in a Blue Branded Commercial Health Benefit Product sold, underwritten, insured, administered or issued by a Settling Individual Blue Cross Blue Shield Member Plan during one of the two relevant Class Periods. Government accounts, dependents, beneficiaries (including minors) and non-employees are not included in the settlement class.

Settlement Period

February 7, 2008 through October 16, 2020: Fully Insured Groups
September 1, 2015 through October 16, 2020: Self-Funded Accounts

Defendants

• Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA)
• Settling Individual Blue Cross Blue Shield Member Plans

Settlements: $2.67 Billion ($1.78 Billion Fully-Insured and $120 Million Self-Funded)

Filing Deadline: November 5, 2021

SRG is not affiliated with the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party service that can be hired to file and track claims. We specialize in helping companies file claims to obtain their share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim. No-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during any claims-filing period. Official documents and information on the case can be found on the Court-approved case website www.bcbssettlement.com. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax or other professional advice.

Canadian Forex Price Fixing National Settlement

Overview

Class action lawsuits in Ontario and Quebec allege an unlawful conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market (the “FX Market”). Beginning at least as early as 2003 and continuing through 2013, it is alleged that the Defendants communicated directly with each other to coordinate their: (i) fixing of spot prices; (ii) controlling and manipulating FX benchmark rates; and (iii) exchanging key confidential customer information in an effort to trigger client stop loss orders and limit orders. The Defendants’ alleged conspiracy affected dozens of currency pairs, including the U.S. and Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) currency pair, which is one of the world’s highest volume trading currency pairs. Due to the importance of spot prices, it is alleged that the Defendants’ alleged conspiracy impacted all manner of FX instruments, including those trading both over-the counter and on exchanges.

FX Instruments include FX spot transactions, outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market.

Class

In Canada outside of Quebec, you are included in the Settlement Class if:

you are a person in Canada who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an FX Instrument either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument and you did not opt-out of the lawsuit on or before December 5, 2016.

In Quebec, you are included in the Settlement Class if:

you are a person in Quebec who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an FX Instrument[1] either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument and you did not opt-out of the lawsuit on or before December 5, 2016.

“FX Instruments” includes FX spot transactions, outright forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market. Excluded from the class are the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles are not excluded from the class.

Defendants​

• UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank (Canada)
• BNP Paribas ​Group
• Bank of America Corporation
• The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
• JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank Canada
• Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, and ​Citigroup Global Markets Canada
• Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays Capital Canada Inc.
• HSBC Holdings PLC
• Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC,
• Standard Chartered PLC
• The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
• Société Générale S.A., Société Générale (Canada)​

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Direct Purchaser Settlement

3:07-md-1917 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview

​Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and products. The complaint describes how the Defendants and coconspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them.

Class​

All persons and entities who, between March l, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United States from any Defendant or subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator (“Settlement Class”). For the purposes of the Settlement, Cathode Ray Tube Products means Cathode Ray Tubes of any type (color display tubes, color picture tubes and monochrome display tubes) and finished products which contain Cathode Ray Tubes, such as televisions and computer monitors.

Defendants​

• LG Electronics, Inc.
• Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd.
• ​LG Electronics U.S.A, Inc.
• ​Panasonic Corporation of North America​
• ​LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.
• Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC)
• ​Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
• ​Hitachi, Ltd.Philips Electronics North America Corporation
• Hitachi Displays, Ltd.
• ​Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.
• Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
• Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.
• ​Hitachi America, Ltd.
• ​​LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a LG
• ​Hitachi Asia, Ltd.
• ​Philips Displays
• Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd.
• Tatung Company of America, Inc.
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• ​Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
• ​Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
• ​Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
• ​Samsung SDI America, Inc.
• ​IRICO Croup Corporation
• Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.
• ​IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd.
• ​Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.
• ​IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
• ​Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co, Ltd.
• Thai CRT Company, Ltd.​
• ​Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.
• ​Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
• ​Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
• Daewoo International Corporation
• ​Toshiba Corporation
• ​Irico Group Corporation
• ​Toshiba America, Inc.
• ​Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC
• ​​Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.
• ​Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc
• ​​Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Indirect Purchaser Settlement

3:07-md-1917 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview​

Class Action Settlements have been reached involving Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”), a display device that was sold by itself or as the main components in TVs and computer monitors. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs causing consumers to pay more for CRT Products such as Televisions and Computer Monitors.

Class

​​The Settlement Class includes any person or business in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, that indirectly purchased a CRT or a product containing CRT, such as a TV or a computer monitor, made by the Defendants from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada have shorter claims periods. The purchases must have been made for the class member’s use and not for resale.

Defendants

• LG Electronics, Inc.
• LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
• LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co.
• Ltd, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
• Philips Electronics North America Corporation
• Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.
• Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.
• LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a LG.Philips Displays
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
• Samsung SDI America, Inc.
• Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.
• Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.
• Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
• Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
• Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
• Toshiba Corporation
• Toshiba America, Inc.
• Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC.
• Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
• Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.​
• Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd.
• Panasonic Corporation of North America
• MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.
• Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC)
• Hitachi, Ltd.
• Hitachi Displays, Ltd.
• Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
• Hitachi America, Ltd.
• Hitachi Asia, Ltd.
• Tatung Company of America, Inc.
• Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
• Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
• IRICO Group Corporation
• IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd.
• IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Thai CRT Company, Ltd.
• Samtel Color, Ltd.

​Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Containerboard Products Direct Purchaser Settlement

1:10-cv-05711 US District Court Northern Illinois Eastern Division

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant companies unlawfully conspired to fix, raise or maintain the prices of Containerboard Products purchased in the United States. The lawsuit claims that any person or entity that pu​​​rchased Containerboard Products directly from any Defendant company during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market.

Class

Individuals and entities who, between February 15, 2004 and November 8, 2010 (the “Class Period”), purchased Containerboard Products for use or delivery in the United States directly from the Defendants, including their predecessors and subsidiaries during the Class Period. Containerboard products include linerboard, corrugated medium and corrugated products such as sheets, boxes and corrugated containers.

Defendants

• Packaging Corporation of America
• International Paper
• Cascades Canada Inc.
• Norampac Holdings US Inc.
• Weyerhaeuser Company
• Georgia Pacific LLC
• Temple Inland Inc.
• RockTe​nn CP, LLC, formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.