Success Stories


FRS’S CLIENTS REAP SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS

The benefits that, as a class action claims management consultant, FRS provides are not fairly appreciated by considering just the value of the claim or the recovery obtained, as those may simply be the result of the good fortune of having been retained by a client with substantial purchases. Rather, a true appreciation of the benefits – in addition to the more difficult to measure benefits obtained via FRS’s case monitoring and client notification processes – that FRS’s clients derive from FRS’s sector-leading services is provided by the increases in claim value that often result from those services. Representative examples of those measurable benefits are as follows:

 

FRS’s client, a large “Fortune” company, estimated that, in the Vitamins settlement, FRS’s successful advocacy for alternative documentation and estimation saved approximately 150 hours of in-house work and obtained a recovery for the vast majority of its purchases.

____________________

FRS, on behalf of four of our healthcare system clients in the Blood Reagents settlement, received defendant purchase data that totaled approximately $985,000. FRS worked with our clients to increase those purchases to approximately $2.6 million, or by more than 2.5 times, which increased their recoveries by over $425,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a world leader in the distribution of chemicals and related products and services, had incorrectly determined that it was not eligible to recover from the settlement of the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation. FRS established that over $19,000,000 of their purchases were eligible, which resulted in a recovery of over $1.4 million.

____________________

FRS increased by approximately $5,000,000 the recovery that its client, a large metropolitan area hospital, obtained in the United Healthcare settlement.

____________________

FRS’s client, a global market leader in full-line ingredient and chemical distribution, received for the Urethane Antitrust Litigation a prepopulated claim form that did not include eligible purchases for its acquisitions of regional and local chemical distributors. FRS’s research identified those acquired entities, which enabled FRS to compel the claims administrator and class counsel to locate defendants’ data for them and resulted in an additional recovery of several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large metropolitan healthcare system headquartered outside of Illinois, was unaware that it could participate in the settlement of the Illinois Attorney General’s TFT-LCD Indirect Litigation. FRS identified several facilities in Illinois, which resulted in a claim for over 25,000 eligible units.

___________________

FRS’s client, a “Fortune” diversified technology and manufacturing company, was unable to provide detailed shipping records for the 10-year Freight Forwarders Antitrust Litigation class period that began in 2001. However, FRS’s innovative approach, which relied on records of freight forwarding shipments that occurred after the end of the class period, resulted in arecovery of approximately $8 million that it otherwise would not have obtained.

____________________

FRS’s client, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of specialized industrial equipment, maintained during the 10-year Freight Forwarders Antitrust Litigation class period that began in 2001, decentralized purchasing for hundreds of subsidiaries and divisions. FRS developed an innovative approach to data collection that resulted in a claim for over $675 million of eligible freight forwarding services.

____________________

FRS’s client, a “Fortune” technology manufacturer, had undervalued its claim to recover from the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS’s research increased that client’s recovery by more than $1,000,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a major electronics distributor, had undervalued its claim to recover from the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS’s research increased this client’s recovery 1,000-fold, from approximately $5,000 to over $5,000,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a major healthcare system, asked FRS to review a claim that a competitor had already filed to recover from the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS increased our client’s recovery by more than 7 times, or by approximately $1,700,000.

____________________

FRS determined that its client, a firm in the telecommunications industry, was eligible to recover from the IRS’s Telephone Excise Tax Refund program. After 4 years of negotiating with the IRS and addressing all of the IRS’s concerns, FRS recovered over $20 million that the client otherwise would not have recovered.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large corporation that was headquartered in a state that was not located in a jurisdiction that was eligible to participate in the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, had incorrectly determined that none of its purchases were eligible to participate. FRS’s research discovered certain of its locations were in eligible states, which resulted in the client receiving over $900,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large retailer with approximately 4,700 locations, did not have for its acquired entities purchase records to substantiate claims to recover from the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS developed an acceptable alternative methodology to calculate the claim, which resulted in a recovery of over $1,250,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large northeastern healthcare system, was unaware that it was eligible to recover from the settlement of the US Foodservice litigation. FRS’s diligence and research resulted in a recovery of over $1,800,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large uniform and corporate identity company, could not identify all of the purchases eligible to be included in its claim to recover from the settlement of the Fasteners litigation. FRS developed an innovative alternative to searching for, collecting and analyzing hard copy documentation, which increased the claimed purchases from $8,500,000 to over $14,600,000, or by 71%.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large hospital, had undervalued its claim to recover from the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS developed an innovative alternative method to document the claim, which resulted in a recovery of over $409,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, an industry leader in the IT infrastructures sector, was not aware of its eligibility to recover from the settlement of the Dynamic Random Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation and did not have the records it believed were required to submit a claim. FRS developed an innovative alternative methodology, which resulted in a recovery of over $602,000.

____________________

FRS’s client, one of the largest operators of travel centers and travel plazas in North America, received from the US Foodservice claims administrator pre-populated claim forms for just a small number of its locations, and was prepared to submit a claim only for those locations. FRS, by identifying threefold additional locations and working with the claims administrator to locate data for those additional locations, increased our client’s claim by over 135%.

____________________

FRS’s client, one of the largest chemical producers in North America, incorrectly determined that, because it was headquartered in an ineligible state, it could not participate in the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS determined that the client had substantial eligible purchases, which resulted in a recovery of over $1.3 million.

____________________

FRS’s client, a global provider of marketing solutions, had incorrectly determined that, because it could not locate purchase documentation, it could not submit a viable claim to participate in the settlement of the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. FRS developed an innovative alternative approach to providing actual purchase documents, which resulted in a recovery of approximately $4.8 million.

____________________

FRS’s client, a leading global insurance organization, had undervalued its claim to participate in the settlement of the Polyurethane Foam Indirect Purchaser Litigation. FRS, by identifying decentralized purchases, increased the value of the claim from $50 million to $65 million, or by 30%.

____________________

FRS’s client, a large metropolitan healthcare system, had undervalued its claim to recover from the settlement of the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. FRS researched the many related entities that our client operated and successfully advocated with the claims administrator and class counsel, which increased the claim by $1.5 million.

____________________

FRS successfully advocated on behalf of its clients in the Washington Attorney General’s TFT-LCD Indirect Purchaser parens patriae action such that claims from businesses that were resident in Washington but not headquartered there and late claims would be accepted.