Exhibit B 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 1 of 74 PageID #:473
DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR,

CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PROGARAM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, )

individually and on behalf of a class of )

similarly situated individuals, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 12-cv-04789

)

v. )

) Hon. Sara L. Ellis

BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTIFICATION PROGRAM

I, JEANNE C. FINEGAN, declare as follows:

OVERVIEW

1. I am President of HF Media, LLC, Inc. (“HF”) a division of Heffler Claims Group. This 

Declaration is based upon my personal knowledge as well as information provided to me 

by my associates and staff, including information reasonably relied upon in the fields of 

advertising media and communications. 

2. Heffler Claims Group LLC (“Heffler”) was engaged by the Parties as the Settlement 

Administrator in the above captioned litigation (the “Action”), to implement the notice 

procedures and administer the claims procedures identified in section I 1.38 of the 

Settlement Agreement, dated July 23, 2014.

3. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as:

i. All persons who, from June 15, 2008 through the date of preliminary 

approval, (a) received a call on their cellular phone made by or on behalf 

of Bill Me Later, Inc. (“BML”) using an automatic telephone dialing 

system and the called party did not give consent for BML to make such a 

call, or (b) received a call on their cellular phone or residential telephone 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 2 of 74 PageID #:474
2

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

line made by or on behalf of BML using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

to deliver a message and the called party did not give consent for BML to 

make such a call.

4. I submit this Declaration in order to provide the Court and the parties to the Action a 

report regarding the successful implementation of the Notice Plan as it relates to the 

Publication Notice (“Publication Notice”), through magazine, online banner notice, and 

the mailing of the Notice (“Long Form Notice”). 

5. Furthermore, this Declaration reports on the operation and maintenance of the dedicated 

Settlement Website, and toll-free number.

6. In compliance with the Order, all elements of the Notice Plan have been successfully 

implemented. Detailed descriptions of those elements are described below. 

7. Importantly, this Declaration explains how this comprehensive Notice Plan, through a 

combination of paid media and direct mail/ email is estimated to have reached1 over 95 

percent of the class. This Declaration will also describe why it is consistent with other 

similar Court approved Actions providing a best notice practicable under the 

circumstances.

QUALIFICATIONS

8. My credentials that qualify me to provide an expert opinion include more 25 years of 

communications and advertising experience. I am the only Notice Expert accredited in 

Public Relations (APR) by the Universal Accreditation Board, a program administered by 

the Public Relations Society of America. Further, I have provided testimony before 

Congress on issues of notice. Also, I have lectured, published and been cited extensively 

on various aspects of legal noticing, product recall and crisis communications and have 

 1 Net Reach measures the number of people exposed (unduplicated), and Frequency is a report of the 

number of exposures. In advertising, this is commonly referred to as a “Reach and Frequency” analysis, where 

“Reach” refers to the estimated percentage of the unduplicated audience exposed to the campaign, and “Frequency” 

refers to how many times, on average, the target audience had the opportunity to see the message. The calculations 

are used by advertising and communications firms worldwide, and have become a critical element to help provide 

the basis for determining adequacy of notice in class actions.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 3 of 74 PageID #:475
3

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

served the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as an expert to determine ways 

in which the CPSC can increase the effectiveness of its product recall campaigns.

9. I have particularly relevant experience for court approved telecommunications matters

including:

• Rojas v Career Education Corporation, No. 10-cv-05260 (N.D.E.D. IL) 

• Heather Stern v. New Cingular Wireless Services Inc., No. 09-cv-1112 CAS-AGR

(C.D.Cal.)

• Palmer v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, No. 09-cv-01211 (JLR) (W.D.Wa.)

• In re: MCI Non-Subscriber Telephone Rate Litig., MDL Docket No. 1275, 3:99-

cv01275 (S.D.Ill.)

• Sparks v. AT&T Corp., No. 96-LM-983 (Third Judicial Cir., Madison County, Ill.)

10. I have served as an expert, directly responsible for the design and implementation of 

hundreds of class action notice programs, some of which are the largest and most 

complex programs ever implemented in both the United States and in Canada. My work 

includes a wide range of class actions and regulatory and consumer matters that include 

product liability, construction defect, antitrust, asbestos, medical pharmaceutical, human 

rights, civil rights, telecommunications, media, environmental, securities, banking, 

insurance and bankruptcy. 

11. Further, I have been at the forefront of modern notice, integrating new media and social 

media into court approved legal notice programs such as In re: Reebok Easytone 

Litigation, No. 10-CV-11977 (D. MA.), and In re: Skechers Toning Shoes Products 

Liability Litigation, No. 3:11-MD-2308-TBR (W.D. Ky. 2012).

12. Heffler has provided class action settlement services in over 900 cases of varying sizes 

and complexity over the past 45 years. Heffler has expertise in all aspects of 

administration for consumer, antitrust, securities, employment, mass tort, and government 

enforcement matters. Heffler’s administration is exemplified, in part, by the complex 

services provided In re: Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 1:01md, MDL 

No. 1409. In this matter, Heffler distributed over $3 billion in funds, processed over 10 

million claims and mailed information to over 40 million potential claimants.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 4 of 74 PageID #:476
4

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

13. As further reference, in evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of my notice programs, 

courts have repeatedly recognized my work as an expert. For example, in:

In re: Skechers Toning Shoes Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:11-MD-2308-TBR 

(W.D. Ky. 2012). In his order granting the Motion for Settlement, the Honorable Thomas 

B. Russell stated: 

... The comprehensive nature of the class notice leaves little doubt that, upon 

receipt, class members will be able to make an informed and intelligent decision 

about participating in the settlement.

Brody v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al, No. 3:12-cv-04774-PGS-DEA (N.J.) (Jt Hearing for 

Prelim App, Sept. 27, 2012, transcript page 34). During the Hearing on Joint 

Application for Preliminary Approval of Class Action, the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan 

praised Ms. Finegan, noting: 

Ms. Finegan did a great job in testifying as to what the class administrator will do. 

So, I'm certain that all the class members or as many that can be found, will be 

given some very adequate notice in which they can perfect their claim.

DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 01-CA-1010 (W.D.Tx.). In the Amended Final 

Order and Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement, the Honorable Fred Biery 

stated: 

[T]he undisputed evidence shows the notice program in this case was 

developed and implemented by a nationally recognized expert in class 

action notice programs. ... This program was vigorous and specifically 

structured to reach the African-American and Hispanic class members. 

Additionally, the program was based on a scientific methodology which is 

used throughout the advertising industry and which has been routinely 

embraced routinely [sic] by the Courts. 

And in Stern v. AT&T Mobility Wireless, No. 09-cv-1112 CAS-AGR (C.D.Cal.). In the 

Final Approval Order, the Honorable Christina A. Snyder stated: 

[T]he Court finds that the Parties have fully and adequately effectuated the 

Notice Plan, as required by the Preliminary Approval Order, and, in fact, 

have achieved better results than anticipated or required by the 

Preliminary Approval Order.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 5 of 74 PageID #:477
5

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

14. Other examples include:

a. Gemelas v. The Dannon Company, No. 1:08-cv-00236 (N.D. Ohio, E. 

Div.). In the Judgment, Final Order, and Decree, Judge Dan Aaron Polster approved the 

notice program, stating:

In accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and the Courtapproved notice program, the Class Action Settlement Administrator 

caused the Class Notice to be distributed on a nationwide basis in 

magazines and newspapers (with circulation numbers exceeding 81 

million) specifically chosen to reach Class Members. In addition, the 

Settlement was widely publicized using Internet banner ads, press 

releases, audio news releases, via a Settlement Website, and through a tollfree number. ... The Declaration of Jeanne C. Finegan [sic], attesting to 

the dissemination of the Class Notice, demonstrates compliance with this 

Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. ... The distribution of the Class 

Notice constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and 

fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the 

requirements of due process, 28 U.S.C. 1715, and any other applicable 

law.

b. In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation, Case No. 05-2-02060-1 

SEA, Superior Court of Washington in and for King County (2009). In the Order 

Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Judge Monica Benton stated:

The Notice of the Settlement given to the Class ... was the best notice practicable 

under the circumstances. All of these forms of Notice directed Class Members to 

a Settlement Website providing key Settlement documents including instructions 

on how Class Members could exclude themselves from the Class, and how they 

could object to or comment upon the Settlement. The Notice provided due and 

adequate notice of these proceeding and of the matters set forth in the Agreement 

to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the 

requirements of CR 23 and due process.

c. Stefanyshyn v. Consolidated Industries, Case No. 79 D 01-9712-CT-59, 

Tippecanoe County Sup. Ct. (Ind.) (May 28, 2009). In the Order Granting Final 

Approval of Settlement, Judge Randy Williams stated:

The long and short form notices provided a neutral, informative, and clear 

explanation of the Settlement... The proposed notice program was 

properly designed, recommended, and implemented ... and constitutes the 

“best practicable” notice of the proposed Settlement. The form and content 

of the notice program satisfied all applicable legal requirements... The 

comprehensive class notice educated Settlement Class members about the 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 6 of 74 PageID #:478
6

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

defects in Consolidated furnaces and warned them that the continued use 

of their furnaces created a risk of fire and/or carbon monoxide. This alone 

provided substantial value.

d. McGee v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. et al, Civ. No. 06-6234-

(GEB) (D.N.J.). The Court noted:

The Class Notice, the Summary Settlement Notice, the website, the tollfree telephone number, and all other notices in the Agreement, and the 

notice methodology implemented pursuant to the Agreement: (a) 

constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (b) 

constituted notice that was reasonably calculated to apprise Class 

Members of the pendency of the Action, the terms of the Settlement and 

their rights under the Settlement, including, but not limited to, their right 

to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement and to 

appear at the Fairness Hearing; (c) were reasonable and constituted due, 

adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive 

notification; and (d) met all applicable requirements of law, including, but 

not limited to, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1715, 

and the Due Process Clause(s) of the United States Constitution, as well as 

complied with the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative class action 

notices.

e. In re: Canadian Air Cargo Shipping Class Actions (Ontario Superior 

Court of Justice, Court File No. 50389CP, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Quebec 

Superior Court). In the Endorsement of Settlement, Ontario Superior Court of Justice 

Regional Senior Justice Lynne C. Leitch stated:

I am satisfied the proposed form of notice meets the requirements of s. 

17(6) of the CPA and the proposed method of notice is appropriate.

f. Lucas v. KMART Corporation, Civil Action No 99-CV-01923 

(JLK) (D. Colo. 2006). The Court noted: 

[T]he Court finds this extensive notice program to be more than adequate

and approves it as the ‘best notice practicable under the circumstances’ 

and consistent with the requirements of F.R.C.P. 23 and due process.

g. Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Civil 

Action No. 04-2702 (JLL) (D.N.J. 2004). The Court noted:

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 7 of 74 PageID #:479
7

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

[A]ll of the notices are written in simple terminology, are readily 

understandable by Class Members, and comply with the Federal Judicial 

Center’s illustrative class action notices.

h. Wilson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. D101-CV 98-02814 (First Judicial District Court County of Santa Fe State of New Mexico 

2002). The Court stated:

The Notice Plan was the best practicable and reasonably calculated, under 

the circumstances of the action . . . [and] that the notice meets or exceeds 

all applicable requirements of law, including Rule 1-023(C)(2) and (3) and 

1-023(E), NMRA 2001, and the requirements of federal and/or state 

constitutional due process and any other applicable law.

i. Thomas A. Foster and Linda E. Foster v. ABTco Siding, Case No. 95-

151-M (Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama 2000). The Court stated: 

The notice program constitutes the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances of this Action. This finding is based on the overwhelming 

evidence of the adequacy of the notice program.

j. Sparks v. AT&T Corporation, Case No. 96-LM-983 (Third Judicial 

Circuit Madison County, Illinois 2001). In granting final approval to the Settlement, the 

Court commented on the notification program as follows: 

The Court further finds that the notice of the proposed Settlement was

sufficient and furnished Class Members with the information they needed 

to evaluate whether to participate in or opt out of the proposed Settlement. 

The Court therefore concludes that the notice of the proposed Settlement 

met all requirements required by law, including all Constitutional 

requirements.

k. In re: Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding, Civil Action Nos. 879-JE, 

and 1453-JE (D. Or. 1995, 1999). The Court stated: 

[T]he notice given to the members of the Class fully and accurately 

informed the Class members of all material elements of the 

Settlement...[through] a broad and extensive multi-media notice 

campaign. . . .

15. Additionally, I have published extensively on various aspects of legal noticing, including 

the following publications and articles:

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 8 of 74 PageID #:480
8

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

a. Author, ‘Being 'Media-Relevant' — What It Means And Why It Matters -

Law360.com, New York (September 11, 2013, 2:50 PM ET).

b. Co-Author, “New Media Creates New Expectations for Bankruptcy 

Notice Programs,” ABI Journal, Vol. XXX, No 9, November 2011.

c. Quoted Expert, “Effective Class Action Notice Promotes Access to 

Justice: Insight from a New U.S. Federal Judicial Center Checklist,” Canadian Supreme 

Court Law Review, (2011), 53 S.C.L.R. (2d).

d. Co-Author, with Hon. Dickran Tevrizian, “Expert Opinion: It’s More 

Than Just a Report...Why Qualified Legal Experts Are Needed to Navigate the Changing 

Media Landscape,” BNA Class Action Litigation Report, 12 CLASS 464, 5/27/11.

e. Co-Author, with Hon. Dickran Tevrizian, “Your Insight: It’s More Than 

Just a Report...Why Qualified Legal Experts Are Needed to Navigate the Changing 

Media Landscape, TXLR, Vol. 26, No. 21, 5/26/2011.

f. Author, Five Key Considerations for a Successful International Notice 

Program, BNA Class Action Litigation Report, 4/9/10 Vol. 11, No. 7 p. 343.

g. Quoted: Technology Trends Pose Novel Notification Issues for Class 

Litigators, BNA Electronic Commerce and Law Report, 15, ECLR 109, 1/27/10.

h. Author, Legal Notice: R U ready 2 adapt? BNA Class Action Litigation 

Report, Vol. 10, No. 14, 7/24/2009, pp. 702-703.

i. Author, On Demand Media Could Change the Future of Best Practicable 

Notice, BNA Class Action Litigation Report, Vol. 9, No. 7, 4/11/2008, pp. 307-310.

j. Quoted in, Warranty Conference: Globalization of Warranty and Legal 

Aspects of Extended Warranty, Warranty Week, February 28, 2007, available at 

www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20070228.html.

k. Co-Author, Approaches to Notice in State Court Class Actions, For The 

Defense, Vol. 45, No. 11, November, 2003.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 9 of 74 PageID #:481
9

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

l. Author, The Web Offers Near, Real-Time Cost Efficient Notice, American 

Bankruptcy Institute Journal, Vol. XXII, No. 5, 2003.

m. Author, Determining Adequate Notice in Rule 23 Actions, For The 

Defense, Vol. 44, No. 9, September, 2002.

n. Co-Author, The Electronic Nature of Legal Noticing, American 

Bankruptcy Institute Journal, Vol. XXI, No. 3, April, 2002.

o. Author, Three Important Mantras for CEO’s and Risk Managers in 2002, 

International Risk Management Institute, irmi.com/, January, 2002.

p. Co-Author, Used the Bat Signal Lately, The National Law Journal, Special 

Litigation Section, February 19, 2001.

q. Author, How Much is Enough Notice, Dispute Resolution Alert, Vol. 1, 

No. 6, March, 2001.

r. Author, Monitoring the Internet Buzz, The Risk Report, Vol. XXIII, No. 5, 

January, 2001.

s. Author, High-Profile Product Recalls Need More Than the Bat Signal, 

International Risk Management Institute, irmi.com/, July 2001. 

t. Author, The Great Debate - How Much is Enough Legal Notice?

American Bar Association -- Class Actions and Derivatives Suits Newsletter, Winter 

1999.

u. Author, What are the best practicable methods to give notice?

Georgetown University Law Center Mass Tort Litigation Institute, CLE White Paper: 

Dispelling the communications myth -- A notice disseminated is a notice communicated, 

November 1, 2001.

16. In addition, I have lectured or presented extensively on various aspects of legal noticing. 

A sample list includes the following:

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 10 of 74 PageID #:482
10

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

a. Bridgeport Continuing Ed., Speaker, Webinar “Media Relevant in the 

Class Notice Context.” July 2014.

b. Bridgeport Continuing Ed. Faculty Panelist, “Media Relevant in the Class 

Notice Context,” April 2014.

c. CASD 5th Annual Speaker, “The Impact of Social Media on Class Action 

Notice.” Consumer Attorneys of San Diego Class Action Symposium, San Diego, 

California, September 2012.

d. Law Seminars International, Speaker, “Class Action Notice: Rules and 

Statutes Governing FRCP (b)(3) Best Practicable... What constitutes a best practicable 

notice? What practitioners and courts should expect in the new era of online and social 

media.” Chicago, IL, October 2011. 

e. CLE International, Faculty Panelist, Building a Workable Settlement 

Structure, CLE International, San Francisco, California May, 2011.

f. Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (CASD), Faculty Panelist, “21st 

Century Class Notice and Outreach,” 2nd Annual Class Action Symposium CASD 

Symposium, San Diego, California, October 2010.

g. Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (CASD), Faculty Panelist, “The Future 

of Notice,” 2nd Annual Class Action Symposium CASD Symposium, San Diego, 

California, October 2009.

h. American Bar Association, Speaker, 2008 Annual Meeting, “Practical 

Advice for Class Action Settlements: The Future of Notice In the United States and 

Internationally – Meeting the Best Practicable Standard.” 

i. American Bar Association, Section of Business Law Business and 

Corporate Litigation Committee – Class and Derivative Actions Subcommittee, New 

York, NY, August 2008.

j. Faculty Panelist, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (WLALA) 

CLE Presentation, “The Anatomy of a Class Action.” Los Angeles, CA, February 2008.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 11 of 74 PageID #:483
11

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

k. Faculty Panelist, Practicing Law Institute (PLI) CLE Presentation, 11th 

Annual Consumer Financial Services Litigation. Presentation: Class Action Settlement 

Structures -- “Evolving Notice Standards in the Internet Age.” New York/Boston

(simulcast) March, 2006; Chicago, April, 2006; and San Francisco, May 2006.

l. Expert Panelist, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. I was the 

only legal notice expert invited to participate as an expert to the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission to discuss ways in which the CPSC could enhance and measure the recall 

process. As an expert panelist, I discussed how the CPSC could better motivate 

consumers to take action on recalls and how companies could scientifically measure and 

defend their outreach efforts. Bethesda, MD, September 2003.

m. Expert Speaker, American Bar Association. Presentation: “How to BulletProof Notice Programs and What Communication Barriers Present Due Process Concerns 

in Legal Notice,” ABA Litigation Section Committee on Class Actions & Derivative 

Suits, Chicago, August 6, 2001.

17. A comprehensive description of my credentials and experience that qualify me to provide 

expert opinions on the adequacy of class action notice programs is attached as Exhibit A.

Notice Program Methodology

18. To appropriately design and target the notice publication component of the Notice 

Program, we have used a scientific methodology that is used throughout the advertising 

industry and that has been embraced by courts in the United States. See Daubert v. 

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (experts must apply a technique that 

may be tested by peers and use industry accepted methodology); Kumho Tire Co. v. 

Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (same). This methodology has been accepted by 

numerous Courts throughout the United States. Accordingly, my staff and I studied data 

provided by nationally syndicated media research bureaus, including GfK Mediamark 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 12 of 74 PageID #:484
12

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

Research and Intelligence, LLC (“GfK MRI”), comScore2 in order to determine the 

estimated net audience reached through this legal notice program. 

Notice Program Implementation

19. In compliance with the Order, the Notice program commenced on August 25, 2014 and 

was substantially completed on September 25, 2014. The elements of this comprehensive 

Notice Program included: 1) notice by direct mail and email; 2) notice by publication; 3) 

notice by Internet and mobile advertising; 4) a Facebook page; 5) a Settlement website; 

and 6) toll-free information telephone number.

Mailed Notice

20. In compliance with the Order, on or about August 6, 2014, Heffler received via a secure 

portal, 47,493,058 name, address and BML phone number records from defense counsel 

Sidley Austin, LLP. Heffler identified 15,981,302 records in the client data that had bad 

phone numbers and removed those records from any further analysis, leaving 31,511,756 

records to further review. Heffler analyzed the remaining 31,511,756 records and 

identified all the unique records using a combination of account number, phone number, 

name and address. This analysis yielded a dataset of 2,037,692 records. These 2,037,692 

records were analyzed by Heffler to formulate a Final Class List. Heffler prepared a file 

containing 2,037,692 records and sent it to LexisNexis (“Lexis”) with specific 

implementation instructions for performing a reverse phone look-up. Lexis then 

conducted the reverse look-up that encompassed the Class Period of June 15, 2008 to 

July 24, 2014. Lexis was directed to identify all of the names and addresses associated 

with a phone number during the class period. If more than one name was associated with 

the phone number during the period, Lexis sent the relevant data for each of the names 

associated with the phone number. Lexis provided Heffler with an output file containing 

 2 GfK MRI is a nationally syndicated research tool. It is the leading supplier of multi-media audience research, and 

provides comprehensive reports on demographic, lifestyle, product usage and media exposure. It conducts more 

than 26,000 personal interviews annually to gather their information, and is used by more than 450 advertising 

agencies as the basis for the majority of media and marketing campaigns. 

comScore is a global Internet information provider on which leading companies and advertising agencies rely for 

consumer behavior insight and Internet usage data. comScore maintains a proprietary database of more than 2 

million consumers who have given comScore permission to monitor their browsing and transaction behavior, 

including online and offline purchasing. comScore panelists also participate in survey research that captures and 

integrates their attitudes and intentions. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 13 of 74 PageID #:485
13

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

2,585,994 records following the reverse phone look-up. Lexis then culled the data for 

records that matched the look-up critical for owners during the Class Period, June 15 

2008 through July 24, 2014. Lexis returned 691,180 records that did not match the 

criteria during the trace process, leaving 1,894,814 records from Lexis that matched the 

look-up criteria and owned the phone number at any time during the Class Period. These 

1,894,814 records were then used to perform a matching comparison with the original 

data that was provided to Heffler on August 6, 2014. For each of the 1,894,814 Lexis 

output records, Heffler matched a combination of the phone number and the surname to 

the same in the original data. If the phone number and surname combination matched a 

record in the original data set, the Lexis record was considered a “match” and no further 

action was taken; 1,514,815 records were noted to be in this category. If the phone 

number and surname combination did not match a record in the original data set, the 

Lexis record was noted as “unmatched” and those unmatched records were used in 

formulating the final class list; 379,999 records were noted to be in the “unmatched” 

category. The 379,999 “unmatched” records then went through a de-duplication process 

to identify unique records for our final class list. Any class member that had a distinct 

combination of phone number, name and address were considered unique based on the 

aforementioned criteria and the final class list of 308,807 records was compiled.

21. In preparation for the Notice mailing, Heffler sent the 308,807 Final Class List records 

through the U.S. Postal Services, National Change of Address Database (“NCOA”), in an 

effort to identify current addresses for the records. On September 12, 2014, notices were 

mailed to the 308,807 members of the Final Class List. Attached as Exhibit B is a Class 

Notice and Claim Form sent to the Final Class List.

22. On August 6, 2014 Heffler was also provided via a secure portal 34,256 records with 

email addresses for potential class members. On September 12, 2014, Heffler emailed a 

Class Notice to 34,256 records. Of the 34,256 emails that were sent, 7,341 records

bounced back, and therefore were not delivered. Attached as Exhibit C is the notice sent 

via email.

23. As of October 31, 2014, Heffler has received 60,348 notices returned as undeliverable. 

57,375 of the undeliverable records have been sent through an address trace process with 

LexisNexis. The trace process produced 37,517 records with an address update. Heffler 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 14 of 74 PageID #:486
14

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

has re-mailed notices to the 37,517 records with updated addresses.

24. As of October 31, 2014, Heffler has received 1,136 notices returned with a forwarding 

address provided by the United States Postal Service. Heffler has updated the address in 

the claims databases and has re-mailed notices to all 1,136 records.

25. Heffler is also responsible for the receipt of Objection and Exclusion Requests for the 

Settlement. As of this October 31, 2014, Heffler has received thirty-two (32) Exclusion 

Requests and zero (0) Objections.

Notice by Publication Program as Implemented

26. In compliance with the Order, notice by publication was to occur as described in Exhibit 

E to the Settlement Agreement. This requirement has been successfully accomplished. 

27. Broad nationwide notice was accomplished through publication of the Summary Notice

one time in Sports Illustrated and two times in People Magazine. Sports Illustrated is a 

widely distributed weekly magazine with a circulation of 3,065,507 and 19,680,554

readers. People Magazine reports a circulation of 3,637,633 with over 44,415,498 

readers. In combination, the magazine circulation totals 6,703,140, with more then 

64,096,052 readers3. Attached as Exhibit D are tear sheet proofs of publication for these

titles.

Title Insertions On Sale Date 

Sports Illustrated 1 September 3, 2104

People Magazine 2 August 29, 2014

September 5, 2014

Internet Banner Ads

28. In compliance with the Court’s Order, Internet banner ads were posted on the sites 

identified below. The banners were posted over a one-month period and were estimated 

to have reached over 37 percent of US Adults who own cell phones. Banner ads 

provided information for visitors to self-identify themselves as potential Class Members, 

where they then could “click” on the banner and then link directly to the official website 

 3 Readership is a gross statistic which includes duplication.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 15 of 74 PageID #:487
15

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

for more information and where they could register online, or download the registration 

form. If class members had additional questions, the toll-free information line was also 

posted on the website. Attached as Exhibit E are screen shots of banner ads as they 

appeared online.

Site Description

Facebook Targeting on Facebook of adults 18+ with interests in stores 

who partner with Bill Me Later. Ads were targeted to appear 

in users newsfeed online and in their mobile/tablet 

Facebook app (ads located on the right-hand side of 

Facebook.com).

Xaxis Network Targeting users who are heavy online shoppers and have a 

cell phone. 

Mobile & App Network Targeting frequent online shoppers, and those who are 

frequent online purchasers at stores who partner with Bill 

Me Later including: Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Overstock.com, 

ToysRUs, HP and Apple Store

Social Media Outreach

29. In compliance with the Court’s Order, a Facebook Page was created where Court 

information about the settlement was posted. 

Website

30. In compliance with the Order, the Notice Program included an official website

www.AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com that went live on August 22, 2014. The website 

served as a “landing page for the banner advertising,” where Class Members may 

continue to obtain further information about the class action, their rights, download claim 

forms and related information, including the Settlement Agreement, Court Orders, and 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards. To date, over 

29,000 claims were filed via the settlement website. Additionally, website visitors were 

able to enter telephone number which received the automated calls, phone carrier, name 

and address information, email to determine eligibility. Visitors were also asked to certify 

that their claim forms were true and correct by checking a box and electronically signing 

the form. The website address was prominently displayed in the publication notice and is 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 16 of 74 PageID #:488
16

DECLARATION OF JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR 

accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. As of October 31, 2014 the site has received 

40,011 visits.

Telephone Helpline

31. Heffler also maintains a 24-hour toll-free telephone line, 1.844.245.3766, where callers 

may obtain information about the class action. As of October 31, 2014 the toll free line 

has received 3,703 calls. 

Exclusions and Objections

32. Class members were advised they had the right to exclude themselves from or object to 

the Settlement, provided that they file a Request for Exclusion or Objection by the 

October 23, 2014 deadline. As of October 31, 2014, Heffler has received requests from 

32 class members to be excluded from the settlement. Heffler has received no Objections 

to the Settlement. 

Conclusion

33. As a result of the highly effective and robust efforts conducted in our reverse look up

process to identify class members, the direct mail and email effort significantly exceeded 

our original projections. Therefore, the combination of paid media and direct notice is 

now estimated to have reached over 95 percent of targeted class members. In my opinion, 

the efforts employed in this notice program were of the highest communication standards, 

which were reasonably calculated to provide notice that was not only consistent, but 

exceeded Best Practicable court approved notice programs in similar matters which are

consistent with the Federal Judicial Center’s guidelines concerning appropriate reach. 

34. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 6, 2014 in Tigard, Oregon.

________________________

 

 JEANNE C. FINEGAN

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 17 of 74 PageID #:489
Exhibits to Declaration of Jeanne C. Finegan, APR 

Concerning Implementation of Notification Program 

Exhibit A: Jeanne Finegan Expert Qualifications

Exhibit B: Mailed Class Notice and Claim Form

Exhibit C: Emailed Notice

Exhibit D: Print Publication 

Exhibit E: Internet Screenshots

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 18 of 74 PageID #:490
Exhibit A

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 19 of 74 PageID #:491
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

JEANNE C. FINEGAN, APR

BIOGRAPHY

Jeanne	 Finegan,	 APR,	 is	 President	 of	 HF	 Media,	 LLC.,	 and	 has	 more	 than	 25 years	 of	

communications	 and	 advertising	 experience	 and	 is	 a	 distinguished legal	 notice	 and	

communications	 expert.	 	 During	 her	 tenure,	 she has	 planned and	

implemented	 hundreds	 of high-profile, complex legal	 notice	

communication	programs.	 She	is a recognized	notice	expert	in	both	the	

United	 States	 and	 in	 Canada,	 with	 extensive	 international notice

experience spanning more	than 140	countries and	over	40	languages.

Ms.	 Finegan	 has	 lectured,	 published	 and	 has	 been	 cited	 extensively	 on	

various	 aspects	 of	 legal	 noticing,	 product	 recall	 and	 crisis	

communications.	She	has	served	the	Consumer	Product	Safety	Commission (CPSC) as	an	expert	

to	determine	ways	in	which	the	Commission	can	increase	the	effectiveness	of	its	product	recall	

campaigns.	 	 Further,	 she	 has	 planned	and	 implemented	 large-scale	government	enforcement	

notice	 programs for	 the Federal	 Trade	 Commission	 (FTC)	 and	 the	 Securities	 and	 Exchange	

Commission	(SEC).

Ms.	Finegan	is	accredited	in	Public	Relations	(APR)	by	the	Universal	Accreditation	Board,	which	

is	a	program	administered	by	the	Public	Relations	Society	of	America	(PRSA), and	has	served	on	

examination	panels	for	APR	candidates.	Additionally, she	has	served	as	a	judge	for	prestigious	

PRSA	awards.		

Ms.	 Finegan	 has	 provided	 expert	 testimony	 before	 Congress	 on	 issues	 of	 notice,	 and	 expert	

testimony	 in	 both	 state	 and	 federal	 courts	 regarding	 notification	 campaigns.	 	 She	 has	

conducted	 numerous	 media	 audits	 of	 proposed	 notice	 programs	 to	 assess the adequacy of	

those	programs under	Fed	R.	Civ.	P.	23(c)(2)	and	similar	state	class	action	statutes.	

She was an	early	pioneer	of plain	language	in	notice	(as	noted	in	a RAND	study,1)	and	continues	

to	set	the	standard	for	modern	outreach as	the	first	notice	expert	to	integrate social	and	mobile	

media into	court	approved	legal	notice	programs. In	the	course	of	her	class	action	experience,	

courts	 have	 recognized	 the	merits	 of,	and	admitted	expert	 testimony	 based	 on,	 her	 scientific	

evaluation	of	the	effectiveness	of	notice	plans.	 She	has	designed	legal	notices	for	a	wide	range	

of	 class	 actions	 and	 consumer	 matters	 that	 include	 product	 liability,	 construction	 defect,	

antitrust,	 medical/pharmaceutical,	 human	 rights,	 civil	 rights,	 telecommunication,	 media,	

environment,	 government	 enforcement	 actions,	 securities,	 banking,	 insurance,	 mass	 tort,	

restructuring	and	product	recall.		

JUDICIAL	COMMENTS	AND	LEGAL	NOTICE	CASES

 1 Deborah R. Hensler et al., CLASS ACTION DILEMAS, PURSUING PUBLIC GOALS FOR PRIVATE GAIN. RAND (2000).

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 20 of 74 PageID #:492
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	evaluating	the	adequacy	and	effectiveness	of	Ms.	Finegan’s	notice	campaigns,	courts	

have	repeatedly	recognized	her excellent	work.		The	following	excerpts	provide	some	examples	

of	such	judicial	approval.		

In	 re:	 Skechers	 Toning	 Shoes	 Products	 Liability	 Litigation,	 No.	 3:11-MD-2308-TBR	 (W.D.	 Ky.	

2012).	In	his	order	granting	the	Motion	for	Settlement,	the	Honorable	Thomas	B.	Russell	stated:	

... The	comprehensive	nature	of	the	class	notice	leaves	little	doubt	that,	upon	receipt,	

class	 members	 will	 be	 able	 to	 make	 an	 informed	 and	 intelligent	 decision	 about	

participating	in	the	settlement.

Brody	v.	Merck	&	Co.,	Inc.,	et	al,	No.	3:12-cv-04774-PGS-DEA	(N.J.)	(Jt	Hearing	for	Prelim	App,	

Sept.	 27,	 2012,	 transcript	 page	 34).	 During	 the	 Hearing	 on	 Joint	 Application	 for	 Preliminary	

Approval	of	Class	Action,	the	Honorable	Peter	G.	Sheridan	praised	Ms.	Finegan,	noting:	

Ms.	Finegan	did	a	great	job	in	testifying	as	to	what	the	class	administrator	will	do.	So,	

I'm	 certain	 that	 all	 the	 class	 members	 or	 as	 many	 that	 can	 be	 found,	 will	 be	 given	

some	very	adequate	notice	in	which	they	can	perfect	their	claim.

DeHoyos,	et	al.	v.	Allstate	Ins.	Co.,	No.	SA-01-CA-1010	(W.D.Tx.).		In	the	Amended	Final	Order	

and	Judgment	Approving	Class	Action	Settlement,	the	Honorable	Fred	Biery	stated:

[T]he	undisputed	evidence	shows	the	notice	program	in	this	case	was	developed	and	

implemented	by	a	nationally	recognized	expert	in	class	action	notice	programs.	...	This	

program	was	vigorous	and	specifically	structured	to	reach	the	African-American	and	

Hispanic	class	members.		Additionally,	the	program	was	based	on	a	scientific	

methodology	which	is	used	throughout	the	advertising	industry	and	which	has	been	

routinely	embraced	routinely	[sic]	by	the	Courts.		Specifically,	in	order	to	reach	the	

identified	targets	directly	and	efficiently,	the	notice	program	utilized	a	multi-layered	

approach	which	included	national	magazines;	magazines	specifically	appropriate	to	

the	targeted	audiences;	and	newspapers	in	both	English	and	Spanish.

In	re:	Reebok	Easytone	Litigation,	No.	10-CV-11977	(D.	MA.).		The	Honorable	F.	Dennis	Saylor	

IV	stated	in	the	Final	Approval	Order:

The	Court	finds	that	the	dissemination	of	the	Class	Notice,	the	publication	of	the	

Summary	Settlement	Notice,	the	establishment	of	a	website	containing	settlementrelated	materials,	the	establishment	of	a	toll-free	telephone	number,	and	all	other	

notice	methods	set	forth	in	the	Settlement	Agreement	and	[Ms.	Finegan’s]	Declaration	

and	the	notice	dissemination	methodology	implemented	pursuant	to	the	Settlement	

Agreement	and	this	Court’s	Preliminary	Approval	Order...	constituted	the	best	

practicable	notice	to	Class	Members	under	the	circumstances	of	the	Actions.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 21 of 74 PageID #:493
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Gemelas	 v.	 The	 Dannon	 Company	 Inc.,	 No.	 08-cv-00236-DAP	 (N.D.	 Ohio).	 	 In	 granting	 final	

approval	for	the	settlement,	the	Honorable	Dan	A.	Polster	stated:

In	 accordance	 with	 the	 Court's	 Preliminary	 Approval	 Order	 and	 the	 Court-approved	

notice	 program,	 [Ms.	 Finegan] caused	 the	 Class	 Notice	 to	 be	 distributed	 on	 a	

nationwide	 basis	in	magazines	 and	 newspapers	 (with	 circulation	 numbers	exceeding	

81	 million)	 specifically	 chosen	 to	 reach	 Class	 Members.	 ...	 The	 distribution	 of	 Class	

Notice	 constituted	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	 circumstances,	 and	 fully	

satisfied	 the	 requirements	 of	Federal	Rule	 of	 Civil	 Procedure	 23,	 the	 requirements	 of	

due	process,	28	U.S.C.	1715,	and	any	other	applicable	law.

Pashmova	v.	New	Balance	Athletic	Shoes,	Inc.,	1:11-cv-10001-LTS	(D.	Mass.).	The	Honorable	

Leo	T.	Sorokin	stated	in	the	Final	Approval	Order:

The	Class	Notice,	the	Summary	Settlement	Notice,	the	web	site,	and	all	other	notices	in	

the	Settlement	Agreement	and the	Declaration	of		[Ms	Finegan],	and	the	notice	

methodology	implemented	pursuant	to	the	Settlement	Agreement:	(a)	constituted	the	

best	practicable	notice	under	the	circumstances;	(b)	constituted	notice	that	was	

reasonably	calculated	to	apprise	Class	Members	of	the	pendency	of	the	Actions,	the	

terms	of	the	Settlement	and	their	rights	under	the	settlement	...	met	all	applicable	

requirements	of	law,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	the	Federal	Rules	of	Civil	Procedure,	

28	U.S.C.	§	1715,	and	the	Due	Process	Clause(s)	of	the	United	States	Constitution,	as	

well	as	complied	with	the	Federal	Judicial	Center’s	illustrative	class	action	notices.

Hartless	 v.	 Clorox	 Company,	 No.	 06-CV-2705	 (CAB)	 (S.D.Cal.).	 	 In	 the	 Final	 Order	 Approving	

Settlement,	the	Honorable	Cathy	N.	Bencivengo	found:

The	 Class	 Notice	 advised	 Class	 members	 of	 the	 terms	 of	 the	 settlement;	 the	 Final	

Approval	Hearing	and	their	right	to	appear	at	such	hearing;	their	rights	to	remain	in	or	

opt	out	of	the	Class	and	to	object	to	the	settlement;	the	procedures	for	exercising	such	

rights;	and	the	binding	effect	of	this	Judgment,	whether	 favorable	or	unfavorable,	to	

the	 Class.	 The	 distribution	 of	 the	 notice	 to	 the	 Class	 constituted	 the	 best	 notice	

practicable	 under	 the	 circumstances,	 and	 fully	 satisfied	 the	 requirements	 of	 Federal	

Rule	of	Civil	Procedure	23,	the	requirements	of	due	process,	28	U.S.C.	§1715,	and	any	

other	applicable	law.

McDonough et	al	v.	Toys	'R'	Us et	al, No.	 09:-cv-06151-AB	 (E.D.	Pa.).		In	 the	Final	Order	and	

Judgment	Approving	Settlement,	the	Honorable	Anita	Brody	stated:

The	Court	finds	that	the	Notice	provided	constituted	the	best	notice	practicable	under	

the	 circumstances	 and	 constituted	 valid,	 due	 and	 sufficient	 notice	 to	 all	 persons	

entitled	thereto.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 22 of 74 PageID #:494
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	re:	Pre-Filled	Propane	Tank	Marketing	&	Sales	Practices	Litigation,	No.	4:09-md-02086-GAF	

(W.D.	Mo.)		In	granting	final	approval	to	the	settlement,	the	Honorable	Gary	A.	Fenner	stated:

The	 notice	 program	 included	 individual	 notice	 to	 class	 members	 who	 could	 be	

identified	by	Ferrellgas,	publication	notices,	and	notices	affixed	to	Blue	Rhino	propane	

tank	cylinders	sold	by	Ferrellgas	through	various	retailers.	...	The	Court	finds	the	notice	

program	 fully	complied	with	Federal	Rule	of	Civil	Procedure	23	and	the	requirements	

of	 due	 process	 and	 provided	 to	 the	 Class	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances.

Stern	 v.	 AT&T	 Mobility	 Wireless,	 No.	 09-cv-1112	 CAS-AGR	 (C.D.Cal.).	 	 In	 the	 Final	 Approval	

Order,	the	Honorable	Christina	A.	Snyder	stated:

[T]he	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 Parties	 have	 fully	 and	 adequately	 effectuated	 the	 Notice	

Plan,	as	required	by	the	Preliminary	Approval	Order,	and,	in	fact,	have	achieved	better	

results	than	anticipated	or	required	by	the	Preliminary	Approval	Order.

In	 re:	 Processed	 Egg	 Prods.	 Antitrust	 Litig., MDL	 No.	 08-md-02002	 (E.D.P.A.).	 	 In	 the	 Order	

Granting	Final	Approval	of	Settlement	,	Judge	Gene	E.K.	Pratter	stated:

The	 Notice	 appropriately	 detailed	 the	 nature	 of	 the	 action,	 the	 Class	 claims,	 the	

definition	 of	 the	 Class	 and	 Subclasses,	 the	 terms	 of	 the	 proposed	 settlement	

agreement,	 and	 the	 class	 members’	 right	 to	 object	 or	 request	 exclusion	 from	 the	

settlement	 and	 the	 timing	 and	 manner	 for	 doing	 so....	 Accordingly,	 the	 Court	

determines	 that	 the	 notice	 provided	 to	 the	 putative	 Class	 Members	 constitutes	

adequate	notice	in	satisfaction	of	the	demands	of	Rule	23.

Stefanyshyn	v.	Consolidated	Industries, No.	79	D	01-9712-CT-59	 (Tippecanoe	County	Sup.	Ct.,	

Ind.).	In	the	Order	Granting	Final Approval	of	Settlement,	Judge	Randy	Williams	stated:

The	long	and	short	form	notices	provided	a	neutral,	informative,	and	clear	explanation	

of	 the	 Settlement.	 ...	 The	 proposed	 notice	 program	 was	 properly	 designed,	

recommended,	 and	 implemented	 ...	 and	 constitutes	 the	 “best	 practicable”	 notice	 of	

the	 proposed	 Settlement.	 The	 form	 and	 content	 of	 the	 notice	 program	 satisfied	 all	

applicable	legal	requirements.	...	The	comprehensive	class	notice	educated	Settlement	

Class	members	about	the	defects	in	Consolidated	furnaces	and	warned	them	that	the	

continued	 use	 of	 their	 furnaces	 created	 a	 risk	 of	 fire	 and/or	 carbon	 monoxide.	 This	

alone	provided	substantial	value.

McGee	v.	Continental	Tire	North	America,	Inc.	et	al,	No.	06-6234-(GEB)	(D.N.J.).	

The	Class	Notice,	the	Summary	Settlement	Notice,	the	web	site,	the	toll-free	telephone	

number,	 and	 all	 other	 notices	 in	 the	 Agreement,	 and	 the	 notice	 methodology	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 23 of 74 PageID #:495
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

implemented	 pursuant	 to	 the	 Agreement:	 (a)	 constituted	 the	 best	 practicable	 notice	

under	 the	 circumstances;	 (b)	 constituted	 notice	 that	 was	 reasonably	 calculated	 to	

apprise	Class	Members	of	the	pendency	of	the	Action,	the	terms	of	the	settlement	and	

their	rights	under	the	settlement,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	their	right	to	object	to	

or	 exclude	 themselves	 from	 the	 proposed	 settlement	 and	 to	 appear	 at	 the	 Fairness	

Hearing;	(c)	were	reasonable	and	constituted	due,	adequate	and	sufficient	notice	to	all	

persons	entitled	to	receive	notification;	and	(d)	met	all	applicable	requirements	of	law,	

including,	but	not	limited	to,	the	Federal	Rules	of	Civil	Procedure,	20	U.S.C.	Sec.	1715,	

and	 the	Due	Process	 Clause(s)	 of	 the	United	States	 Constitution,	 as	well	 as	 complied	

with	the	Federal	Judicial	Center’s	illustrative	class	action	notices.

Varacallo,	et	al.	v.	Massachusetts	Mutual	Life	Insurance	Company,	et	al.,	No.	04-2702	(JLL)	

(D.N.J.).		The	Court	stated	that:

[A]ll	 of	 the	 notices	 are	written	in	 simple	 terminology,	 are	 readily	 understandable	 by	

Class	Members,	and	comply	with	the	Federal	 Judicial	Center's	illustrative	class	action	

notices.	 ...	 By	 working	 with	 a	 nationally	 syndicated	 media	 research	 firm,	 [Finegan’s	

firm]	was	able	to	define	a	target	audience	for	the	MassMutual	Class	Members,	which	

provided	a	valid	basis	for	determining	the	magazine	and	newspaper	preferences	of	the	

Class	Members.		(Preliminary	Approval	Order	at	p.	9).		.	.	.		The	Court	agrees	with	Class	

Counsel	that	this	was	more	than	adequate.		(Id.	at	§	5.2).

In	re:	Nortel	Network	Corp.,	Sec.	Litig.,	No.	01-CV-1855	(RMB)	Master	File	No.	05	MD	1659	

(LAP)	(S.D.N.Y.).	 Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	implemented	the	extensive	United	States	and	

Canadian	notice	programs	in	this	case.		The	Canadian	program	was	published	in	both	French	

and	English,	and	targeted	virtually	all	investors	of	stock	in	Canada.			See	

www.nortelsecuritieslitigation.com.		Of	the	U.S.	notice	program,	the	Honorable	Loretta	A.	

Preska	stated:	

The	form	and	method	of	notifying	the	U.S.	Global	Class	of	the	pendency	of	the	action	

as	a	class	action	and	of	the	terms	and	conditions	of	the	proposed	Settlement	...	

constituted	the	best	notice	practicable	under	the	circumstances,	and	constituted	due	

and	sufficient	notice	to	all	persons	and	entities	entitled	thereto.

Regarding	the	B.C.	Canadian	Notice	effort:	Jeffrey	v.	Nortel	Networks,	[2007]	BCSC	69	at	para.	

50,	the	Honourable	Mr.	Justice	Groberman	said:	

The	efforts	to	give	notice	to	potential	class	members	in	this	case	have	been	thorough.		

There	has	been	a	broad	media	campaign	to	publicize	the	proposed	settlement	and	the	

court	 processes.	 	 There	 has	 also	 been	 a	 direct	 mail	 campaign	 directed	 at	 probable	

investors.		I	am	advised	that	over	1.2	million	claim	packages	were	mailed	to	persons	

around	the	world.		In	addition,	packages	have	been	available	through	the	worldwide	

web	site	nortelsecuritieslitigation.com		on	the	Internet.		Toll-free	telephone	lines	have	

been	 set	 up,	 and	 it	 appears	 that	 class	 counsel	 and	 the	 Claims	 Administrator	 have	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 24 of 74 PageID #:496
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

received	 innumerable	 calls	 from	 potential	 class	 members.	 In	 short,	 all	 reasonable	

efforts	have	been	made	to	ensure	that	potential	members	of the	class	have	had	notice	

of	 the	 proposal	 and	 a	 reasonable	 opportunity	 was	 provided	 for	 class	 members	 to	

register	their	objections,	or	seek	exclusion	from	the	settlement.

Mayo	v.	Walmart	Stores	and	Sam’s	Club,	No.	5:06	CV-93-R (W.D.Ky.).		In	 the	Order	Granting	

Final	Approval	of	Settlement,	Judge	Thomas	B.	Russell	stated:

According	 to	 defendants’	 database,	 the	 Notice	 was	 estimated	 to	 have	 reached	 over	

90%	of	the	Settlement	Class	Members	through	direct	mail.		

The	 Settlement	 Administrator	 ...	 has	 classified	 the	 parties’	 database	 as	 ‘one	 of	 the	

most	reliable	and	comprehensive	databases	[she]	has	worked	with	for	the	purposes	of	

legal	notice.’...	The	Court	thus	reaffirms	its	findings	and	conclusions	in	the	Preliminary	

Approval	Order	 that	 the	 form	 of	 the	 Notice	 and manner	 of	 giving	 notice	 satisfy	 the	

requirements	 of	 Fed.	 R.	 Civ.	 P.	 23	 and	 affords	 due	 process	 to	 the	 Settlement	 Class	

Members.

Fishbein	v.	All	Market	Inc.,	(d/b/a	Vita	Coco)	No.	11-cv-05580 (S.D.N.Y.). In	granting	final	

approval	of	the	settlement,	the	Honorable	J.	Paul	Oetken	stated:

"The	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 dissemination	 of	 Class	 Notice	 pursuant	 to	 the	 Notice	

Program...constituted	 the	best	practicable	notice	 to	Settlement	Class	Members	under	

the	 circumstances	 of	 this	 Litigation	 ...	 and	 was	 reasonable	 and	 constituted	 due,	

adequate	and	sufficient	notice	to	all persons	entitled	to	such	notice,	and	fully	satisfied	

the	requirements	of	 the	Federal	Rules	of	Civil	Procedure,	including	Rules	23(c)(2)	and	

(e),	the	United	States	Constitution	(including	the	Due	Process	Clause),	the	Rules	of	this	

Court,	and	any	other	applicable	laws."

Lucas,	et al.	v.	Kmart	 Corp.,	No. 99-cv-01923	 (D.Colo.),	wherein	 the	 Court	 recognized	 Jeanne	

Finegan	as	an	expert	in	the	design	of	notice	programs,	and	stated:	

The	Court	finds	that	the	efforts	of	the	parties	and	the	proposed	Claims	Administrator	

in	this	respect	go	above	and	beyond	the	"reasonable	efforts"	required	 for	identifying	

individual	class	members	under	F.R.C.P.	23(c)(2)(B).

In	 re:	 Johns-Manville	 Corp.	(Statutory	Direct	Action	Settlement,	 Common	 Law	Direct	Action	

and	Hawaii	Settlement),	No	82-11656,	57,	660,	661,	665-73,	75	and	76	(BRL)	(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.).		

The	 nearly	 half-billion	 dollar	 settlement	 incorporated	 three	 separate	 notification	 programs,	

which	 targeted	all	 persons	who	 had	asbestos	 claims	whether	asserted	 or	 unasserted,	against	

the	Travelers	Indemnity	Company.		In	the	Findings	of	Fact	and	Conclusions	of	a	Clarifying	Order	

Approving	the	Settlements,	slip	op.	at	47-48	 (Aug.	17,	2004),	the	Honorable	Burton	R.	Lifland,	

Chief	Justice,	stated:

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 25 of 74 PageID #:497
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

As	 demonstrated	 by	 Findings	 of	 Fact	 (citation	 omitted),	 the	 Statutory	 Direct	 Action	

Settlement	 notice	 program	 was	 reasonably	 calculated	 under	 all	 circumstances	 to	

apprise	 the	 affected	individuals	 of	 the	 proceedings	 and	 actions	 taken	involving	 their	

interests,	Mullane	v.	Cent.	Hanover	Bank	&	Trust	Co.,	339	U.S.	306,	314	 (1950),	 such	

program	did	apprise	the	overwhelming	majority	of	potentially	affected	claimants	and	

far	 exceeded	 the	 minimum	 notice	 required.	 .	 .	 .	 The	 results	 simply	 speak	 for	

themselves.

Pigford	v.	Glickman	and	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	No.	97-1978.	98-1693	(PLF)	(D.D.C.).		

This	matter	was	the	largest	civil	rights	case	to	settle	in	the	United	States	in	over	40	years.	The	

highly	 publicized,	 nationwide	 paid	media	 program	 was	 designed	 to	 alert	 all	 present	 and	 past	

African-American	 farmers	 of	 the	 opportunity	 to	 recover	 monetary	 damages	 against	 the	 U.S.	

Department	of	Agriculture	for	alleged	loan	discrimination.		In	his	Opinion,	the	Honorable	Paul	L.	

Friedman	commended	the	parties	with	respect	to	the	notice	program,	stating;

The	 parties	 also	 exerted	 extraordinary	 efforts	 to	 reach	 class	 members	 through	 a	

massive	advertising	campaign	in	general	and	African	American	targeted	publications	

and	 television	 stations.	 .	 .	 .	 The	 Court	 concludes	 that	 class	 members	 have	 received	

more	 than	 adequate	 notice	 and	 have	 had	 sufficient	 opportunity	 to	 be	 heard	 on	 the	

fairness	of	the	proposed	Consent	Decree.		

In	 re:	 Louisiana-Pacific	 Inner-Seal	 Siding	 Litig.,	 Nos.	 879-JE,	 and	 1453-JE	 (D.Or.).	 	 Under	 the	

terms	of	the	Settlement,	three	separate	notice	programs	were	to	be	implemented	at	three-year	

intervals	over	a	period	of	six	years.		In	the	first	notice	campaign,	Ms.	Finegan	implemented	the	

print	advertising	and	Internet	components	of	the	Notice	program.		In	approving	the	legal	notice	

communication	plan,	the	Honorable	Robert	E.	Jones	stated:

The	notice	given	to	the	members	of	the	Class	 fully	and	accurately	informed	the	Class	

members	of	all	material	elements	of	the	settlement...[through]	a	broad	and	extensive	

multi-media	notice	campaign.

Additionally,	with	regard	to	the	third-year	notice	program	for	Louisiana-Pacific,	the	Honorable	

Richard	Unis,	Special	Master,	commented	that	the	notice	was:	

...well	 formulated	 to	 conform	 to	 the	 definition	 set	 by	 the	 court	 as	 adequate	 and	

reasonable	 notice.	 	 Indeed,	 I	 believe	 the	 record	 should	 also	 reflect	 the	 Court's	

appreciation	 to	Ms.	 Finegan	 for	 all	 the	 work	 she's	 done,	 ensuring	 that	 noticing	 was	

done	correctly	and	professionally,	while	paying	careful	attention	to	overall	costs.		Her	

understanding	of	various	notice	requirements	under	Fed.	R.	Civ.	P.	23,	helped	to	insure	

that	 the	 notice	 given	 in	 this	 case	 was	 consistent	 with	 the	 highest	 standards	 of	

compliance	with	Rule	23(d)(2).

In	re:	Expedia	Hotel	Taxes	and	Fees	Litigation,	No.	05-2-02060-1	(SEA)	(Sup.	Ct.	of	Wash.	in	and	

for	King	County).		In	the	Order	Granting	Final	Approval	of	Class	Action	Settlement,	Judge	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 26 of 74 PageID #:498
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Monica	Benton	stated:

The	 Notice	 of	 the	 Settlement	 given	 to	 the	 Class	 ...	 was	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	

under	 the	 circumstances.	 	 All	 of	 these	 forms	 of	 Notice	 directed	 Class	Members	 to	 a	

Settlement	Website	providing	key	Settlement	documents	including	instructions	on	how	

Class	Members	could	exclude	themselves	from	the	Class,	and	how	they	could	object	to	

or	 comment	 upon	 the	 Settlement.	 	 The	Notice	 provided	 due	 and	 adequate	 notice	 of	

these	proceeding	and	of	the	matters	set	forth	in	the	Agreement	to	all	persons	entitled	

to	 such	 notice,	 and	 said	 notice	 fully	 satisfied	 the	 requirements	 of	 CR	 23	 and	 due	

process.

Rene	Rosales	v.	 Fortune	Ins.	 Co.,	No.	 99-04588	 CA	 (41)	 (11th Judicial	Dist.	 Ct.	 of	Miami-Dade	

County,	Fla.).		Ms.	Finegan	provided	expert	 testimony	in	 this	matter.		She	conducted	an	audit	

on	 behalf	 of	 intervening	 attorneys	 for	 the	 proposed	 notification	 to	 individuals	 insured	 with	

personal	injury	insurance.	

Based	upon	the	audit,	Ms.	Finegan	testified	that	the	proposed	notice	program	was	inadequate.		

The	 Court	 agreed	 and	 signed	 an	 Order	 Granting	 Intervenors’	 Objections	 to	 Class	 Action	

Settlement,	stating:

The	Court	finds	that	Ms.	Finegan	is	qualified	as	an	expert	on	class	notice	and	effective	

media	campaigns.		The	Court	finds	that	her	testimony	is	credible	and	reliable.

Thomas	 A.	 Foster	 and	 Linda	 E.	 Foster	 v.	 ABTco	 Siding	 Litigation,	 No.	 95-151-M	 (Cir.	 Ct.,	

Choctaw	County,	Ala.).		This	litigation	 focused	on	past	and	present	owners	of	structures	sided	

with	Abitibi-Price	siding.		The	notice	program	that	Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	implemented	was	

national	in	scope	and	received	the	following	praise	from	the	Honorable	J.	Lee	McPhearson:	

The	Court	finds	that	the	Notice	Program	conducted	by	the	Parties	provided	individual	

notice	 to	 all	 known	 Class	 Members	 and	 all	 Class	 Members	 who	 could	 be	 identified	

through	 reasonable	 efforts	 and	 constitutes	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances	of	 this	Action.		This	 finding	is	based	on	 the	overwhelming	evidence	of	

the	adequacy	of	the	notice	program.		...	The	media	campaign	involved	broad	national	

notice	 through	 television	 and	 print	 media,	 regional	 and	 local	 newspapers,	 and	 the	

Internet	 (see	id.	¶¶9-11)	The	result:	over	90	percent	of	Abitibi	and	ABTco	owners	are	

estimated	to	have	been	reached	by	the	direct	media	and	direct	mail	campaign.

Wilson	 v.	 Massachusetts	 Mut.	 Life	 Ins.	 Co.,	 No.	 D-101-CV	 98-02814	 (First	 Judicial	 Dist.	 Ct.,	

County	of	Santa	Fe,	N.M.).	This	was	a	nationwide	notification	program	that	included	all	persons	

in	 the	 United	 States	 who	 owned,	 or	 had	 owned,	 a	 life	 or	 disability	 insurance	 policy	 with	

Massachusetts	Mutual	 Life	Insurance	 Company	and	 had	 paid	additional charges	when	 paying	

their	 premium	 on	 an	 installment	 basis.	 The	 class	 was	 estimated	 to	 exceed	 1.6	 million	

individuals.	www.insuranceclassclaims.com.		In	granting	preliminary	approval	to	the	settlement,	

the	Honorable	Art	Encinias	found:

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 27 of 74 PageID #:499
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

[T]he	Notice	Plan	 [is]	 the	best	practicable	notice	 that	is	 reasonably	calculated,	under	

the	circumstances	of	the	action.			...[and]	meets	or	exceeds	all	applicable	requirements	

of	 the	 law,	 including	 Rule	 1-023(C)(2)	 and	 (3)	 and	 1-023(E),	 NMRA	 2001,	 and	 the	

requirements	 of	 federal	 and/or	 state	 constitutional	 due	 process	 and	 any	 other	

applicable	law.

Sparks	 v.	 AT&T	 Corp.,	 No.	 96-LM-983	 (Third	 Judicial	 Cir.,	Madison	 County,	 Ill.).	 The	 litigation	

concerned	 all	 persons	 in	 the	 United	 States	 who	 leased	 certain	 AT&T	 telephones	 during	 the	

1980’s.	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	 implemented	 a	 nationwide	 media	 program	 designed	 to	

target	 all	 persons	 who	 may	 have	 leased	 telephones	 during	 this	 time	 period,	 a	 class	 that	

included	a	large	percentage	of	the	entire	population	of	the	United	States.		

In	granting	final	approval	to	the	settlement,	the	Court	found:

The	Court	further	finds	that	the	notice	of	the	proposed	settlement	was	sufficient	and	

furnished	 Class	 Members	 with	 the	 information	 they	 needed	 to	 evaluate	 whether	 to	

participate	 in	 or	 opt	 out	 of the	 proposed	 settlement.	 The	 Court	 therefore	 concludes	

that	 the	 notice	 of	 the	 proposed	 settlement	 met	 all	 requirements	 required	 by	 law,	

including	all	Constitutional	requirements.

In	re:	Georgia-Pacific	Toxic	Explosion	Litig., No.	98	CVC05-3535	(Ct.	of	Common	Pleas,	Franklin	

County,	Ohio).		Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	implemented	a	regional	notice	program	that	included	

network	affiliate	television,	radio	and	newspaper.		The	notice	was	designed	to	alert	adults	living	

near	a	Georgia-Pacific	plant	 that	 they	had	been	exposed	 to	an	air-born	 toxic	plume	and	 their	

rights	 under	 the	 terms	 of	 the	 class	 action	 settlement.	 	 In	 the	 Order	 and	 Judgment	 finally	

approving	the	settlement,	the	Honorable	Jennifer	L.	Bunner	stated:

[N]otice	 of	 the	 settlement	 to	 the	 Class	 was	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances,	 including	 individual	 notice	 to	 all	 members	 who	 can	 be	 identified	

through	reasonable	effort.		The	Court	finds	that	such	effort	exceeded	even	reasonable	

effort	and	that	the	Notice	complies	with	the	requirements	of	Civ.	R.	23(C).

In	 re:	 American	 Cyanamid,	 No.	 CV-97-0581-BH-M	 (S.D.Al.).	 	 The	 media	 program	 targeted	

Farmers	who	had	purchased	crop	protection	chemicals	manufactured	by	American	Cyanamid.		

In	the	Final	Order	and	Judgment,	the	Honorable	Charles	R.	Butler	Jr.	wrote:	

The	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 form	 and	 method	 of	 notice	 used	 to	 notify	 the	 Temporary	

Settlement	Class	of	the	Settlement	satisfied	the	requirements	of	Fed.	R.	Civ.	P.	23	and	

due	 process,	 constituted	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	 circumstances,	 and	

constituted	due	and	sufficient	notice	to	all	potential	members	of	the	Temporary	Class	

Settlement.

In	 re:	 First	 Alert	 Smoke	 Alarm	 Litig.,	 No.	 CV-98-C-1546-W	 (UWC)	 (N.D.Al.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	

designed	 and	 implemented	 a	 nationwide	 legal	 notice	 and	 public	 information	 program.	 	 The	

public	information	program	ran	over	a	 two-year	period	to	inform	 those	with	smoke	alarms	of	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 28 of 74 PageID #:500
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

the	 performance	 characteristics	 between	 photoelectric	 and	 ionization	 detection.	 	 The	 media	

program	included	network	and	cable	television,	magazine	and	specialty	trade	publications.		In	

the	Findings	and	Order	Preliminarily	Certifying	the	Class	for	Settlement	Purposes,	Preliminarily	

Approving	Class	Settlement,	Appointing	Class	Counsel,	Directing	Issuance	of	Notice	to	the	Class,	

and	Scheduling	a	Fairness	Hearing,	the	Honorable	C.W.	Clemon	wrote	that	the	notice	plan:			

...constitutes	due,	adequate	and	sufficient	notice	to	all	Class	Members;	and	(v)	meets	

or	 exceeds	 all	 applicable	 requirements	 of	 the	 Federal	 Rules	 of	 Civil	 Procedure,	 the	

United States	 Constitution	 (including	 the	 Due	 Process	 Clause),	 the	 Alabama	 State	

Constitution,	the	Rules	of	the	Court,	and	any	other	applicable	law.		

In	re:	James	Hardie	Roofing	Litig., No.	00-2-17945-65SEA	(Sup.	Ct.	of	Wash.,	King	County).	The	

nationwide	legal	notice	program	included	advertising	on	television,	in	print	and	on	the	Internet.		

The	 program	 was	 designed	 to	 reach	 all	 persons	 who	 own	 any	 structure	 with	 JHBP	 roofing	

products.		In	the	Final	Order	and	Judgment,	the	Honorable	Steven	Scott	stated:

The	notice	program	required	by	the	Preliminary	Order	has	been	fully	carried	out...	[and	

was]	extensive.		The	notice	provided	fully	and	accurately	informed	the	Class	Members	

of	 all	 material	 elements	 of	 the	 proposed	 Settlement	 and	 their	 opportunity	 to	

participate	 in or	 be	 excluded	 from	 it;	 was	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances;	was	valid,	due	and	sufficient	notice	to	all	Class	Members;	and	complied	

fully	with	Civ.	R.	23,	the	United	States	Constitution,	due	process,	and	other	applicable	

law.		

Barden	v.	Hurd	Millwork	Co.	Inc.,	et	al,	No.	2:6-cv-00046	(LA)	(E.D.Wis.)	("The	Court	approves,	

as	to	form	and	content,	the	notice	plan	and	finds	that	such	notice	is	the	best	practicable	under	

the	circumstances	under	Federal	Rule	of	Civil	Procedure	23(c)(2)(B)	and	constitutes	notice	in	a	

reasonable	manner	under	Rule	23(e)(1).")		

Altieri	 v.	 Reebok,	 No.	 4:10-cv-11977	 (FDS)	 (D.C.Mass.)	 ("The	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 notices	 ...	

constitute	 the	 best	 practicable	 notice..... The	 Court	 further	 finds	 that	 all	 of	 the	 notices	 are	

written	 in	 simple	 terminology,	 are	 readily	 understandable	 by	 Class	 Members,	 and	 comply	

with	the	Federal	Judicial	Center’s	illustrative	class	action	notices.")

Marenco	 v.	 Visa	 Inc., No.	 CV	 10-08022	 (DMG)	 (C.D.Cal.)	 ("[T]he	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 notice	

plan...meets	the	requirements	of	due	process,	California	law,	and		other	applicable	precedent.		

The	 Court	 finds	 that	 the	 proposed	 notice	 program	is	 designed	 to	 provide	 the	 Class	with	 the	

best	 notice	 practicable,	 under	 the	 circumstances	 of	 this	 action,	 of	 the	 pendency	 of	 this	

litigation	 and	 of	 the	 proposed	 Settlement’s	 terms,	 conditions,	 and	 procedures, and	 shall	

constitute	 due	 and	 sufficient	 notice	 to	 all	 persons	entitled	 thereto	 under	 California	law,	 the	

United	States	Constitution,	and	any	other	applicable	law.")

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 29 of 74 PageID #:501
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Palmer	v.	Sprint	Solutions,	Inc., No.	09-cv-01211	 (JLR)	 (W.D.Wa.)	 ("The	means	of	notice	were	

reasonable	 and	 constitute	 due,	 adequate,	 and	 sufficient	 notice	 to	 all	 persons	entitled	 to	 be	

provide3d	with	notice.")

In	re:	Tyson	Foods,	Inc.,	Chicken	Raised Without	Antibiotics	Consumer	Litigation,	No.	1:08-md01982	RDB	(D.	Md.	N.	Div.)	(“The	notice,	in	form,	method,	and	content,	fully	complied	with	the	

requirements	 of	 Rule	 23	 and	 due	 process,	 constituted	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances,	 and	 constituted	 due	 and	 sufficient	 notice	 to	 all	 persons	entitled	 to	 notice	 of	

the	settlement.”)

Sager	v.	Inamed	Corp.	and	McGhan	Medical	Breast	Implant	Litigation,	No.	01043771	(Sup.	Ct.	

Cal.,	 County	 of	 Santa	 Barbara)	 (“Notice	 provided	 was	 the	 best	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances.”).

Deke,	et	al.	v.	Cardservice	Internat’l,	Case	No.	BC	271679,	slip	op.	at	3	(Sup.	Ct.	Cal.,	County	of	

Los	 Angeles)	 (“The	 Class	Notice	 satisfied	 the	 requirements	 of	 California	 Rules	 of	 Court	 1856	

and	 1859	 and	 due	 process	 and constituted	 the	 best	 notice	 practicable	 under	 the	

circumstances.”).

Levine,	et	al.	v.	Dr.	Philip	C.	McGraw,	et	al.,	Case	No.	BC	312830	 (Los	Angeles	County	Super.	

Ct.,	 Cal.)	 (“[T]he	 plan	 for	 notice	 to	 the	 Settlement	 Class	 ...	 constitutes	 the	 best	 notice	

practicable	under	the	circumstances	and	constituted	due	and	sufficient	notice	to	the	members	

of	 the	 Settlement	 Class	 ...	 and	 satisfies	 the	 requirements	 of	 California	 law	 and	 federal	 due	

process	of	law.”).

In	 re:	 Canadian	 Air	 Cargo	 Shipping	 Class	 Actions, Court	 File	 No.	 50389CP,	Ontario	 Superior	

Court	of	Justice,	Supreme	Court	of	British	Columbia,	Quebec	Superior	Court	(“I	am	satisfied	the	

proposed	 form	 of	 notice	 meets	 the	 requirements	 of	 s.	 17(6)	 of	 the	 CPA	 	 and	 the	 proposed	

method	of	notice	is	appropriate.”).

Fischer	et	al	v.	IG	Investment	Management,	Ltd.	et	al,	Court	File	No.	06-CV-307599CP,	Ontario	

Superior	Court	of	Justice.		

In	re:	Vivendi	Universal,	S.A.	Securities	Litigation, No.	02-cv-5571	(RJH)(HBP)	(S.D.N.Y.).	

In	re:	Air	Cargo	Shipping	Services	Antitrust	Litigation,	No.	06-MD-1775	(JG)	(VV)	(E.D.N.Y.).

Berger,	et	al.,	v.	Property	ID	Corporation,	et	al., No. CV	05-5373-GHK	(CWx)	(C.D.Cal.).

Lozano	v.	AT&T	Mobility	Wireless,	No.	02-cv-0090	CAS	(AJWx)	(C.D.Cal.).

Howard	 A.	 Engle,	 M.D.,	 et	 al., v.	 R.J.	 Reynolds	 Tobacco	 Co.,	 Philip	 Morris,	 Inc.,	 Brown	 &	

Williamson	Tobacco	Corp.,	No.	94-08273	CA	(22)	(11th Judicial	Dist.	Ct.	of	Miami-Dade	County,	

Fla.).

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 30 of 74 PageID #:502
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	 re:	 Royal	 Dutch/Shell	 Transport	 Securities	 Litigation, No.	 04	 Civ.	 374	 (JAP)	 (Consolidated	

Cases)	(D.	N.J.).	

In	 re:	Epson	 Cartridge	 Cases,	 Judicial	 Council	 Coordination	 Proceeding, No.	 4347	(Sup.	 Ct.	 of	

Cal.,	County	of	Los	Angeles).

UAW	v.	General	Motors	Corporation, No:	05-73991	(E.D.MI).

Wicon,	Inc.	v.	Cardservice	Intern’l,	Inc.,	BC	320215	(Sup.	Ct.	of	Cal.,	County	of	Los	Angeles).

In	 re:	 SmithKline	 Beecham	 Clinical	 Billing	 Litig.,	 No.	 CV.	 No.	 97-L-1230	 (Third	 Judicial	 Cir.,	

Madison	County,	Ill.).		Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	developed	a	national	media	and	Internet	site	

notification	program	in	connection	with	the	settlement	of	a	nationwide	class	action	concerning	

billings	for	clinical	laboratory	testing	services.		

MacGregor	v.	Schering-Plough	Corp., No.	EC248041	(Sup.	Ct.	Cal.,	County	of	Los	Angeles).		This	

nationwide	notification	program	was	designed	to	reach	all	persons	who	had	purchased	or	used	

an	 aerosol	 inhaler	 manufactured	 by	 Schering-Plough.	 	 Because	 no	 mailing	 list	 was	 available,	

notice	was	accomplished	entirely	through	the	media	program.		

In	 re:	 Swiss	 Banks	 Holocaust	 Victim	 Asset	 Litig.,	 No.	 CV-96-4849	 (E.D.N.Y.).	 Ms.	 Finegan	

managed	the	design	and	implementation	of	the	Internet	site	on	this	historic	case.		The	site	was	

developed	in	21	native	languages.		It	is	a	highly	secure	data	gathering	tool	and	information	hub,	

central	to	the	global	outreach	program	of	Holocaust	survivors.	www.swissbankclaims.com.		

In	 re:	 Exxon	 Valdez	 Oil	 Spill	 Litig.,	 No.	 A89-095-CV	 (HRH)	 (Consolidated)	 (D.	 Alaska).	 	 Ms.	

Finegan	 designed	 and	 implemented	 two	media	 campaigns	 to	 notify	 native	 Alaskan	 residents,	

trade	workers,	fisherman,	and	others	impacted	by	the	oil	spill	of	the	litigation	and	their	rights	

under	the	settlement	terms.

In	re:	Johns-Manville	Phenolic	Foam	Litig.,	No.	CV	96-10069	(D.	Mass).		The	nationwide	multimedia	 legal	 notice	 program	 was	 designed	 to	 reach	 all	 Persons	 who	 owned	 any	 structure,	

including	an	industrial	building,	commercial	building,	 school,	condominium,	apartment	house,	

home,	garage	or	other	type	of	structure	located	in	the	United	States	or	its	territories,	in	which	

Johns-Manville	PFRI	was	installed,	in	whole	or	in	part,	on	top	of	a	metal	roof	deck.	

Bristow	 v	 Fleetwood	 Enters	 Litig., No	 Civ	 00-0082-S-EJL	 (D.	 Id).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	

implemented	 a	 legal	 notice	 campaign	 targeting	 present	 and	 former	 employees	 of	 Fleetwood	

Enterprises,	Inc.,	 or	its	 subsidiaries	who	worked	as	 hourly	 production	workers	at	Fleetwood’s	

housing,	 travel	 trailer,	 or	 motor	 home	 manufacturing	 plants.	 The	 comprehensive	 notice	

campaign	included	print,	radio	and	television	advertising.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 31 of 74 PageID #:503
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	re:	New	Orleans	Tank	Car	Leakage	Fire	Litig.,	No	87-16374	(Civil	Dist.	Ct.,	Parish	of	Orleans,	

LA)	 (2000).	This	case	resulted	in	one	of	 the	largest	settlements	in	U.S.	history.		This	campaign	

consisted	of	a	media	relations	and	paid	advertising	program	to	notify	individuals	of	their	rights	

under	the	terms	of	the	settlement.

Garria	Spencer	v.	Shell	Oil	Co.,	No.	CV	94-074(Dist.	Ct.,	Harris	County,	Tex.).		The	nationwide	

notification	program	was	designed	to	reach	individuals	who	owned	real	property	or	structures	

in	the	United	States	which	contained	polybutylene	plumbing	with	acetyl	insert	or	metal	insert	

fittings.	

In	 re:	 Hurd	 Millwork	 Heat	 MirrorTM	 Litig.,	 No.	 CV-772488	 (Sup.	 Ct.	 of	 Cal.,	 County	 of	 Santa	

Clara).		This	nationwide	multi-media	notice	program	was	designed	to	reach	class	members	with	

failed	 heat	 mirror	 seals	 on	 windows	 and	 doors,	 and	 alert	 them	 as	 to	 the	 actions	 that	 they	

needed	to	take	to	receive	enhanced	warranties	or	window	and	door	replacement.		

Laborers	 Dist.	 Counsel	 of	 Alabama	Health	 and	Welfare	 Fund	 v.	 Clinical	 Lab.	 Servs.,	Inc,	No.	

CV–97-C-629-W	(N.D.	Ala.).	Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	developed	a	national	media	and	Internet	

site	 notification	 program	 in	 connection	 with	 the	 settlement	 of	 a	 nationwide	 class	 action	

concerning	alleged	billing	discrepancies	for	clinical	laboratory	testing	services.		

In	 re:	 StarLink	 Corn	 Prods.	 Liab.	 Litig.,	 No.	 01-C-1181	 (N.D.	 Ill)..	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	

implemented	a	nationwide	notification	program	designed	 to	alert	potential	class	members	of	

the	terms	of	the	settlement.

In	re:	MCI	Non-Subscriber	RatePayers	Litig.,	MDL	Docket	No.	1275,	3:99-cv-01275	(S.D.Ill.).		The	

advertising	and	media	 notice	 program,	 found	 to	 be	 “more	 than	adequate”	 by	 the	 Court,	was	

designed	with	 the	 understanding	 that	 the	litigation	affected	all	 persons	 or	entities	who	were	

customers	of	 record	 for	 telephone	lines	presubscribed	 to	MCI/World	Com,	and	were	charged	

the	 higher	 non-subscriber	 rates	and	 surcharges	 for	 direct-dialed	long	 distance	 calls	 placed	 on	

those	lines.	www.rateclaims.com.		

In	 re:	 Albertson’s	 Back	 Pay	 Litig.,	 No.	 97-0159-S-BLW	 (D.Id.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	

developed	a	secure	Internet	site,	where	claimants	could	seek	case	information	confidentially.			

In	 re:	 Georgia	 Pacific	 Hardboard	 Siding	 Recovering	 Program,	 No.	 CV-95-3330-RG	 (Cir.	 Ct.,	

Mobile	 County,	 Ala.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	 implemented	 a	 multi-media	 legal	 notice	

program,	which	was	designed	to	reach	class	members	with	failed	G-P	siding	and	alert	them	of	

the	 pending	 matter.	 Notice	 was	 provided	 through	 advertisements, which	 aired	 on	 national	

cable	 networks,	 magazines	 of	 nationwide	 distribution,	 local	 newspaper,	 press	 releases	 and	

trade	magazines.

In	re:	Diet	Drugs (Phentermine,	Fenfluramine,	Dexfenfluramine)	Prods.	Liab.	Litig.,	Nos.	1203,	

99-20593.	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 worked	 as	 a	 consultant	 to	 the	 National	 Diet	 Drug	 Settlement	

Committee	 on	 notification	 issues.	 	 The	 resulting	 notice	 program	 was	 described	 and	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 32 of 74 PageID #:504
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

complimented	 at	 length	 in	 the	 Court’s	Memorandum	 and	 Pretrial	Order	 1415,	 approving	 the	

settlement,	

In	 re:	Diet	Drugs (Phentermine,	Fenfluramine,	Dexfenfluramine)	 Prods.	 Liab.	 Litig.,	 2000	WL	

1222042,	Nos.	1203,	99-20593	(E.D.Pa.	Aug.	28,	2002).

Ms.	Finegan	 designed	 the	Notice	 programs	 for	multiple	 state	antitrust	 cases	 filed	against	 the	

Microsoft	Corporation.		In	those	cases,	it was	generally	alleged	that	Microsoft	unlawfully	used	

anticompetitive	means	 to	maintain	a	monopoly	in	markets	 for	certain	software,	and	 that	as	a	

result,	it	 overcharged	 consumers	who	licensed	its	MS-DOS,	Windows,	Word,	Excel	and	Office	

software.	 The	 multiple	 legal	 notice	 programs	 designed	 by	 Jeanne	 Finegan	 and	 listed	 below	

targeted	both	individual	users	and	business	users	of	this	software.		The	scientifically	designed	

notice	 programs	 took	 into	 consideration	 both	 media	 usage	 habits	 and	 demographic	

characteristics	of	the	targeted	class	members.

In	re:	Florida	Microsoft	Antitrust	Litig.	Settlement,	No.		99-27340	CA	11	(11th Judicial	Dist.	

Ct.	of	Miami-Dade	County,	Fla.).		

In	re:	Montana	Microsoft	Antitrust	Litig.	Settlement,	No.	DCV	2000	219	(First	Judicial	Dist.	Ct.,	

Lewis	&	Clark	Co.,	Mt.).

In	re:	South	Dakota	Microsoft	Antitrust	Litig.	Settlement,	No.	00-235(Sixth	Judicial	Cir.,	County	

of	Hughes,	S.D.).	

In	re:	Kansas	Microsoft	Antitrust	Litig.	Settlement,	No.	99C17089	Division	No.	15	Consolidated	

Cases	 (Dist.	 Ct.,	 Johnson	 County,	 Kan.)	 (“The	 Class	 Notice	 provided	 was	 the	 best	 notice	

practicable	under	the	circumstances	and	fully	complied	in	all	respects	with	the	requirements	of	

due	process	and	of	the	Kansas	State.	Annot.	§60-22.3.”).

In	 re:	 North	 Carolina	 Microsoft	 Antitrust	 Litig.	 Settlement, No.	 00-CvS-4073	 (Wake)	 00-CvS1246	(Lincoln)	(General	Court	of	Justice	Sup.	Ct.,	Wake	and	Lincoln	Counties,	N.C.).	

In	re:	ABS	II	Pipes	Litig.,	No.	3126	(Sup.	Ct.	of	Cal.,	Contra	Costa	County).	The	Court	approved	

regional	 notification	 program	 designed	 to	 alert	 those	 individuals	 who	 owned	 structures	 with	

the	pipe	that	they	were	eligible	to	recover	the	cost	of	replacing	the	pipe.

In	re:	Avenue	A	Inc.	Internet	Privacy	Litig.,	No:	C00-1964C	(W.D.	Wash.).

In	re:	Lorazepam	and	Clorazepate	Antitrust	Litig.,	No.	1290	(TFH)	(D.C.C.).

In	re:	Providian	Fin.	Corp.	ERISA	Litig.,	No	C-01-5027	(N.D.	Cal.).

In	re:	H	&	R	Block.,	et	al	Tax	Refund	Litig.,	No.	97195023/CC4111	(Maryland	Cir.	Ct.,	Baltimore	

City).

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 33 of 74 PageID #:505
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	re:	American	Premier	Underwriters,	Inc,	U.S.	Railroad	Vest	Corp.,	No.	06C01-9912	(Cir.	Ct.,	

Boone	County,	Ind.).

In	re:	Sprint	Corp.	Optical	Fiber	Litig.,	No:	9907	CV	284	(Dist.	Ct.,	Leavenworth	County,	Kan).

In	re:	Shelter	Mutual	Ins.	Co.	Litig.,	No.	CJ-2002-263	(Dist.Ct.,	Canadian	County.	Ok).

In	re:	Conseco,	Inc.	Sec.	Litig.,	No:	IP-00-0585-C	Y/S	CA	(S.D.	Ind.).

In	re:	Nat’l	Treasury	Employees	Union,	et	al.,	54	Fed.	Cl.	791	(2002).	

In	re:	City	of	Miami	Parking	Litig.,	Nos.	99-21456	CA-10,	99-23765	– CA-10	 (11th Judicial	Dist.	

Ct.	of	Miami-Dade	County,	Fla.).

In	re:	Prime	Co.	Incorporated	D/B/A/	Prime	Co.	Personal	Comm.,	No.	L	1:01CV658	(E.D.	Tx.).

Alsea	Veneer	v.	State	of	Oregon	A.A.,	No.	88C-11289-88C-11300.			

SEC	ENFORCEMENT	NOTICE	PROGRAM	EXPERIENCE

SEC	v.	Vivendi	Universal,	S.A.,	et	al., Case	No.	02	Civ.	5571	(RJH)	(HBP)	(S.D.N.Y.).

The	 Notice	 program	 included	 publication	 in	 11	 different	 countries	 and	 eight	 different	

languages.	The	engagement	involved	a	 full	 range	 of	 services,	 from	 design	and	 printing	 of the	

notice	and	claim	packets	through	claims	processing,	and	ultimately	distribution.	

SEC	v.	Royal	Dutch	Petroleum	Company,	No.04-3359	(S.D.	Tex.)

								FEDERAL	TRADE	COMMISSION	NOTICE	PROGRAM	EXPERIENCE

FTC	v.	Skechers	U.S.A.,	Inc.,	No.	1:12-cv-01214-JG	(N.D.	Ohio).

FTC		v.	Reebok	International	Ltd.,	 No.	11-cv-02046	(N.D.	Ohio)

FTC	v.	Chanery	and	RTC	Research	and	Development	LLC	[Nutraquest],	No	:05-cv-03460	(D.N.J.)

BANKRUPTCY	EXPERIENCE

Ms.	 Finegan	 has	 designed	 and	 implemented	 hundreds	 of	 domestic	 and	 international	

bankruptcy	notice	programs.		A	sample	case	list	includes	the	following:	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 34 of 74 PageID #:506
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	 re	AMR	Corporation	 [American	Airlines],	et	al.,	No.	11-15463	 (SHL)	 (Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.)	("due	

and	proper	notice	[was]	provided,	and	...	no	other	or	further	notice	need	be	provided.")

In	 re	 Jackson	Hewitt	Tax	Service	Inc., et	al.,	No	 11-11587	 (Bankr.	D.Del.)	 (2011).	The	debtors	

sought	 to	 provide	 notice	 of	 their	 filing	 as	 well	 as	 the	 hearing	 to	 approve	 their	 disclosure	

statement	and	confirm	 their	plan	 to	a	large	group	of	current	and	 former	customers,	many	of	

whom	 current	 and	 viable	 addresses	 promised	 to	 be	 a	 difficult	 (if	 not	 impossible)	 and	 costly	

undertaking.	The	court	approved	a	publication	notice	program	designed	and	implemented	by	

Finegan	 and	the	 administrator,	 that	 included	 more	 than	 350	 local	 newspaper	 and	 television	

websites,	two	national	online	networks	(24/7	Real	Media,	Inc.	and	Microsoft	Media	Network),	a	

website	notice	linked	to	a	press	release	and	notice	on	eight	major	websites,	including	CNN	and	

Yahoo.	These	online	efforts	supplemented	the	print	publication	and	direct-mail	notice	provided	

to	 known	 claimants	 and	 their	 attorneys,	 as	 well	 as	 to	 the	 state	 attorneys	 general	 of	 all	 50	

states.	The	Jackson	Hewitt	notice	program	constituted	one	of	the	first	large	chapter	11	cases	to	

incorporate	online	advertising.

In	re:	Nutraquest	Inc.,	No.	03-44147	(Bankr.	D.N.J.)

In	 re:	General	Motors	Corp.	et	al,	No.	09-50026	 (Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.).		This	case	is	 the	4th largest	

bankruptcy	 in	 U.S.	 history.	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 and	 her	 team	 worked	 with	 General	 Motors	

restructuring	attorneys	to	design	and	implement	the	legal	notice	program.

In	re:	ACandS,	Inc., No.	0212687	(Bankr.	D.Del.)	(2007)	(“Adequate	notice	of	the	Motion	and	of	

the	hearing	on	the	Motion	was	given.”).			

In	re:	United	Airlines,	No.	02-B-48191	(Bankr.	N.D	Ill.).		Ms.	Finegan	worked	with	United	and	its	

restructuring	attorneys	to	design	and	implement	global	legal	notice	programs.		The	notice	was	

published	 in	 11	 countries	 and	 translated	 into	 6	 languages.	 Ms.	 Finegan	 worked	 closely	 with	

legal	counsel	and	UAL’s	advertising	team	to	select	the	appropriate	media	and	to	negotiate	the	

most	favorable	advertising	rates.	www.pd-ual.com.

In	 re:	 Enron,	 No.	 01-16034	 (Bankr.	 S.D.N.Y.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 worked	 with	 Enron	 and	 its	

restructuring	attorneys	to	publish	various	legal	notices.

In	 re:	 Dow	 Corning, No.	 95-20512	 (Bankr.	 E.D.	 Mich.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 originally	 designed	 the	

information	website.		This	Internet	site	is	a	major	information	hub	that	has	various	forms	in	15	

languages.		

In	re:	Harnischfeger	Inds.,	No.	99-2171	(RJW)	Jointly	Administered	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).		Ms.	Finegan	

designed	 and	 implemented	 6	 domestic	 and	 international	 notice	 programs	 for	 this	 case.	 The	

notice	was	translated	into	14	different	languages	and	published	in	16	countries.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 35 of 74 PageID #:507
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	 re:	 Keene	 Corp.,	 No.	 93B	 46090	 (SMB),	 (Bankr.	 E.D.	 MO.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	

implemented	 multiple	 domestic	 bankruptcy	 notice	 programs	 including	 notice	 on	 the	 plan	 of	

reorganization	directed	to	all	creditors	and	all	Class	4	asbestos-related	claimants	and	counsel.	

In	 re:	 Lamonts,	 No.	 00-00045	 (Bankr.	 W.D.	 Wash.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 an	 implemented	

multiple	bankruptcy	notice	programs.

In	re:	Monet	Group	Holdings, Nos.	00-1936	(MFW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).		Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	

implemented	a	bar	date	notice.

In	 re:	 Laclede	 Steel	 Co.,	 No.	 98-53121-399	 (Bankr.	 E.D.	 MO.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 and	

implemented	multiple	bankruptcy	notice	programs.

In	re:	Columbia	Gas	Transmission	Corp.,	No.	91-804	(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y.).		Ms.	Finegan	developed	

multiple	nationwide	legal	notice	notification	programs	for	this	case.			

In	re:	U.S.H.	Corp.	of	New	York,	et	al.	(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y).		Ms.	Finegan	designed	and	implemented	

a	bar	date	advertising	notification	campaign.	

In	 re:	 Best	 Prods.	 Co.,	 Inc., No.	 96-35267-T,	 (Bankr.	 E.D.	 Va.).	 	 Ms.	 Finegan	 implemented	 a	

national	legal	 notice	 program	 that	included	multiple	advertising	 campaigns	 for	 notice	 of	 sale,	

bar	date,	disclosure	and	plan	confirmation.

In	 re:	 Lodgian,	Inc.,	 et	 al.,	No.	 16345	 (BRL)	 Factory	 Card	Outlet	 – 99-685	 (JCA),	 99-686	 (JCA)	

(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y).	

In	 re:	 Internat’l	 Total	 Servs,	 Inc.,	 et	 al.,	 Nos.	 01-21812,	 01-21818,	 01-21820,	 01-21882,	 01-

21824,	01-21826,	01-21827	(CD)	Under	Case	No:	01-21812	(Bankr.	E.D.N.Y).

In	re:	Decora	Inds.,	Inc.	and	Decora, Incorp.,	Nos.	00-4459	and	00-4460	(JJF)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).	

In	re:	Genesis	Health	Ventures,	Inc.,	et	al,	No.	002692	(PJW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).

In	re:	Tel.	Warehouse,	Inc.,	et	al,	No.	00-2105	through	00-2110	(MFW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).	

In	re:	United	Cos.	Fin.	Corp.,	et	al,	No.	99-450	(MFW)	through	99-461	(MFW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).

In	re:	Caldor,	Inc.	New	York,	The	Caldor	Corp.,	Caldor,	Inc.	CT,	et	al.,	No.	95-B44080	(JLG)	

(Bankr.	S.D.N.Y).

In	re:	Physicians	Health	Corp.,	et	al.,	No.	00-4482	(MFW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).	

In	re:	GC	Cos.,	et	al.,	Nos.	00-3897	through	00-3927	(MFW)	(Bankr.	D.	Del.).	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 36 of 74 PageID #:508
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

In	re:	Heilig-Meyers	Co.,	et	al.,	Nos.	00-34533	through	00-34538	(Bankr.	E.D.	Va.).

PRODUCT	RECALL	AND	CRISIS	COMMUNICATION	EXPERIENCE

Reser’s	Fine	Foods.	 Reser’s	is	a	nationally	distributed	brand	and	manufacturer	of	food	products	

through	giants	such	as	Albertsons,	Costco,	Food	Lion,	WinnDixie,	Ingles,	Safeway	and	Walmart.			

Ms.	 Finegan	 designed	 an	 enterprise-wide	 crisis	 communication	 plan	 that	 included	

communications	 objectives,	 crisis	 team	 roles	 and	 responsibilities,	 crisis	 response	 procedures,	

regulatory	 protocols,	 definitions	 of	 incidents	 that	 require	 various	 levels	 of	 notice,	 target	

audiences,	and	threat	assessment	protocols.			Ms.	Finegan	worked	with	the	company	through	

two	nationwide,	high	profile	recalls,	conducting	extensive	media	relations	efforts.				

Gulf	 Coast	 Claims	 Facility	 Notice	 Campaign.	 Finegan	 coordinated	 a	 massive	 outreach	 effort	

throughout	the	Gulf	Coast	region	to	notify	those	who	have	claims	as	a	result	of	damages	caused	

by	 the	 Deep	 Water	 Horizon	 Oil	 spill.	 	 The	 notice	 campaign	 includes	 extensive	 advertising	 in	

newspapers	 throughout	 the	 region,	 Internet	 notice	 through	 local	 newspaper,	 television	 and	

radio	 websites	 and	 media	 relations.	 The	 Gulf	 Coast	 Claims	 Facility	 (GCCF)	 is	 an	 independent	

claims	 facility,	 funded	 by	 BP,	 for	 the	 resolution	 of	 claims	 by	 individuals	 and	 businesses	 for	

damages	incurred	as	a	 result	 of	 the	 oil	 discharges	 due	 to	 the	Deepwater	Horizon	incident	 on	

April	20,	2010.			

City	of	New	Orleans	Tax	Revisions,	Post-Hurricane	Katrina.	 In	2007,	the	City	of	New	Orleans	

revised	 property	 tax	 assessments	 for	 property	 owners.	 	 As	 part	 of	 this	 process,	 it	 received	

numerous	appeals	 to	 the	assessments.		An	administration	 firm served	as	liaison	between	 the	

city	 and	 property	 owners,	 coordinating	 the	 hearing	 schedule	 and	 providing	 important	

information	 to	 property	 owners	 on	 the	 status	 of	 their	 appeal.	 	 Central	 to	 this	effort	 was	 the	

comprehensive	 outreach	 program	 designed	 by	 Ms.	 Finegan,	 which	 included	 a	 website	 and	 a	

heavy	schedule	of	television,	radio	and	newspaper	advertising,	along	with	the	coordination	of	

key	news	interviews	about	the	project	picked	up	by	local	media.	

ARTICLES

Author,	‘Being	'Media-Relevant'	— What	It	Means	And	Why	It	Matters	- Law360.com,	New	York	

(September	11,	2013,	2:50	PM	ET).

Co-Author,	 “New	 Media	 Creates	 New	 Expectations	 for	 Bankruptcy	 Notice	 Programs,” ABI	

Journal,	Vol.	XXX,	No	9,	November	2011.

Quoted	Expert,		“Effective	Class	Action	Notice	Promotes	Access	to	Justice:	Insight	 from	a	New	

U.S.	Federal	Judicial	Center	Checklist,”	Canadian	Supreme	Court	Law	Review,		(2011),	53	S.C.L.R.	

(2d).

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 37 of 74 PageID #:509
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Co-Author,	with	Hon.	Dickran	Tevrizian	– “Expert	Opinion:	It’s	More	Than	 Just	a	Report...Why	

Qualified	 Legal	 Experts	 Are	 Needed	 to	 Navigate	 the	 Changing	 Media	 Landscape,”	 BNA	 Class	

Action	Litigation	Report,	12	CLASS	464,	5/27/11.

Co-Author,	 with	 Hon.	 Dickran	 Tevrizian,	 Your	 Insight,	 "Expert	 Opinion:	 It's	 More	 Than	 Just	 a	

Report	-Why	Qualified	Legal	Experts	Are	Needed	to	Navigate	the	Changing	Media	Landscape,"

TXLR,	Vol.	26,	No.	21,	5/26/2011.

Quoted	 Expert,	 “Analysis	 of	 the	 FJC’s	 2010	 Judges’	 Class	 Action	 Notice	 and	 Claims	 Process	

Checklist	 and	 Guide:	 	 A	 New	 Roadmap	 to	 Adequate	 Notice	 and	 Beyond,”	 BNA	 Class	 Action	

Litigation	Report, 12	CLASS	165,	2/25/11.

Author,	Five	Key	Considerations	for	a	Successful	International	Notice	Program,	BNA	Class	Action	

Litigation	Report,	4/9/10	Vol.	11,	No.	7	p.	343.

Quoted	 Expert,	 “Communication	 Technology	 Trends	 Pose	 Novel	 Notification	 Issues	 for	 Class	

Litigators,”	BNA	Electronic	Commerce	and	Law,	15	ECLR	109	1/27/2010.

Author,	 “Legal	 Notice:	 R	 U	 ready	 2	 adapt?”	 BNA	 Class	 Action	 Report,	 Vol.	 10	 Class	 702,	

7/24/2009.

Author,	 “On	 Demand	Media	 Could	 Change	 the	 Future	 of	 Best	 Practicable	 Notice,”	 BNA	 Class	

Action	Litigation	Report,	Vol.	9,	No.	7,	4/11/2008,	pp.	307-310.

Quoted	 Expert,	 “Warranty	 Conference:	 Globalization	 of	 Warranty	 and	 Legal	 Aspects	 of	

Extended	 Warranty,”	 Warranty	 Week,	 warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20070228.html/	

February	28,	2007.		

Co-Author,	“Approaches	to	Notice	in	State	Court	Class	Actions,”	For	The	Defense,	Vol.	45,	No.	

11,	November,	2003.

Citation,	“Recall	Effectiveness	Research:	A	Review	and	Summary	of	the	Literature	on	Consumer	

Motivation	 and	 Behavior,”	 U.S.	 Consumer	 Product	 Safety	 Commission,	 CPSC-F-02-1391,	 p.10,	

Heiden	Associates,	July	2003.

Author,	“The	Web	Offers	Near,	Real-Time	Cost	Efficient	Notice,”	American	Bankruptcy	Institute,	

ABI	Journal,	Vol.	XXII,	No.	5.,	2003.	

Author,	 “Determining	 Adequate	 Notice	 in	 Rule	 23	 Actions,”	 For	 The	 Defense,	 Vol.	 44,	 No.	 9	

September,	2002.

Author,	“Legal	Notice,	What	You	Need	To	Know	and	Why,”	Monograph,	July	2002.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 38 of 74 PageID #:510
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Co-Author,	 “The	 Electronic	 Nature	 of	 Legal	 Noticing,”	 The	 American	 Bankruptcy	 Institute	

Journal,	Vol.	XXI,	No.	3,	April	2002.

Author,	 “Three	 Important	 Mantras	 for	 CEO’s	 and	 Risk	 Managers,” - International	 Risk	

Management	Institute,	irmi.com,	January	2002.

Co-Author,	 “Used	 the	 Bat	 Signal	 Lately,”	 The	National	 Law	 Journal,	 Special	 Litigation	 Section,	

February	19,	2001.	

Author,	“How	Much	is	Enough	Notice,”	Dispute	Resolution	Alert,	Vol.	1,	No.	6.	March	2001.

Author,	“Monitoring	the	Internet	Buzz,”	The	Risk	Report,	Vol.	XXIII,	No.	5,	Jan.	2001.	

Author,	 “High-Profile	 Product	 Recalls	 Need	 More	 Than	 the	 Bat	 Signal,”	 - International	 Risk	

Management	Institute,	irmi.com,	July	2001.

Co-Author,	 “Do	 You	 Know	 What	 100	 Million	 People	 are	 Buzzing	 About	 Today?”	 Risk	 and	

Insurance	Management,	March	2001.

Quoted	Article,	“Keep	Up	with	Class	Action,”	Kentucky	Courier	Journal,	March	13,	2000.

Author,	“The	Great	Debate	- How	Much	is	Enough	Legal	Notice?”	American	Bar	Association	–

Class	Actions	and	Derivatives	Suits	Newsletter,	winter	edition	1999.

SPEAKER/EXPERT	PANELIST/PRESENTER

CASD	5th Annual Speaker,	“The	Impact	of	Social	Media	on	Class	Action	Notice.”	

Consumer	Attorneys	of	San	Diego	Class	Action	Symposium,	San	

Diego,	California,	September	2012.

Law	Seminars	International Speaker,	“Class	Action	Notice:	Rules	and	Statutes	Governing	FRCP	

(b)(3)	Best	Practicable...	What	constitutes	a	best	practicable	

notice?	What	practitioners	and	courts	should	expect	in	the	new	

era	of	online	and	social	media.”		Chicago,	IL,	October	2011.		

*Voted	by	attendees	as	one	of	the	best	presentations	given.

CASD	4th Annual Faculty	Panelist,	“Reasonable	Notice	- Insight	for	practitioners	on	

the	FJC’s	Judges’	Class	Action	Notice	and	Claims	Process	Checklist	

and	Plain	Language	Guide. Consumer	Attorneys	of	San	Diego Class	

Action	Symposium,	San	Diego,	California, October	2011.

CLE	International Faculty	 Panelist,	 Building	 a	 Workable	 Settlement	 Structure,	 CLE	

International,	San	Francisco,	California	May,	2011.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 39 of 74 PageID #:511
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

CASD Faculty	 Panelist,	 “21st Century	 Class	 Notice	 and	 Outreach.”	 3nd

Annual Class	 Action	 Symposium	 CASD	 Symposium,	 San	 Diego,	

California,

October	2010.

CASD	 Faculty	Panelist,	“The	Future	of	Notice.”	2nd Annual	Class	Action

Symposium	CASD	Symposium,	San	Diego	California,	October	2009.

American	Bar	Association Speaker,	2008	Annual	Meeting,	“Practical	Advice	 for	Class	Action	

Settlements:	 	 The	 Future	 of	 Notice In	 the	 United	 States	 and	

Internationally	 – Meeting	 the	 Best	 Practicable	 Standard.”		

Section	 of	 Business	 Law	 Business	 and	 Corporate	 Litigation	

Committee	 – Class	 and	 Derivative	 Actions	 Subcommittee,	 New	

York,	NY,	August	2008.

Women	Lawyers	Association Faculty	Panelist,	Women	Lawyers	Association	of	Los	Angeles	

of	Los	Angeles

(WLALA)	CLE	Presentation,	“The	Anatomy	of	a	Class	Action.”		Los	Angeles,	CA- February,	2008.

Warranty	Chain	Mgmt. Faculty Panelist,	Presentation	Product	Recall	Simulation.		Tampa,

Florida,	March	2007.

Practicing	Law	Institute	(PLI)		Faculty	 Panelist,	 CLE	 Presentation,	 11th Annual	 Consumer	

Financial	Services	Litigation.	Presentation:	Class	Action	Settlement	

Structures	– Evolving	Notice	Standards	in	 the	Internet	Age.		New	

York/Boston	 (simulcast),	 NY	 March	 2006;	 Chicago,	 IL	 April	 2006	

and	San	Francisco,	CA,	May	2006.

U.S.	Consumer	Product	 Ms.	 Finegan	 participated	 as	 an	 expert	 panelist	 to	 the	 Consumer	

Product

Safety	Commission Safety	 Commission	 to	 discuss	 ways	 in	 which	 the	 CPSC	 could	

enhance	 and	 measure	 the	 recall	 process.	 As	 a	 panelist,	 Ms	

Finegan	discussed	how	the	CPSC	could	better	motivate	consumers	

to	 take	 action	 on	 recalls	 and	 how	 companies	 could	 scientifically	

measure	 and	 defend	 their	 outreach	 efforts.	 	 Bethesda	 MD,	

September	2003.

Weil,	Gotshal	&	Manges Presenter,	CLE	presentation,	“A	Scientific	Approach	to	Legal	Notice	

Communication.”	New	York,	June	2003.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 40 of 74 PageID #:512
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

Sidley	&	Austin Presenter,	 CLE	 presentation,	 “A	 Scientific	 Approach	 to	 Legal	

Notice	Communication.”	Los	Angeles,	May	2003.

Kirkland	&	Ellis Speaker	 to	 restructuring	 group	 addressing	 “The	 Best	 Practicable	

Methods	 to	 Give	 Notice	 in	 a	 Tort	 Bankruptcy.”	 Chicago,	 April	

2002.

Georgetown	University	Law	 Faculty,	CLE	White	Paper:	“What	are	the	best	practicable	methods	

to	Center	Mass	Tort	Litigation give	notice? Dispelling	the	

communications	myth	– A	notice	Institute	disseminated is	a	

notice	communicated,”	Mass	Tort	Litigation	Institute.	Washington	

D.C.,	November,	2001.

American	Bar	Association	 Presenter,	 “How	 to	 Bullet-Proof	 Notice	 Programs	 and	 What	

Communication	 Barriers	 Present	 Due	 Process	 Concerns	 in	 Legal	

Notice,”	 ABA	 Litigation	 Section	 Committee	 on	 Class	 Actions	 &	

Derivative	Suits.	Chicago,	IL,	August	6,	2001.

McCutchin,	Doyle,	Brown		 Speaker	to	litigation	group	in	San	Francisco	and	simulcast	to	four	

other &	Enerson McCutchin	locations,	addressing	the	definition	of	

effective	 notice	 and	 barriers	 to	 communication	 that	 affect	 due	

process	in	legal	notice.		San	Francisco,	CA,	June	2001.

Marylhurst	University		 Guest	 lecturer	 on	 public	 relations	 research	 methods.	 Portland,	

OR,	February	2001.

University	of	Oregon	 Guest	speaker	to	MBA	candidates	on	quantitative	and	qualitative	

research	 for	marketing	and	 communications	 programs.	 Portland,	

OR,	May	2001.

Judicial	Arbitration	&	 Speaker	on	the	definition	of	effective	notice.		San	Francisco	and	Los

Mediation	Services	(JAMS)	 Angeles,	CA,	June	2000.

International	Risk	 Past	Expert	Commentator	on	Crisis	and	Litigation	Communications.

Management	Institute	 www.irmi.com.

The	American	Bankruptcy Past	Contributing	Editor	– Beyond	the	Quill.	www.abi.org.

Institute	Journal	(ABI)

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 41 of 74 PageID #:513
Jeanne	Finegan	CV Exhibit	A

BACKGROUND

Ms	Finegan’s	past	experience	includes	working in	senior	management for	leading	Class	

Action	 Administration	 firms including	 The	 Garden	 City	 Group	 (“GCG”) and Poorman-Douglas

Corp.,	(“EPIQ”).	Ms.	Finegan	co-founded	Huntington	Advertising,	a	nationally	recognized	leader	

in	 legal	 notice	 communications.	 	 After	 Fleet Bank	 purchased	 her	 firm	 in	 1997,	 she	 grew	 the	

company	into	one	of	the	nation’s	leading	legal	notice	communication	agencies.

Prior	 to	 that,	 Ms.	 Finegan	 spearheaded	 Huntington	 Communications,	 (an	 Internet	

development	company)	and	The	Huntington	Group,	Inc.,	(a	public	relations	firm).		As	a	partner	

and	 consultant,	 she	 has	 worked	 on	 a	 wide	 variety	 of	 client	 marketing,	 research,	 advertising,	

public	 relations	 and	 Internet	 programs.	 	 During	 her	 tenure	 at	 the	 Huntington	 Group,	 client	

projects	included	advertising	 (media	 planning	and	 buying),	 shareholder	meetings,	 direct	mail,	

public	relations	 (planning,	 financial	 communications)	and	 community	 outreach	 programs.	Her	

past	client	list	includes	large	public	and	privately	held	companies:	Code-A-Phone	Corp.,	ThriftyPayless	Drug	Stores,	Hyster-Yale,	The	Portland	Winter	Hawks	Hockey	Team,	U.S.	National	Bank,	

U.S.	Trust	Company,	Morley	Capital	Management,	and	Durametal	Corporation.	

Prior	to	Huntington	Advertising,	Ms.	Finegan	worked	as	a	consultant	and	public	relations	

specialist	for	a	West	Coast-based	Management	and	Public	Relations	Consulting	firm.

Additionally,	 Ms.	 Finegan	 has	 experience	 in	 news	 and	 public	 affairs.	 Her	 professional	

background	includes	being	a	reporter,	anchor	and	public	affairs	director	for	KWJJ/KJIB	radio	in	

Portland,	 Oregon,	 as	 well	 as	 reporter	 covering	 state	 government for	 KBZY	 radio	 in	 Salem,	

Oregon.	Ms.	Finegan	worked	as	an	assistant	 television	program/promotion	manager	 for	KPDX	

directing	 $50	million	in	 programming.		She	was	also	 the	 program/promotion	manager	at	and	

KECH-22	television.	

Ms.	 Finegan's	 multi-level	 communication	 background	 gives	 her	 a	 thorough,	 hands-on	

understanding	 of	media,	 the	 communication	 process,	and	 how	it	 relates	 to	 creating	effective	

and	efficient	legal	notice	campaigns.

MEMBERSHIPS,		PROFESSIONAL	CREDENTIALS		

APR	- The	Universal	Board	of Accreditation	Public	Relations	Society	of	America	– Accredited.

Member	of	the	Public	Relations	Society	of	America

Member	Canadian	Public	Relations	Society

Also	see	LinkedIn page.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 42 of 74 PageID #:514
Exhibit B

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 43 of 74 PageID #:515
QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.AUTOPHONECALLSSETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-844-245-3766.

PARA UNA NOTIFICACTION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR OR VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, individually ) 

and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, ) 

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 12-cv-04789

v. ) 

BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) Judge Sarah L. Ellis

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT EXPLAINS THAT YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE 

A PAYMENT OF UP TO $500.00 FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS – 

AND THE DEADLINES TO EXERCISE THEM – ARE EXPLAINED IN THIS NOTICE.

THIS IS NOT NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A 

LAWYER.

WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?

This is a Court-authorized notice of a proposed settlement (“Notice”) in a class action lawsuit. The settlement 

would resolve a lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals who allege they received, but did not consent to receive, 

automated telephone calls made by persons or entities working on behalf of Bill Me later, Inc. (“Bill Me Later”). 

This lawsuit relates only to such calls that were made without the called party’s consent and that were made to 

either (1) a cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system, or (2) a cellular or landline phone using an 

artificial or prerecorded voice. If you are receiving this Notice by mail, you have been identified as someone who 

may have received one of these automated telephone calls between June 15, 2008 and July 24, 2014.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

The lawsuit alleges that Bill Me Later and its agents violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making automated or prerecorded telephone calls to called parties who did not 

give consent to receive such calls. Bill Me Later contests the claims in the Complaint and denies that it violated 

the TCPA. 

WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION?

In a class action, one or more people called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of people who have similar 

claims. All of these people together are a “Settlement Class” or “Settlement Class Members.” The Settlement, if 

approved by the Court, resolves the issues for all Settlement Class Members, except for those who exclude 

themselves from the Settlement Class.

WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?

The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or the Defendant. Instead, both sides have agreed to a 

Settlement. The Settlement avoids the cost, risk and delay of trial, and Settlement Class Members will get 

compensation now rather than, if at all, years from now. Under the Settlement, Settlement Class Members will 

have the opportunity to obtain a payment in exchange for giving up certain legal rights. The Class Representatives 

and their attorneys believe the Settlement is best for all Settlement Class Members. Bill Me Later has not 

conceded it is liable, but is instead agreeing to settle to avoid the costs and risks associated with litigation.

PAGE 1 OF 4

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 44 of 74 PageID #:516
QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.AUTOPHONECALLSSETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-844-245-3766.

PARA UNA NOTIFICACTION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR OR VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE. 

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The total amount of the Settlement Fund is $9,900,000. The cost to administer the Settlement (including the cost 

of processing Claim Forms and mailing Settlement checks), the cost to inform people about the Settlement 

(including the cost of publishing and mailing the Notice and maintaining the Settlement website), and attorneys’ 

fees and expenses of Class Counsel and payments to the Class Representatives will come out of these funds. The 

amount remaining after deducting these costs will be paid to eligible Settlement Class Members who submit valid 

Claim Forms, up to a maximum of $500.00 per claimant. The lawyers who brought this lawsuit (listed below) will 

ask the Court to award them attorneys’ fees of $3.3 million plus their expenses in an amount not to exceed 

$100,000 for the substantial time, costs, and effort they put into this case. The Class Representatives also will 

apply to the Court for payments, in the total amount of $30,000 each for their service to the Settlement Class. 

WHAT RIGHTS AM I GIVING UP IN THIS SETTLEMENT?

Unless you exclude yourself from this Settlement, you will be considered a member of the Settlement Class, 

which means you give up your right to file or continue a lawsuit against Bill Me Later, certain of its agents, and/or 

banks that extend or have extended credit under the Bill Me Later Program (“Released Parties”), arising from 

automated telephone calls made by or on behalf of Bill Me Later. Giving up your legal claims is called a release. 

The precise terms of the release are set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which is available on the settlement 

website listed below. Unless you formally exclude yourself from this Settlement, you will release your claims 

whether or not you submit a Claim Form and receive payment. If you have any questions, you can talk for free to 

the attorneys identified below who have been appointed by the Court to represent the Settlement Class, or you are 

welcome to talk to any other lawyer of your choosing. 

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? 

(1) Accept the Settlement. 

To accept the Settlement, send in a complete Claim Form by December 11, 2014. A Claim Form is enclosed 

with this Notice. You also may obtain a Claim Form at www.AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com, and you have 

the option of submitting your claim form online at the same website. You also may email the completed 

Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator at info@AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com . If the Settlement is 

approved, and you have submitted a valid claim, a check will be mailed to you. Submitting a valid and timely 

Claim Form is the only way to receive a payment from this Settlement, and is the only thing you need to do 

to receive a payment. 

(2) Exclude yourself. 

You may exclude yourself from the Settlement. If you do so, you will not receive any cash payment, but you 

will not release any claims you may have against the Released Parties and are free to pursue whatever legal 

rights you may have by pursuing your own lawsuit against the Released Parties at your own risk and expense. 

To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must mail a signed letter to the Settlement Administrator at 

MURRAY v. BILL ME LATER, C/O HEFFLER CLAIMS GROUP, P.O. BOX 360, PHILADELPHIA, PA

19105-0360, postmarked by October 23, 2014. You may also exclude yourself online at 

www.AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com. The exclusion letter must state that you exclude yourself from this 

Settlement and must include the name and case number of this litigation, as well as your full name, address, 

and the telephone numbers at which you received a call made by or on behalf of Bill Me Later. 

(3) Object to the Settlement. 

If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must submit your objection in writing to the Clerk of the Court of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States 

Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. The objection must be received by the Court no 

later than October 23, 2014. You must also send a copy of your objection to the attorneys for both Parties to 

the lawsuit, including at least one of the attorneys representing the Settlement Class (set forth below), as well 

as the attorneys representing Bill Me Later (Mark Blocker, Sidley Austin LLP, 1 South Dearborn St., Chicago, 

IL 60603), postmarked no later than October 23, 2014. Any objection to the proposed Settlement must 

include your full name; address; the telephone number(s) at which you received a call by made or on behalf 

of BML; the telephone carrier associated with each such identified telephone number; whether each identified 

telephone number is a cellular phone or a residential landline; and all grounds for the objection with factual 

and legal support for the stated objection. 

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 45 of 74 PageID #:517
QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.AUTOPHONECALLSSETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-844-245-3766.

PARA UNA NOTIFICACTION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR OR VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE. 

You may appear at the Final Approval Hearing, to be held on November 20, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., in 

Courtroom 1403 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, IL 60604 in person or through counsel to show cause why the proposed Settlement should not be 

approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Attendance at the hearing is not necessary; however, persons 

wishing to be heard orally in opposition to the approval of the Settlement, and/or the request for attorneys’ 

fees and expenses, and/or the request for compensation awards to the Class Representatives are required to 

indicate in their written objection their intention to appear at the hearing on their own behalf or through 

counsel and to identify the names of any witnesses they intend to call to testify at the Final Approval Hearing, 

as well as to identify any exhibits they intend to introduce at the Final Approval Hearing.

(4) Do Nothing.

If you do nothing, you will receive no money from the Settlement Fund. Unless you exclude yourself from 

the Settlement, you will not be able to file or continue a lawsuit against the Released Parties regarding any 

released claims. Submitting a valid and timely Claim Form is the only way to receive a payment from this 

Settlement. 

HOW MUCH WILL I BE PAID?

If the Court approves the Settlement, every Settlement Class Member who submits a timely and valid Claim Form 

will be entitled to an equal payment from the Settlement Fund. Each Settlement Class Member is entitled to make 

only one claim regardless of the number of telephone calls received. It is estimated based on typical response rates 

that each claimant is likely to receive between $75.00 and $150.00, but the amount could be higher or lower based 

on the actual number of valid Claim Forms submitted by Settlement Class Members. However, in no event will 

you be entitled to receive more than the statutory maximum of $500.00.

WHEN WILL I BE PAID?

If the Court finally approves the Settlement, you will be paid as soon as possible after the court order becomes 

final, which should be within 90 days after the Settlement has been finally approved. If there is an appeal of the 

Settlement, payment will likely be delayed. The Settlement Administrator will include information about the 

timing of payment at www.AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com . All checks issued to Settlement Class Members will 

expire and become void 180 days after they are issued. Any uncashed checks issued from the Settlement Fund 

will be donated to charitable or non-profit organizations approved by the Court. 

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE COURT DOES NOT APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?

If the Court does not approve the Settlement, if it approves the Settlement and the approval is reversed on appeal, 

or if the Settlement does not become final for some other reason, you will not be paid at this time and the case will 

continue, which may or may not be in the form of a class action. The Parties may negotiate a different settlement 

or the case may proceed forward.

WHO REPRESENTS THE CLASS?

The attorneys who have been appointed by the Court to represent the Class are:

Myles McGuire

Evan M. Meyers

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

161 N. Clark St., 47th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

mmcguire@mcgpc.com

emeyers@mcgpc.com

Tel: 312-216-5179

Michael J. McMorrow

MCMORROW LAW, P.C.

One North LaSalle St.

44th Floor

Chicago, IL 60602

mike@mcmorrowlaw.com

Tel: 312-265-0708

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 46 of 74 PageID #:518
QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.AUTOPHONECALLSSETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-844-245-3766.

PARA UNA NOTIFICACTION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR OR VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE. 

WHERE CAN I GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?

This Notice is only a summary of the proposed Settlement of this lawsuit. More details are in the Settlement 

Agreement which, along with other documents, can be obtained at www.AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com . If you 

have any questions, you can also call the Settlement Administrator at 1-844-245-3766 or Class Counsel at the 

numbers set forth above. In addition to the documents available on the case website, all pleadings and documents 

filed in Court may be reviewed or copied in the Office of the Clerk. Please do not call the Judge or the Clerk of 

the Court about this Case. They will not be able to give you advice on your options.

DATED: July 24, 2014

By order of: Honorable Sarah L. Ellis, District Court Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 47 of 74 PageID #:519
BILL ME LATER SETTLEMENT

PROOF OF CLAIM FORM

To receive a payment up to $500 from the Settlement Fund you must complete and submit a Claim Form by 

December 11, 2014. 

 A Claim Form can be submitted using one of the following methods: 

1. Online by visiting www.Autophonecallssettlement.com and completing an online Claim Form no later than 

midnight, U.S. Eastern Standard Time, on December 11, 2014. 

2. By mail to the Settlement Administrator, completed, signed, and postmarked no later than December 11, 2014, 

sent to the following address: MURRAY v. BILL ME LATER, C/O HEFFLER CLAIMS GROUP, P.O. BOX 360, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19105-0360.

3. By email to the Settlement Administrator at info@AutoPhoneCallsSettlement.com no later than midnight, U.S. 

Eastern Standard Time, on December 11, 2014. If you use email, you must send the Claim Form in a format 

that includes a legible signature. 

IMPORTANT NOTE: You must submit a Claim Form by mail, email or submit the Claim Form online to 

receive payment. Each Settlement Class Member is entitled to make only one claim regardless of the 

number of telephone calls received. 

You must fully complete the following information by printing below your (i) name, (ii) address, (iii) 

telephone number that you believe was called without your consent by or on behalf of Bill Me Later between 

June 15, 2008 and July 24, 2014, and (iv) the name of the telephone carrier for that telephone number 

during the time period when you received the automated calls, and then sign and date the form. 

Name: _______________________________ ____ ________________________________________________

 First Name MI Last Name

Address: ________________________________________________________________________

Address 1

________________________________________________________________________ 

Address 2

_________________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___

City State Zipcode Zip4 (optional)

Telephone number: (___ ___ ___) ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___

Telephone carrier: _______________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that automated calls from Bill Me Later were received on the telephone number listed above, that I 

was the authorized user of the telephone number listed above when those automated calls from Bill Me Later were 

received, and that I did not consent to receive automated calls from Bill Me Later at the time the calls were made.

I certify that this is true and correct. I understand that the Settlement Administrator has the right to verify my responses 

with my telephone carrier or otherwise and to dispute any claims that are based on inaccurate responses.

__________________________________________ _______________________________

Signature Date

*30744* *CLAIM* *Page1of1*

 30744 CLAIM Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 48 of 74 PageID #:520
Exhibit C

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 49 of 74 PageID #:521
Tuesday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:45:39	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

Page	
  1	
  of	
  5

Subject: No#ce	
  of	
  Class	
  Ac#on	
  Se/lement	
  	
  Murray	
  v.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  Wednesday	
  September	
  10	
  12:49	
  PM

(GMT-­‐05:00)

Date: Tuesday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:36:46	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

From: Shannon	
  Baraff

To: Shannon	
  Baraff

IN	
  THE	
  UNITED	
  STATES	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT

NORTHERN	
  DISTRICT	
  OF	
  ILLINOIS,	
  EASTERN	
  DIVISION

MISTY	
  MURRAY	
  AND	
  SHAUN	
  MURRAY,	
  individually	
  and	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  a	
  class	
  of	
  similarly	
  situated	
  individuals,

Plain#ffs,

v.

BILL	
  ME	
  LATER,	
  INC.,	
  a	
  Delaware	
  corpora#on,

Defendant.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Case	
  No.	
  12-­‐cv-­‐04789

Judge	
  Sarah	
  L.	
  Ellis

NOTICE	
  OF	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  LAWSUIT	
  AND	
  PROPOSED	
  SETTLEMENT

PLEASE	
  READ	
  THIS	
  NOTICE	
  CAREFULLY.	
  IT	
  EXPLAINS	
  THAT	
  YOU	
  MAY	
  BE	
  ENTITLED	
  TO	
  RECEIVE	
  A	
  PAYMENT	
  OF	
  UP	
  

TO	
  $500.00	
  FROM	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  SETTLEMENT.	
  YOUR	
  RIGHTS	
  AND	
  OPTIONS	
  -­‐	
  AND	
  THE	
  DEADLINES	
  TO	
  

EXERCISE	
  THEM	
  -­‐	
  ARE	
  EXPLAINED	
  IN	
  THIS	
  NOTICE.

THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  NOTICE	
  OF	
  A	
  LAWSUIT	
  AGAINST	
  YOU.	
  THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  A	
  SOLICITATION	
  FROM	
  A	
  LAWYER.

WHY	
  DID	
  I	
  GET	
  THIS	
  NOTICE?

This	
  is	
  a	
  Court-­‐authorized	
  no#ce	
  of	
  a	
  proposed	
  se/lement	
  ("No#ce")	
  in	
  a	
  class	
  ac#on	
  lawsuit.	
  The	
  se/lement	
  

would	
  resolve	
  a	
  lawsuit	
  brought	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  individuals	
  who	
  allege	
  they	
  received,	
  but	
  did	
  not	
  consent	
  to	
  receive,	
  

automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  made	
  by	
  persons	
  or	
  en##es	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later,	
  Inc.	
  ("Bill	
  Me	
  Later").	
  

This	
  lawsuit	
  relates	
  only	
  to	
  such	
  calls	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  without	
  the	
  called	
  party's	
  consent	
  and	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  

either	
  (1)	
  a	
  cellular	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  automa#c	
  telephone	
  dialing	
  system,	
  or	
  (2)	
  a	
  cellular	
  or	
  landline	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  

ar#ficial	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  voice.	
  If	
  you	
  are	
  receiving	
  this	
  No#ce	
  by	
  mail,	
  you	
  have	
  been	
  iden#fied	
  as	
  someone	
  who	
  

may	
  have	
  received	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  between	
  June	
  15,	
  2008	
  and	
  July	
  24,	
  2014.

WHAT	
  IS	
  THIS	
  LAWSUIT	
  ABOUT?

The	
  lawsuit	
  alleges	
  that	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  violated	
  the	
  federal	
  Telephone	
  Consumer	
  Protec#on	
  Act

("TCPA"),	
  47	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  227,	
  by	
  making	
  automated	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  telephone	
  calls	
  to	
  called	
  par#es	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  give	
  

consent	
  to	
  receive	
  such	
  calls.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  contests	
  the	
  claims	
  in	
  the	
  Complaint	
  and	
  denies	
  that	
  it	
  violated	
  the	
  

TCPA.

WHY	
  IS	
  THIS	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION?

Page	
  1	
  of	
  5

Subject: No#ce	
  of	
  Class	
  Ac#on	
  Se/lement	
  	
  Murray	
  v.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  

Date: Tuesday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:36:46	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

IN	
  THE	
  UNITED	
  STATES	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT

NORTHERN	
  DISTRICT	
  OF	
  ILLINOIS,	
  EASTERN	
  DIVISION

MISTY	
  MURRAY	
  AND	
  SHAUN	
  MURRAY,	
  individually	
  and	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  a	
  class	
  of	
  similarly	
  situated	
  individuals,

Plain#ffs,

v.

BILL	
  ME	
  LATER,	
  INC.,	
  a	
  Delaware	
  corpora#on,

Defendant.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Case	
  No.	
  12-­‐cv-­‐04789

Judge	
  Sarah	
  L.	
  Ellis

NOTICE	
  OF	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  LAWSUIT	
  AND	
  PROPOSED	
  SETTLEMENT

PLEASE	
  READ	
  THIS	
  NOTICE	
  CAREFULLY.	
  IT	
  EXPLAINS	
  THAT	
  YOU	
  MAY	
  BE	
  ENTITLED	
  TO	
  RECEIVE	
  A	
  PAYMENT	
  OF	
  UP	
  

TO	
  $500.00	
  FROM	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  SETTLEMENT.	
  YOUR	
  RIGHTS	
  AND	
  OPTIONS	
  -­‐	
  AND	
  THE	
  DEADLINES	
  TO	
  

EXERCISE	
  THEM	
  -­‐	
  ARE	
  EXPLAINED	
  IN	
  THIS	
  NOTICE.

THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  NOTICE	
  OF	
  A	
  LAWSUIT	
  AGAINST	
  YOU.	
  THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  A	
  SOLICITATION	
  FROM	
  A	
  LAWYER.

WHY	
  DID	
  I	
  GET	
  THIS	
  NOTICE?

This	
  is	
  a	
  Court-­‐authorized	
  no#ce	
  of	
  a	
  proposed	
  se/lement	
  ("No#ce")	
  in	
  a	
  class	
  ac#on	
  lawsuit.	
  The	
  se/lement	
  

would	
  resolve	
  a	
  lawsuit	
  brought	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  individuals	
  who	
  allege	
  they	
  received,	
  but	
  did	
  not	
  consent	
  to	
  receive,	
  

automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  made	
  by	
  persons	
  or	
  en##es	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later,	
  Inc.	
  ("Bill	
  Me	
  Later").	
  

This	
  lawsuit	
  relates	
  only	
  to	
  such	
  calls	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  without	
  the	
  called	
  party's	
  consent	
  and	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  

either	
  (1)	
  a	
  cellular	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  automa#c	
  telephone	
  dialing	
  system,	
  or	
  (2)	
  a	
  cellular	
  or	
  landline	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  

ar#ficial	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  voice.	
  If	
  you	
  are	
  receiving	
  this	
  No#ce	
  by	
  mail,	
  you	
  have	
  been	
  iden#fied	
  as	
  someone	
  who	
  

may	
  have	
  received	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  between	
  June	
  15,	
  2008	
  and	
  July	
  24,	
  2014.

WHAT	
  IS	
  THIS	
  LAWSUIT	
  ABOUT?

The	
  lawsuit	
  alleges	
  that	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  violated	
  the	
  federal	
  Telephone	
  Consumer	
  Protec#on	
  Act	
  

("TCPA"),	
  47	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  227,	
  by	
  making	
  automated	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  telephone	
  calls	
  to	
  called	
  par#es	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  give	
  

consent	
  to	
  receive	
  such	
  calls.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  contests	
  the	
  claims	
  in	
  the	
  Complaint	
  and	
  denies	
  that	
  it	
  violated	
  the	
  

TCPA.

WHY	
  IS	
  THIS	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION?

Page	
  1	
  of	
  5

Subject: No#ce	
  of	
  Class	
  Ac#on	
  Se/lement	
  	
  Murray	
  v.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  

Date: Tuesday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:36:46	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

IN	
  THE	
  UNITED	
  STATES	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT

NORTHERN	
  DISTRICT	
  OF	
  ILLINOIS,	
  EASTERN	
  DIVISION

MISTY	
  MURRAY	
  AND	
  SHAUN	
  MURRAY,	
  individually	
  and	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  a	
  class	
  of	
  similarly	
  situated	
  individuals,

Plain#ffs,

v.

BILL	
  ME	
  LATER,	
  INC.,	
  a	
  Delaware	
  corpora#on,

Defendant.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Case	
  No.	
  12-­‐cv-­‐04789

Judge	
  Sarah	
  L.	
  Ellis

NOTICE	
  OF	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  LAWSUIT	
  AND	
  PROPOSED	
  SETTLEMENT

PLEASE	
  READ	
  THIS	
  NOTICE	
  CAREFULLY.	
  IT	
  EXPLAINS	
  THAT	
  YOU	
  MAY	
  BE	
  ENTITLED	
  TO	
  RECEIVE	
  A	
  PAYMENT	
  OF	
  UP	
  

TO	
  $500.00	
  FROM	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  SETTLEMENT.	
  YOUR	
  RIGHTS	
  AND	
  OPTIONS	
  -­‐	
  AND	
  THE	
  DEADLINES	
  TO	
  

EXERCISE	
  THEM	
  -­‐	
  ARE	
  EXPLAINED	
  IN	
  THIS	
  NOTICE.

THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  NOTICE	
  OF	
  A	
  LAWSUIT	
  AGAINST	
  YOU.	
  THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  A	
  SOLICITATION	
  FROM	
  A	
  LAWYER.

WHY	
  DID	
  I	
  GET	
  THIS	
  NOTICE?

This	
  is	
  a	
  Court-­‐authorized	
  no#ce	
  of	
  a	
  proposed	
  se/lement	
  ("No#ce")	
  in	
  a	
  class	
  ac#on	
  lawsuit.	
  The	
  se/lement	
  

would	
  resolve	
  a	
  lawsuit	
  brought	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  individuals	
  who	
  allege	
  they	
  received,	
  but	
  did	
  not	
  consent	
  to	
  receive,	
  

automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  made	
  by	
  persons	
  or	
  en##es	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later,	
  Inc.	
  ("Bill	
  Me	
  Later").	
  

This	
  lawsuit	
  relates	
  only	
  to	
  such	
  calls	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  without	
  the	
  called	
  party's	
  consent	
  and	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  

either	
  (1)	
  a	
  cellular	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  automa#c	
  telephone	
  dialing	
  system,	
  or	
  (2)	
  a	
  cellular	
  or	
  landline	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  

ar#ficial	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  voice.	
  If	
  you	
  are	
  receiving	
  this	
  No#ce	
  by	
  mail,	
  you	
  have	
  been	
  iden#fied	
  as	
  someone	
  who	
  

may	
  have	
  received	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  between	
  June	
  15,	
  2008	
  and	
  July	
  24,	
  2014.

WHAT	
  IS	
  THIS	
  LAWSUIT	
  ABOUT?

The	
  lawsuit	
  alleges	
  that	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  violated	
  the	
  federal	
  Telephone	
  Consumer	
  Protec#on	
  Act	
  

("TCPA"),	
  47	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  227,	
  by	
  making	
  automated	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  telephone	
  calls	
  to	
  called	
  par#es	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  give	
  

consent	
  to	
  receive	
  such	
  calls.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  contests	
  the	
  claims	
  in	
  the	
  Complaint	
  and	
  denies	
  that	
  it	
  violated	
  the	
  

TCPA.

WHY	
  IS	
  THIS	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION?

sday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:45:39	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

Page	
  1	
  of	
  5

ray	
  v.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  Wednesday	
  September	
  10	
  12:49	
  PM

6	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Time

D	
  STATES	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT

	
  OF	
  ILLINOIS,	
  EASTERN	
  DIVISION

nd	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  a	
  class	
  of	
  similarly	
  situated	
  individuals,

AWSUIT	
  AND	
  PROPOSED	
  SETTLEMENT

S	
  THAT	
  YOU	
  MAY	
  BE	
  ENTITLED	
  TO	
  RECEIVE	
  A	
  PAYMENT	
  OF	
  UP	
  

NT.	
  YOUR	
  RIGHTS	
  AND	
  OPTIONS	
  -­‐	
  AND	
  THE	
  DEADLINES	
  TO	
  

RE	
  EXPLAINED	
  IN	
  THIS	
  NOTICE.

T	
  YOU.	
  THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  A	
  SOLICITATION	
  FROM	
  A	
  LAWYER.

ement	
  ("No#ce")	
  in	
  a	
  class	
  ac#on	
  lawsuit.	
  The	
  se/lement	
  

uals	
  who	
  allege	
  they	
  received,	
  but	
  did	
  not	
  consent	
  to	
  receive,	
  

#es	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later,	
  Inc.	
  ("Bill	
  Me	
  Later").	
  

e	
  without	
  the	
  called	
  party's	
  consent	
  and	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  

hone	
  dialing	
  system,	
  or	
  (2)	
  a	
  cellular	
  or	
  landline	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  

his	
  No#ce	
  by	
  mail,	
  you	
  have	
  been	
  iden#fied	
  as	
  someone	
  who	
  

ne	
  calls	
  between	
  June	
  15,	
  2008	
  and	
  July	
  24,	
  2014.

violated	
  the	
  federal	
  Telephone	
  Consumer	
  Protec#on	
  Act

rerecorded	
  telephone	
  calls	
  to	
  called	
  par#es	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  give	
  

the	
  claims	
  in	
  the	
  Complaint	
  and	
  denies	
  that	
  it	
  violated	
  the	
  

Subject: No#ce	
  of	
  Class	
  Ac#on	
  Se/lement	
  	
  Murray	
  v.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  

Date: Tuesday,	
  November	
  4,	
  2014	
  at	
  12:36:46	
  PM	
  Pacific	
  Standard	
  Tim

IN	
  THE	
  UNITED	
  STATES	
  DISTRICT	
  COURT

NORTHERN	
  DISTRICT	
  OF	
  ILLINOIS,	
  EASTERN	
  DIV

MISTY	
  MURRAY	
  AND	
  SHAUN	
  MURRAY,	
  individually	
  and	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  a	
  class	
  of	
  s

Plain#ffs,

v.

BILL	
  ME	
  LATER,	
  INC.,	
  a	
  Delaware	
  corpora#on,

Defendant.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Case	
  No.	
  12-­‐cv-­‐04789

Judge	
  Sarah	
  L.	
  Ellis

NOTICE	
  OF	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  LAWSUIT	
  AND	
  PROPOSED	
  S

PLEASE	
  READ	
  THIS	
  NOTICE	
  CAREFULLY.	
  IT	
  EXPLAINS	
  THAT	
  YOU	
  MAY	
  BE	
  ENTIT

TO	
  $500.00	
  FROM	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION	
  SETTLEMENT.	
  YOUR	
  RIGHTS	
  AND	
  OPT

EXERCISE	
  THEM	
  -­‐	
  ARE	
  EXPLAINED	
  IN	
  THIS	
  NO

THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  NOTICE	
  OF	
  A	
  LAWSUIT	
  AGAINST	
  YOU.	
  THIS	
  IS	
  NOT	
  A	
  SOL

WHY	
  DID	
  I	
  GET	
  THIS	
  NOTICE?

This	
  is	
  a	
  Court-­‐authorized	
  no#ce	
  of	
  a	
  proposed	
  se/lement	
  ("No#ce")	
  in	
  a	
  class

would	
  resolve	
  a	
  lawsuit	
  brought	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  individuals	
  who	
  allege	
  they	
  receiv

automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  made	
  by	
  persons	
  or	
  en##es	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  B

This	
  lawsuit	
  relates	
  only	
  to	
  such	
  calls	
  that	
  were	
  made	
  without	
  the	
  called	
  party

either	
  (1)	
  a	
  cellular	
  phone	
  using	
  an	
  automa#c	
  telephone	
  dialing	
  system,	
  or	
  (2)	
  

ar#ficial	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  voice.	
  If	
  you	
  are	
  receiving	
  this	
  No#ce	
  by	
  mail,	
  you	
  hav

may	
  have	
  received	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  automated	
  telephone	
  calls	
  between	
  June	
  15,	
  

WHAT	
  IS	
  THIS	
  LAWSUIT	
  ABOUT?

The	
  lawsuit	
  alleges	
  that	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  violated	
  the	
  federal	
  Teleph

("TCPA"),	
  47	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  227,	
  by	
  making	
  automated	
  or	
  prerecorded	
  telephone	
  call

consent	
  to	
  receive	
  such	
  calls.	
  Bill	
  Me	
  Later	
  contests	
  the	
  claims	
  in	
  the	
  Complain

TCPA.

WHY	
  IS	
  THIS	
  A	
  CLASS	
  ACTION?

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 50 of 74 PageID #:522
Page	2	of	5

In	a	class	ac#on,	one	or	more	people	called	"Class	Representa#ves"	sue	on	behalf	of	people	who	have	similar	

claims.	All	of	these	people	together	are	a	"Se/lement	Class"	or	"Se/lement	Class	Members."	The	Se/lement,	if	

approved	by	the	Court,	resolves	the	issues	for	all	Se/lement	Class	Members,	except	for	those	who	exclude	

themselves	from	the	Se/lement	Class.

WHY	IS	THERE	A	SETTLEMENT?

The	Court	did	not	decide	in	favor	of	the	Plain#ffs	or	the	Defendant.	Instead,	both	sides	have	agreed	to	a	

Se/lement.	The	Se/lement	avoids	the	cost,	risk	and	delay	of	trial,	and	Se/lement	Class	Members	will	get	

compensa#on	now	rather	than,	if	at	all,	years	from	now.	Under	the	Se/lement,	Se/lement	Class	Members	will	

have	the	opportunity	to	obtain	a	payment	in	exchange	for	giving	up	certain	legal	rights.	The	Class	Representa#ves	

and	their	a/orneys	believe	the	Se/lement	is	best	for	all	Se/lement	Class	Members.	Bill	Me	Later	has	not	

conceded	it	is	liable,	but	is	instead	agreeing	to	se/le	to	avoid	the	costs	and	risks	associated	with	li#ga#on.

WHAT	DOES	THE	SETTLEMENT	PROVIDE?

The	total	amount	of	the	Se/lement	Fund	is	$9,900,000.	The	cost	to	administer	the	Se/lement	(including	the	cost	

of	processing	Claim	Forms	and	mailing	Se/lement	checks),	the	cost	to	inform	people	about	the	Se/lement	

(including	the	cost	of	publishing	and	mailing	the	No#ce	and	maintaining	the	Se/lement	website),	and	a/orneys'	

fees	and	expenses	of	Class	Counsel	and	payments	to	the	Class	Representa#ves	will	come	out	of	these	funds.	The	

amount	remaining	ajer	deduc#ng	these	costs	will	be	paid	to	eligible	Se/lement	Class	Members	who	submit	valid	

Claim	Forms,	up	to	a	maximum	of	$500.00	per	claimant.	The	lawyers	who	brought	this	lawsuit	(listed	below)	will	

ask	the	Court	to	award	them	a/orneys'	fees	of	$3.3	million	plus	their	expenses	in	an	amount	not	to	exceed	

$100,000	for	the	substan#al	#me,	costs,	and	effort	they	put	into	this	case.	The	Class	Representa#ves	also	will	

apply	to	the	Court	for	payments,	in	the	total	amount	of	$30,000	each	for	their	service	to	the	Se/lement	Class.

WHAT	RIGHTS	AM	I	GIVING	UP	IN	THIS	SETTLEMENT?

Unless	you	exclude	yourself	from	this	Se/lement,	you	will	be	considered	a	member	of	the	Se/lement	Class,	which	

means	you	give	up	your	right	to	file	or	con#nue	a	lawsuit	against	Bill	Me	Later,	certain	of	its	agents,	and/or	banks	

that	extend	or	have	extended	credit	under	the	Bill	Me	Later	Program	("Released	Par#es"),	arising	from	automated	

telephone	calls	made	by	or	on	behalf	of	Bill	Me	Later.	Giving	up	your	legal	claims	is	called	a	release.	The	precise	

terms	of	the	release	are	set	forth	in	the	Se/lement	Agreement,	which	is	available	on	the	se/lement	website	listed	

below.	Unless	you	formally	exclude	yourself	from	this	Se/lement,	you	will	release	your	claims	whether	or	not	you	

submit	a	Claim	Form	and	receive	payment.	If	you	have	any	ques#ons,	you	can	talk	for	free	to	the	a/orneys	

iden#fied	below	who	have	been	appointed	by	the	Court	to	represent	the	Se/lement	Class,	or	you	are	welcome	to	

talk	to	any	other	lawyer	of	your	choosing.

WHAT	ARE	MY	OPTIONS?

(1)					Accept	the	Se/lement.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 51 of 74 PageID #:523
Page	3	of	5

To	accept	the	Se/lement,	send	in	a	complete	Claim	Form	by	December	11,	2014.	A	Claim	Form	is	enclosed	with	

this	No#ce.	You	also	may	obtain	a	Claim	Form	at	www.AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com,	and	you	have	the	op#on	of	

submimng	your	claim	form	online	at	the	same	website.	You	also	may	email	the	completed	Claim	Form	to	the	

Se/lement	Administrator	at	info@AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com<mailto:info@AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com>.	

If	the	Se/lement	is	approved,	and	you	have	submi/ed	a	valid	claim,	a	check	will	be	mailed	to	you.	Submimng	a	

valid	and	#mely	Claim	Form	is	the	only	way	to	receive	a	payment	from	this	Se/lement,	and	is	the	only	thing	you	

need	to	do	to	receive	a	payment.

(2)					Exclude	yourself.

You	may	exclude	yourself	from	the	Se/lement.	If	you	do	so,	you	will	not	receive	any	cash	payment,	but	you	will	

not	release	any	claims	you	may	have	against	the	Released	Par#es	and	are	free	to	pursue	whatever	legal	rights	you	

may	have	by	pursuing	your	own	lawsuit	against	the	Released	Par#es	at	your	own	risk	and	expense.	To	exclude	

yourself	from	the	Se/lement,	you	must	mail	a	signed	le/er	to	the	Se/lement	Administrator	at	MURRAY	v.	BILL	ME	

LATER,	C/O	HEFFLER	CLAIMS	GROUP,	P.O.	BOX	360,	PHILADELPHIA,	PA	19105-0360,	postmarked	by	October	23,	

2014.	You	may	also	exclude	yourself	online	at	www.AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com.	The	exclusion	le/er	must	

state	that	you	exclude	yourself	from	this	Se/lement	and	must	include	the	name	and	case	number	of	this	li#ga#on,	

as	well	as	your	full	name,	address,	and	the	telephone	numbers	at	which	you	received	a	call	made	by	or	on	behalf	

of	Bill	Me	Later.

(3)					Object	to	the	Se/lement.

If	you	wish	to	object	to	the	Se/lement,	you	must	submit	your	objec#on	in	wri#ng	to	the	Clerk	of	the	Court	of	the	

United	States	District	Court	for	the	Northern	District	of	Illinois,	Evere/	McKinley	Dirksen	United	States	Courthouse,	

219	South	Dearborn	Street,	Chicago,	IL	60604.	The	objec#on	must	be	received	by	the	Court	no	later	than	October	

23,	2014.	You	must	also	send	a	copy	of	your	objec#on	to	the	a/orneys	for	both	Par#es	to	the	lawsuit,	including	at	

least	one	of	the	a/orneys	represen#ng	the	Se/lement	Class	(set	forth	below),	as	well	as	the	a/orneys	

represen#ng	Bill	Me	Later	(Mark	Blocker,	Sidley	Aus#n	LLP,	1	South	Dearborn	St.,	Chicago,	IL	60603),	postmarked	

no	later	than	October	23,	2014.	Any	objec#on	to	the	proposed	Se/lement	must	include	your	full	name;	address;	

the	telephone	number(s)	at	which	you	received	a	call	by,	made	or	on	behalf	of	BML;	the	telephone	carrier	

associated	with	each	such	iden#fied	telephone	number;	whether	each	iden#fied	telephone	number	is	a	cellular	

phone	or	a	residen#al	landline;	and	all	grounds	for	the	objec#on	with	factual	and	legal	support	for	the	stated	

objec#on.

You	may	appear	at	the	Final	Approval	Hearing,	to	be	held	on	November	20,	2014,	at	1:30	p.m.,	in	Courtroom	1403	

of	the	Evere/	McKinley	Dirksen	United	States	Courthouse,	219	South	Dearborn	Street,	Chicago,	IL	60604	in	person	

or	through	counsel	to	show	cause	why	the	proposed	Se/lement	should	not	be	approved	as	fair,	reasonable,	and	

adequate.	A/endance	at	the	hearing	is	not	necessary;	however,	persons	wishing	to	be	heard	orally	in	opposi#on	

to	the	approval	of	the	Se/lement,	and/or	the	request	for	a/orney's	fees	and	expenses,	and/or	the	request	for	

compensa#on	awards	to	the	Class	Representa#ves	are	required	to	indicate	in	their	wri/en	objec#on	their	

inten#on	to	appear	at	the	hearing	on	their	own	behalf	or	through	counsel	and	to	iden#fy	the	names	of	any

witnesses	they	intend	to	call	to	tes#fy	at	the	Final	Approval	Hearing,	as	well	as	to	iden#fy	any	exhibits	they	intend	

to	introduce	at	the	Final	Approval	Hearing.

(4)					Do	Nothing.

If	you	do	nothing,	you	will	receive	no	money	from	the	Se/lement	Fund.	Unless	you	exclude	yourself	from	the	

Se/lement,	you	will	not	be	able	to	file	or	con#nue	a	lawsuit	against	the	Released	Par#es	regarding	any	released	

claims.	Submimng	a	valid	and	#mely	Claim	Form	is	the	only	way	to	receive	a	payment	from	this	Se/lement.

HOW	MUCH	WILL	I	BE	PAID?

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 52 of 74 PageID #:524
Page	4	of	5

If	the	Court	approves	the	Se/lement,	every	Se/lement	Class	Member	who	submits	a	#mely	and	valid	Claim	Form	

will	be	en#tled	to	an	equal	payment	from	the	Se/lement	Fund.	Each	Se/lement	Class	Member	is	en#tled	to	make	

only	one	claim	regardless	of	the	number	of	telephone	calls	received.	It	is	es#mated	based	on	typical	response	

rates	that	each	claimant	is	likely	to	receive	between	$75.00	and	$150.00,	but	the	amount	could	be	higher	or	lower	

based	on	the	actual	number	of	valid	Claim	Forms	submi/ed	by	Se/lement	Class	Members.	However,	in	no	event	

will	you	be	en#tled	to	receive	more	than	the	statutory	maximum	of	$500.00.

WHEN	WILL	I	BE	PAID?

If	the	Court	finally	approves	the	Se/lement,	you	will	be	paid	as	soon	as	possible	ajer	the	court	order	becomes	

final,	which	should	be	within	90	days	ajer	the	Se/lement	has	been	finally	approved.	If	there	is	an	appeal	of	the	

Se/lement,	payment	will	likely	be	delayed.	The	Se/lement	Administrator	will	include	informa#on	about	the	#ming	

of	payment	at	www.AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com<h/p://del2.com/url/1522920/2961b27/>.	All	checks	issued	

to	Se/lement	Class	Members	will	expire	and	become	void	180	days	ajer	they	are	issued.	Any	uncashed	checks	

issued	from	the	Se/lement	Fund	will	be	donated	to	charitable	or	non-profit	organiza#ons	approved	by	the	Court.

WHAT	WILL	HAPPEN	IF	THE	COURT	DOES	NOT	APPROVE	THE	SETTLEMENT?

If	the	Court	does	not	approve	the	Se/lement,	if	it	approves	the	Se/lement	and	the	approval	is	reversed	on	appeal,	

or	if	the	Se/lement	does	not	become	final	for	some	other	reason,	you	will	not	be	paid	at	this	#me	and	the	case	

will	con#nue,	which	may	or	may	not	be	in	the	form	of	a	class	ac#on.	The	Par#es	may	nego#ate	a	different	

se/lement	or	the	case	may	proceed	forward.

WHO	REPRESENTS	THE	CLASS?

The	a/orneys	who	have	been	appointed	by	the	Court	to	represent	the	Class	are:

Myles	McGuire

Evan	M.	Meyers

McGUIRE	LAW,	P.C.

161	N.	Clark	St.,	47th	Floor

Chicago,	IL	60601

mmcguire@mcgpc.com<mailto:mmcguire@mcgpc.com>

emeyers@mcgpc.com<mailto:emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Tel:	312-216-5179							Michael	J.	McMorrow

McMORROW	LAW,	P.C.

One	North	LaSalle	St.

44th	Floor

Chicago,	IL	60602

mike@mcmorrowlaw.com<mailto:mike@mcmorrowlaw.com>

Tel:	312-265-0708

WHERE	CAN	I	GET	ADDITIONAL	INFORMATION?

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 53 of 74 PageID #:525
Page	5	of	5

This	No#ce	is	only	a	summary	of	the	proposed	Se/lement	of	this	lawsuit.	More	details	are	in	the	Se/lement	

Agreement	which,	along	with	other	documents,	can	be	obtained	at	

www.AutoPhoneCallsSe/lement.com<h/p://del2.com/url/1522921/2961b27/>	.	If	you	have	any	ques#ons,	you	

can	also	call	the	Se/lement	Administrator	at	1-844-245-3766	or	Class	Counsel	at	the	numbers	set	forth	above.	In	

addi#on	to	the	documents	available	on	the	case	website,	all	pleadings	and	documents	filed	in	Court	may	be	

reviewed	or	copied	in	the	Office	of	the	Clerk.	Please	do	not	call	the	Judge	or	the	Clerk	of	the	Court	about	this	Case.	

They	will	not	be	able	to	give	you	advice	on	your	op#ons.

Click	Here	to	Submit	or	Download	a	Claim	Form

h/ps://www.autophonecallsse/lement.com/claim/<h/p://del2.com/url/1522922/2961b27/>

DATED:	July	24,	2014

By	order	of:	Honorable	Sarah	L.	Ellis,	District	Court	Judge,	United	States	District	Court,	Northern	District	of	Illinois

QUESTIONS?	VISIT	WWW.AUTOPHONECALLSSETTLEMENT.COM<h/p://del2.com/url/1522923/2961b27/>	OR	

CALL	TOLL	FREE	1-844-245-3766.

PARA	UNA	NOTIFICACION	EN	ESPANOL,	LLAMAR	OR	VISITAR	NUESTRO	WEBSITE.

MURRAY	v.	BILL	ME	LATER	|	C/O	HEFFLER	CLAIMS	GROUP	|	P.O.	BOX	360	|	PHILADELPHIA,	PA	|	19105-0360

top

________________________________

Click	here<h/p://del2.com/mailprefs/335f6e8/2961b27/>	to	update	your	informa#on	or	stop	future	mailings.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 54 of 74 PageID #:526
Exhibit D

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 55 of 74 PageID #:527


Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 58 of 74 PageID #:530
remarkable about watching Mininder Kocher perform an ulnar collateral ligament 

reconstruction is seeing the mix of finesse 

and brute strength required. One moment 

he’s navigating a tiny microscope, known 

as an arthroscope, to help him gently 

manipulate the damaged ligament and to 

look for cartilage injuries or bone spurs 

that also need to be treated. The next, he’s 

using that large drill to bore holes into the 

humerus and the ulna. Standing there in 

Watch City, I couldn’t help but imagine 

Matt Ferreira’s extended right arm as 

the hand on a clock and Dr. Kocher as a 

craftsman salvaging a valuable timepiece.

The procedure took less than 90 minutes. Matt’s arm would be in a brace 

for the next eight weeks, but he would 

begin a physical therapy program 

immediately. The preliminary goal was 

for him to start soft tossing a baseball 

in six months and return to the field 

in about nine, just in time for opening 

day 2015. Matt sent me an email not 

long after he returned home. “I am still 

just a few days out from the surgery,” he 

wrote, “so I haven’t gone through the 

toughest part yet. I slept through the 

surgery itself, so, yeah, it was a piece of 

cake! It went by very quickly, but since 

then I’ve been pretty sore. The brace is 

heavy, but I’m getting used to it and am 

anxious to get started on the road back.”

Matt has reason to be optimistic. A 

recent 10-year follow-up study in the 

American Journal of Sports Medicine of 

256 baseball players who underwent 

Tommy John surgery found that 83% (and 

90% of pitchers) returned to the same 

level of competition in less than a year. 

Ninety-three percent were satisfied with 

their operation, and only 3% had persistent elbow pain. On Aug. 20, the same day 

Tanaka announced that his elbow was 

healed, Matt Ferreira called to share similar news. “I just swung a bat for the first 

time since the surgery,” he said, “and it 

felt great!” He had seen Dr.Kocher earlier 

in the day and was cleared to start a light 

throwing program in mid-September, a 

month ahead of schedule.

Matt’s 12-year-old brother, Joshua, 

is also a baseball player: He pitches 

and also plays shortstop and catcher. 

According to Pete, both Joshua and Matt 

will have preventative evaluations at 

the Micheli Center before next season. 

NOT LONG after I returned 

home to Manhattan, I received 

the results of my pitching 

analysis. It was a six-page 

report, full of obscure abbreviations 

and medical-ese. It also contained an 

explanation in layman’s terms of what 

I was doing right and wrong, with the 

ego-bruising caveat that I was throwing 

slower than the competitive pitchers the 

test was intended to evaluate. 

Despite my herky-jerky windup, the 

strain on my elbow registered at 46 newton meters (a measurement of torque), 

below the stress that’s believed to cause 

a ligament tear. This explained why I 

never had an elbow injury. I also learned 

that my hip-shoulder separation was 

only 17 degrees—it should have been 

between 40 and 60—and that my release 

point was a mere .64 of a centimeter 

ahead of my front foot. Ideally that distance would be 20 to 30 centimeters. 

In 15 years of pitching I’d had dozens 

of coaches, players and scouts offer opinions about why my pitching mechanics 

weren’t quite right, but no one—not a 

single person—ever mentioned my release 

point. But here it was, right in front of me. 

A computer could tell me what a human 

could not. I wonder how this technology 

would have helped some of the guys I 

played with—or me—and how it might 

impact the next generation of pitchers. 

How many might avoid a trip to the disabled list by taking a trip to Waltham? 

The story of Tommy John surgery is 

complicated, and it’s still unfolding. Our 

understanding of ulnar collateral ligament injury may look quite different a few 

years from now. The remarkable thing is 

that we’ve developed the medical expertise to correct the problem. Soon we may 

have the technology to prevent it. ±

IF YOU RECEIVED 

AN AUTOMATED OR 

PRERECORDED TELEPHONE 

CALL MADE BY OR ON 

BEHALF OF BILL ME LATER, 

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO 

A CASH PAYMENT FROM A 

SETTLEMENT

Para una notificación en Español visitar, 

www.Autophonecallssettlement.com

A Settlement has been proposed in a class 

action lawsuit regarding telephone calls made 

by or on behalf of Bill Me Later, Inc. (“BML”). 

The lawsuit, Murray, et al. v. Bill Me Later, 

Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4789 (U.S. Dist. Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division), alleges that BML and its agents 

violated the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, (“TCPA”) by making 

automated telephone calls to persons who did 

not give consent for such calls. The Settlement 

is not an admission of wrongdoing by BML. 

The Court has not decided who is right or 

wrong. Rather, the parties are resolving the 

dispute by agreement. 

Am I a Member of the 

Settlement Class?

You’re a Settlement Class Member if, between 

June 15, 2008 and July 24, 2014, you received 

a call made by or on behalf of Bill Me Later 

where such call was made without your 

consent to either (1) your cellular telephone 

using an automatic telephone dialing system, 

or (2) your cellular or landline telephone using 

an artificial or prerecorded voice. 

What are the Terms of the 

proposed Settlement?

The total amount of the Settlement Fund 

is $9,900,000. If the Court approves the 

Settlement, each Settlement Class Member 

who submits a valid, timely Claim Form 

will be entitled to an equal payment from 

the Settlement Fund up to $500 per claimant, 

after expenses, attorneys’ fees, and incentive 

awards are paid from the Settlement Fund. The 

exact amount of your payment is unknown at 

this time but is expected to be approximately 

$75-$150 and may be more or less depending 

on how many Settlement Class Members 

return valid Claim Forms.

What are my Options?

To make a claim for a cash payment, you 

must mail or submit online a completed 

Claim Form by December 11, 2014. If you 

do not wish to participate in the Settlement, 

you may exclude yourself from the Class by 

mail or online by October 23, 2014, or you 

may object to the Settlement by submitting 

a written objection by October 23, 2014. 

If you do nothing, you will be bound by 

the decisions of the Court if the Settlement 

is approved. Submitting a timely and valid 

Claim Form is the only way to receive a 

cash payment through this Settlement. Visit 

www.Autophonecallssettlement.com for more 

detailed and important information about 

your options under the Settlement.

Hearing on the proposed Settlement

The Court will hold a Final Approval 

Hearing on November 20, 2014 at 1:30 

p.m. at the U.S. Courthouse, Room 1403, 

219 S. Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60604 to 

consider whether the proposed Settlement 

is fair, reasonable, and adequate. At the 

Hearing, Class Counsel will ask the Court to 

award attorneys’ fees up to $3,300,000, plus 

expenses not to exceed $100,000, for their 

work in the case. The Court will also consider 

incentive award payments up to $30,000 to 

each of the two Class Representatives. You 

may, but do not have to, attend the Hearing, 

which may be changed by the Court. 

For more information and for a Claim Form, 

visit www.Autophonecallssettlement.com, or 

call 1-844-245-3766. 

1-844-245-3766 

www.Autophonecallssettlement.com

Mechanical Measurements

File Name: BML Sports Illustrated Headline Font: Times LT STd

Publication: Sports Illustrated Headline Size: 10/11

Unit Size: 1/3 2” X 10 Body Font: Times Lt STD

Created: SB 7/28/14 Body Size: 7.0/7.5

Updated: SB 8/13/14 9:25 am PT Word Count: 549

TOMMY JOHN SURGERY

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 59 of 74 PageID #:531

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 61 of 74 PageID #:533
Exhibit E

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 62 of 74 PageID #:534
Bill Me Later 

Screenshots

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 63 of 74 PageID #:535
Bill Me Later – 160x600 

Site : - Cnet.com Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 64 of 74 PageID #:536
Bill Me Later – 300x250 

Site : - Amazon.com Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 65 of 74 PageID #:537
Bill Me Later– 728x90 

Site : - Dailytech.com Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 66 of 74 PageID #:538
Millennial Media: 

Bill Me Later Case 

Mobile Screenshots 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 67 of 74 PageID #:539
728x90	

300x250	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 68 of 74 PageID #:540
480x75	

320x50	

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 69 of 74 PageID #:541
Bill Me Later 

Screenshots 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 70 of 74 PageID #:542
Bill Me Later– Right Column Ads 

Site : - Facebook Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 71 of 74 PageID #:543
Bill Me Later– News Feed Ads 

Site : - Facebook Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 72 of 74 PageID #:544
Bill Me Later– Mobile Feed Ads 

Site : - Facebook Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 73 of 74 PageID #:545
Bill Me Later– Facebook Page 

Site : - Facebook Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-2 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 74 of 74 PageID #:546