United States District Court, D. Colorado
In re Crocs, Inc. Securities Litigation
A. BRIMMER United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Motion for an Order
Approving the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
[Docket No. 233] filed by Plaintiffs. On May 14, 2012, the
above-captioned class action was settled on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired publicly-traded securities
of Crocs, Inc. between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008,
inclusive (“Settlement Class”). Docket No. 194 at
11. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, their
officers and directors during the Settlement Class Period,
the members of Defendants' immediate families, and
Defendants' respective representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns, as well as any entity in which
Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Id.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are Merle Lee Bourn,
Nathan E. Jackson, Michael Harcourt, Gregory A. Bates, Dudney
Shillington, James Dicks, Edward J. Lavallee, John N. Van
Name, Phillip L. Bruce (deceased), Donna M. Bowling, Patricia
J. Harms, Pamela G. Lillard, and James Regnante who otherwise
satisfy the above requirements for membership in the
Settlement Class, but who timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class. See Docket No.
222 at 1-2.
September 19, 2014, the Court entered a Final Judgment and
Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice (the
“Judgment”) approving the May 14, 2012
Stipulation and Agreement of Partial Class Settlement (the
“Stipulation”) [Docket No. 194]. Docket No. 222.
The Court directed the Settling Parties to consummate the
Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
Stipulation and the Judgment. Id. at 4. The Court
further retained jurisdiction over any matters arising in
connection with the administration of the Settlement,
including distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Id. at 13.
filed the instant motion on August 28, 2017 requesting an
Order Directing Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Docket No. 233 at 1. In support of the motion, Plaintiffs
have presented the following facts:
Court-appointed claims administrator, Garden City Group, LLC
(“GCG”) has completed all steps in the
administrative process and is prepared to distribute the Net
Settlement Fund to members of the Settlement Class who have
properly completed Proof of Claim forms and have valid claims
under the Plan of Allocation. Docket No. 233 at 3; see
also Docket No. 233-1 at 11-13, ¶¶ 24-28.
of July 20, 2017, the Net Settlement Fund contained $6, 368,
182.13, including accrued interest. Docket No. 233 at 3.
received a total of 29, 761 Proofs of Claim through April 15,
2016. Docket No. 233-1 at 4, ¶ 8.
the 29, 761 Proofs of Claim received, 12, 467 timely Proofs
of Claim and 258 untimely Proofs of Claim (postmarked after
December 26, 2013 and received on or before April 15, 2016)
were provisionally accepted by GCG, representing a total loss
amount of $976, 610, 655.55. Id. at 14, ¶ 32;
see also Docket Nos. 233-3, 233-4.
Proofs of Claim numbering 17, 036 were rejected for one of
more of the following reasons: (1) deficiencies in the Proof
of Claim were never cured; (2) the Proof of Claim was a
duplicate; (3) the Proof of Claim did not fit the class
definition; or (4) the Proof of Claim did not result in an
eligible loss. See Docket No. 233-5; Docket No.
233-1 at 15, ¶ 34.
Letters rejecting claims explained the way(s) in which the
Proof of Claim was deficient and the process for curing the
deficiency. Docket No. 233-1 at 9-10, ¶ 19; see,
e.g., Docket No. 233-2. The letters further informed
claimants of the 20-day deadline to submit a response and the
availability of judicial review of GCG's administrative
determination. Docket No. 233-1 at 9-10, ¶ 19; see,
e.g., Docket No. 233-2.
the 17, 036 rejected Proofs of Claim, there is one
outstanding request for judicial review (the “Disputed
Claim”) that is being recommended for rejection because
GCG has determined it is not an eligible claim under the Plan
of Allocation. Docket No. 233-1 at 16-18, ¶¶ 37-40;
see also Docket No. 233-6.
Pursuant to the terms of its agreement, GCG has administered
the Settlement and has fulfilled, or will fulfill, all
agreed-upon tasks. Docket No. 233 at 6. Lead Counsel is
satisfied with the work GCG has performed in administering
the Settlement. Id. at 7.
has received $551, 555.74 for fees and expenses incurred in
the administration of the Settlement. Docket No. 233-1 at 21,
¶ 52; Docket No. 233-7. GCG is currently owed an
additional $955, 898.15 for fees and services rendered
pursuant to the agreement. Docket No. 233-1 at 21, ¶ 52;
Docket No. 233-7 at 3. This amount reflects a discount of
$257, 553.37, as GCG has agreed to waive the Estimate of Fees
and Expenses for Initial Distribution of $62, 403.65, provide
a 10% fee reduction of $104, 380.69, and not bill $90, 769.03
for its current unbilled work-in-progress through July 31,
2017. Docket No. 233-1 at 21, ¶ 52; Docket No. 233-7 at
3. GCG has also agreed to waive post-distribution fees and
expenses. Docket No. 233-1 at 21, ¶ 52.
GCG's bills and estimates of its unpaid out-of-pocket
expenses are consistent with the agreement and with the costs
of such services and out-of-pocket expenses in similar cases.
Docket No. 233 at 7. Lead Counsel therefore recommends that