United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2022 Argued: February 7, 2023 Decided: April 14, 2023 Nos. 21-3058 (L), 22-19 (Con), 22-159 (Con)

JAMES CONTANT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MARTIN-HAN TRAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CARLOS GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, UGNIUS MATKUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JERRY JACOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, PAUL VERMILLION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SANDRA LAVENDER, VICTOR HERNANDEZ, FX PRIMUS LTD., CHARLES G. HITCHCOCK, III, TINA PORTER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMA CAPITAL, LLC, Movant-Appellant. *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 17-cv-9934, Lorna G. Schofield, Judge.

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above. Before: PARKER, SULLIVAN, MERRIAM, Circuit Judges.

AMA Capital, LLC (“AMA”) is a claimant in an antitrust class-action settlement. The settlement agreement at issue required that each claimant substantiate its claims with such documents as class counsel and the claims administrator, in their discretion, deemed acceptable. The settlement agreement also provided each claimant with the opportunity to (1) remedy deficiencies in its claims before the claims administrator issued its decision, and (2) if the claims administrator rejected its claims in whole or in part, contest the claims administrator’s decision within twenty days of the mailing of the rejection notice. In this case, the claims administrator rejected most of AMA’s claims because, among other things, AMA repeatedly failed to provide the requisite transactional records to support its claims. The district court (Schofield, J.) agreed and also denied AMA’s motion for reconsideration based on documents it submitted subsequent to the claims administrator’s rejection.

On appeal, AMA argues primarily that the district court erred by failing to consider documents it submitted during the post-rejection contest process and by denying its claims on the basis of improper evidentiary requirements. Because we conclude (1) that the claims administrator was not required to accept records during the contest process that were previously available to AMA, which is akin to a motion for reconsideration, and (2) that the district court did not err by denying AMA’s claims, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court on appeal in Nos. 21-3058 and 22-159. Moreover, because AMA has standing as a class member to appeal any denial of its claims, we DISMISS as moot the appeal in No. 22-19, which challenges the district court’s denial of AMA’s motion to intervene.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

SCOTT O. LUSKIN, Payne & Fears LLP, El Segundo, CA (Damian R. Cavaleri, Hoguet Newman, Regal & Kenney, LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Movant-Appellant.