Rust Consulting, Inc.

Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted]. Unfortunately the complaint does not sufficiently identify the case. Rust administers hundreds of concurrent settlements and similar projects; in order to research and respond to this complaint, we need more information.    The case or...

matter name may be found on the letter she received; the name of her mortgage company would also be helpful. We may also be able to determine what case it is by the return address/PO Box number, or the toll-free telephone number she called.   Rust will look into this issue promptly upon receipt of the additional information requested.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/03) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted]. Unfortunately the complaint does not sufficiently identify the case. Rust administers hundreds of concurrent settlements and in order to research and respond to this complaint, we need more...

information.
The case name may be found on a notice or claim form; it would typically be something like "Name v. Name, Case No. 1234," or "In re Case Name Litigation," etc. We may also be able to determine what case it is by the return address /PO Box number, or any toll-free telephone number or settlement-specific website, if one was established for the case and listed in any notice or claim form materials.
Rust will look into this issue promptly upon receipt of the additional information requested.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/09) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) payment agreement. Rust is the Paying Agent in the IFR distribution process. Rust specializes in the administration of class action...

settlements and similar programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution.
Rust--a neutral, third-party administrator engaged as the Paying Agent in this matter--was engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the agreement as established by the servicers and regulators and to answer borrowers' questions. Rust is not a party to the payment agreement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
Rust has double-checked all documents associated with the original record in this matter and confirmed that there was no W-9 submitted for the complainant. We did receive complete documentation for the other three beneficiaries, but did not receive a W-9 for the complainant. The W-9 the complainant later sent was received by Rust a few days after her record had been picked up for tax withholding calculations (the representative who reached out to her was not aware that this would be the case).
Rust completed the payment calculation using the paperwork we had available. Without a W-9, federal taxes amounted to 28% ($210.00) and state taxes accounted for 7% ($52.50) of the withholding. We are attempting to seek a reversal of the withholding from the relevant parties on the complainant's behalf, and will update her directly if this is possible.
Regarding the other beneficiaries on the claim: payments to all four beneficiaries had been mailed prior to the date on this complaint.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are the federal banking regulators overseeing the Payment Agreement process.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/07/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Complainant would like to request that this file remain open to completion, beyond the July 20th, 2015 date indicated in Revdex.com email, as Rust has indicated via phone conversation on July 8, 2015 that resolution of this matter is estimated to take up to six weeks (approximately August 15, 2015).
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 13, 2015/07/23) */

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/18) */
Rust Consulting, Inc. is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) Payment Agreement. Rust is the Paying Agent in the IFR Payment Agreement. Rust specializes in the administration of class...

action settlements and similar programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution.
Rust is a neutral, third-party administrator engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the IFR Payment Agreement as established by the federal banking regulators overseeing the program and to answer borrowers' questions. Rust is not a party to the Payment Agreement and does not have the authority to act outside of the guidelines received from the parties.
Under the terms of the Payment Agreement, we are no longer able to reissue the complainant's check, and the funds will escheat to the state matching her last known address in our records (New Hampshire). Per IRS rules, she still bears tax liability for the payment in the year in which it was made available to her, which is why Rust sent her a Form 1099 for 2015.
The complainant will be able to claim her funds from the state of New Hampshire once Rust receives approval from the Federal Banking Regulators to remit the funds to the state. Our operators have provided her with information on the escheatment process on the occasions where she reached our call center. In addition, we have attempted to contact her directly in response to her complaint in order to clarify the process and answer any additional questions she may have.
The complainant is welcome to call the number left on her voicemail for additional information and detailed instructions on how to claim her funds.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/11/24) */
Rust Consulting, Inc. is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Bank of America Overdraft Litigation, No. 1:09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the objective of carrying...

out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
The complainant's check was issued on February 14, 2014, and mailed to the address on file (Limerick Drive, Tampa). The parties agreed on March 13, 2014, as the deadline to request a reissue of checks. Rust received a written reissue request from the complainant on August 12, 2014 (sent from the aforementioned address and with no mention of an updated address). Regardless, by the time of his correspondence, the reissue period had ended and Rust was no longer responding to reissue requests.
Rust does not keep or profit from uncashed settlement funds. Per the Court's Order Approving Phase III Distribution issued on October 30, 2014, funds that had not been cashed as of that date were rolled into a subsequent distribution to those identifiable Settlement Class Members who (1) participated in the initial distribution from the Settlement by either receiving an account credit or cashing the mailed check they received from the Settlement; and (2) who participated in the second distribution from the Settlement by cashing the mailed check they received from the Settlement; and (3) whose additional distribution, based upon the provisions in the Order and the formula in the Settlement Agreement, was at least $5.00.
The Order Approving Phase III Distribution and all other Court documents in this case may be viewed in their entirety, free of charge, on the settlement website at http://www.bofaoverdraftsettlement.com/CourtDocuments.aspx.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/11/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I accept the response from the business, it makes sense, but I wish they could have just responded before so that I didn't have to seek help from the Revdex.com.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 9, 2015/11/25) */

Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted]. It appears the complainant is still conflating the two different settlements, both of which involve Korean Air Lines (among other airlines). Claim numbers [redacted] and [redacted] were made in the In re Transpacific settlement, which as previously noted has not yet distributed funds. (See https://airlinesettlement.com/) The complainant’s husband also filed a claim in the In re Korean Air Passenger settlement (claim number [redacted]), which is closed and has distributed funds and coupon codes. (See: https://koreanairpassengercases.com/) However, we did not receive a claim from the complainant in that settlement. We will call the complainant directly to try to eliminate the confusion and answer any questions.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/15) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) payment agreement. Rust is the Paying Agent in the IFR distribution process. Rust specializes in the administration of class action...

settlements and similar programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution.
Rust--a neutral, third-party administrator engaged as the Paying Agent in this matter--was engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the agreement as established by the servicers and regulators and to answer borrowers' questions. Rust is not a party to the payment agreement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
Rust has sought and received approval to move forward with the process to correct the complainant's 1099. We are sending her the necessary forms; we reached out to her directly on 2/12/16 to advise her that the paperwork would be coming in the mail and to contact us for additional instructions when it arrives. Once Rust is in receipt of her completed paperwork, we can issue a corrected 1099.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2016/02/24) */
To whom it may concern; Unfortunately based on the documents received on February 20, 2016. The issue has not been resolved between I and the compliantly. For they want me to sign an affidavit of funds that are not in my care and is made payable to two parties. If I was to sign this so called affiliated I'm stating: that I forfeit my half. The amount of the settlement is for $2000.00 made payable to I, [redacted] and [redacted] my ex-husband since 2010 with NO contact at all. In which I have a copy of my notarized letter as well as, a copy of the VIODED check. That I, returned to their care in October of 2015. I'm unsure how this ends, I only know the facts: I don't not have nor do not I want my half. But, for them to state or report I am solely reasonable to claim the entire amount is false.
Sincerely:
Ms. [redacted]
[redacted]
Bethel, CT. 06801
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2016/03/03) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted]. We sent the renouncement paperwork via priority mail and indicated in our previous response that the complainant should contact us for instructions when she received it. We attempted to call the complainant on 2/25/16, but she had blocked our phone number. We were able to reach her by calling from a different line.
Because two borrowers were listed on the loan in question, both names were listed on the renouncement form. We explained to the complainant that she only needs to sign her own name, since she has no contact with the co-borrower. The complainant indicated to us that, because both names appeared on the form, she refused to sign it. She also informed us that she no longer wants to work with Rust.
The deadline to renounce a payment for an OCC-regulated loan was September 19, 2015. The OCC and Rust made an exception for this complainant due to her unique circumstances. If she still wants to renounce her portion of the funds (50%) and thereby avoid tax liability for them, she will need to fax the signed and notarized renouncement form to the fax number on the cover sheet by March 17, 2016. The complainant should call Rust at 1-855-[redacted] should she decide to send in the form; we are happy to assist with the process.
If the complainant chooses not to submit the signed renouncement form with her signature notarized, Rust cannot issue a corrected 1099. In that case, she will continue to be liable for the taxes associated with the payment, which will be available for her to claim via her state's unclaimed property office after Rust receives approval from the OCC to remit the funds.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 13, 2016/03/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When I filed this complaint as instructed by; The Federal Department of Revenue.
After speaking with Laura from Rust Inc. on February 4, 2016 and this being an on going issue with this company. Unfortunately, after I had already filed my taxes in 2015 for 2014. I needed and received a modified corrected 1099 for the same amount of $2000.00 - copies of disputes are on file with; The Federal Department of Revenue.
In the meanwhile since filing my complaint on February 4, 2016. I was working with Robert from Rust Inc. - whom was made completely aware. That I am disabled and cannot be under any undue stress. Disappointedly for same reason I, initially contacted the Revdex.com based on a verbal conversation with Rust Inc. February 4, 2016 is the exact same problem yet, within a written affidavit received on February 20, 2016 and I refuse to sign.
And, since Robert displayed rude and condescending behavior when speaking to me during our last conversation lasting 4 minutes on February 25, 2016.
Cc: upload of incoming call log I, did indeed block their number. Being 855) [redacted] and 866) [redacted]. For I have proven and have given Rust Inc. everything asked of me for 3 years. With concern to this issue they still cannot seem to resolve on their end.
At this point I'm extremely interested in knowing where the mystery funds of $2000.00 are? Considering the check was payable to I, [redacted] and [redacted] ex-husband. Leaves me to also question; how I am solely reasonable to claim funds - I do not have and did not receive? A modified corrected 1099 is the only thing I will agree too.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/19) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) payment agreement. Rust is the Paying Agent in the IFR distribution process. Rust specializes in the administration of class action...

settlements and similar programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution.
Rust--a neutral, third-party administrator engaged as the Paying Agent in this matter--was engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the agreement as established by the servicers and regulators and to answer borrowers' questions. Rust is not a party to the payment agreement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) - the banking regulator overseeing the mortgage servicer of this loan - approved a deadline of April 30, 2015 to submit documentation of legal entitlement to the funds. The documentation Rust received (the two letters from the estate's lawyer referenced in the complaint) was insufficient to make the requested change. We notified the complainant's brother in April 2014 and again in July 2014 that the documentation was insufficient, but did not receive any further documentation.
Since the IFR Payment Agreement is moving toward closure, the decision was made to reissue the check as-is, in order to give the claimants a final opportunity to work with their financial institution to negotiate the check using appropriate supporting documentation.
The OCC has directed escheatment of IFR Payment Agreement funds that remain uncashed so that eligible borrowers and their heirs may claim the funds through state escheatment processes. Escheatment provides the greatest opportunity for eligible people to claim the funds through long-established processes.
We have spoken directly with the complainant and provided the above information.

I am rejecting this response because:Rust consulting did not follow their own rules and procedures. None of the above stated in their general response was completed. No one reached out to me to issue another check. No one called. I made several attempts   during the accepted time frame to receive a reissued check and I was repeatedly told someone would get back to me. No one did and this is where we are now. I was told to check with my states unclaimed property. I followed directions and in repsonse there was no check in this department waiting for me. Next, I reached out to Navient and they did try to assist me but was also told by Rust to stay out of the matter. Navient stated they were now unable to refund me a check. I am guaranteed these funds and to date I have not received a check . Therefore, no I am not satisfied with Rusts general response. I will like to know if I have a check being refunded to me or despite Rust's lack of professional response, will I as the client, have to suffer. In summary, will I be receiving a refund check and how will it be delivered.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/03) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) Payment Agreement reached between mortgage servicers and federal banking regulators (specifically, the Office of the Comptroller of...

the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System). It is not a class action settlement and is distinctly separate from the actions taken by the U.S. Department of Justice involving mortgage servicers.
Rust specializes in the administration of programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution. A neutral, third-party administrator, Rust was engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the IFR Payment Agreement as established by the servicers and regulators and to answer borrowers' questions. Rust is not a party to the IFR Payment Agreement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
The complainant had a mortgage loan that was eligible for payment under the IFR Payment Agreement. He received and negotiated his payment in April 2013. The regulators and the participating mortgage servicers negotiated and agreed upon the amount to be paid to borrowers under the IFR Payment Agreement. The payment is considered final, and there is no process to appeal the payment amount.
However, accepting a payment under the IFR Payment Agreement does not prevent borrowers from taking any other legal action they may wish to pursue related to their foreclosure. If the complainant wishes to file a complaint against his servicer concerning the handling of his foreclosure, he may contact his servicer's regulator (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve) at www.FederalReserveConsumerHelp.gov.
Rust has no record of communication or interaction with the complainant since he received and cashed his check in 2013. We have reached out to him directly and left a voicemail message with a callback number. We will continue our efforts to make sure he receives the above information.

Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted]. The subject matter is outside the scope of Rust’s engagement with Higher One. Rust issued the complainant a $35 credit under the terms of the OneAccount Restitution Plan. That has been the extent of our involvement with her.   We have requested that Higher One reach out to her to help resolve the issue with the $24 charge to her account. Rust did not initiate this or any other charge.   We are unable to add any information or otherwise address the complaint.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/09) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. CIV-07-798 (W.D. Okla.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the objective of carrying out the terms of...

the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
The check was reissued to the complainant as requested on 8/27/2015. It was cashed and cleared our account on 9/2/2015.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
It doesn't really sound like they are willing to take responsibility for their delays in responding to my multiple questions for status updates on re-issue of the settlement request. It just so happened that I received the check via Fed EX overnight on 9/1/15. I (perhaps naively) assumed that the check was finally sent because of Revdex.com case. Anyway, they are not addressing the details of my complaint. Even though I have now received the settlement check, I still hope the company will address their practices as per my original complaint. I did not expect them to "act outside of" the terms of the settlement. I just expected them to tell me the truth about the delays. Instead, they told me the check was mailed, not once, but twice...when in fact it was not. I believed they gave me "non-answers" for about a month to get me to stop calling. I figured they would eventually have to honor the settlement, I JUST WISH THEY HAD BEEN HONEST WITH ME ABOUT THE DELAYS. OH WELL....
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/17) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted], which relates to Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. CIV-07-798 (W.D. Okla.). We have nothing to add to our previous response.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/08) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to Mario Corvo v. SLM Financial Corporation, No. 10-51392 (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the objective...

of carrying out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
We have spoken with the complainant and will mail him a copy of the requested 1099 form at the address listed on the complaint. The original check and 1099 were sent to a different address in 2012; the check was cashed by the complainant and cleared the bank. We have requested a copy of the cleared check from the bank, which we will mail to him once we receive it.

See Attached

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/08) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to Federal Trade Commission and State of Connecticut v. Leanspa, LLC, No. 311-cv-01715 (D. Conn.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the...

objective of carrying out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms. Rust does not profit on delaying or rejecting settlement payments and earns no interest on settlement funds or uncashed checks; we follow the terms of each settlement in paying class members.
The complainant was a "self-identifying claimant," i.e., an individual not included on the original list from the defendant. Per the FTC's instructions, Rust conducted an enhanced review of self-identifying records to identify and eliminate multiple filings from individuals not included on the original list. The complainant's claim was one of two self-identifying records from the same city and state using the same last name and an initial for the first name. Both were rejected because the validity of their claims could not be verified.
In response to previous communications from this complainant outside of the Revdex.com, we escalated the matter to the FTC. The FTC is providing him with the opportunity to request reconsideration by submitting documentation supporting that his claim was rejected in error. He should mail his supporting documentation to the following address:
FTC v LeanSpa
Claims Administration Center
[redacted]
Faribault, MN 55021-1945
Rust attempted to contact the complainant by phone to provide this information on October 6, but was disconnected.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/10/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Only one claim was file on my behalf. Rust needs to mail me a letter stating exactly what they are seeking. I do not accept their response as it is untrue.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2015/10/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Need a letter of denial
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/16) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted]. We cannot provide the letter requested by the complainant because the settlement does not contain specific criteria for self-identifying claimants to document their claims. The FTC is nevertheless willing to consider any documentation that this complainant may provide, on a strictly individual basis.
Some examples of potentially acceptable documentation would include (but would not be limited to) copies of bank or credit card statements, copies of receipts, or copies of invoices clearly demonstrating that the complainant made eligible purchases.
Please note that submitting documentation is not a guarantee of a refund. The FTC will analyze the documentation to determine whether the complainant is due a refund, and he will be notified of the agency's decision.

Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to Currie v Artic Mechanical, No. CIVRS1305938 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Bernardino County). Rust specializes in the administration of settlements and similar programs involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund...

distribution. Rust is a neutral, third-party administrator engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the Currie v Artic Mechanical Settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms. Our records indicate that the complainant was mailed a check for $6,508.26 on May 22, 2015. The check was not cashed and became stale dated on September 19, 2015. On or about September 25, 2015, according to the terms of the settlement approved by the Court, the uncashed funds escheated to the California Department of Industrial Relations Unpaid Wage Fund, in the name of the intended beneficiaries of the funds. Per IRS rules, the complainant still bears tax liability for the payment in the year in which it was made available to him, which is why Rust reported the payment to the IRS for 2015. The complainant may contact the Labor Commissioner to receive his intended funds, per the process approved in the settlement. The list of District Offices is available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DistrictOffices.htm. He should contact District Office that was closest to his place of employment.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/23) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 07-05107, MDL No. 1891 (C.D. Cal.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the...

objective of carrying out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
Distribution is on hold as the parties to the settlement work through the logistics of the redemption process, including the brokerage site which will allow class members to sell a portion or all of their coupons/vouchers in exchange for money. Once the plan of allocation has been finalized, it must be submitted to the court for approval. Rust cannot provide class members' individual payment amount details until the court has granted final approval of the plan of allocation because the amounts are subject to change up until that time.
Any updates Rust receives from the parties regarding the status of the settlement and timeline for distribution will be posted to the settlement website, https://koreanairpassengercases.com/.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This has gone on for two years with many broken promises. They have failed to give any details on when they expect payments to be made or any further details of the legal aspects of it.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/30) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of the follow-up to complaint #[redacted]. We have no information to add to our previous response. We will attempt to reach out to the complainant directly to address his concerns.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/08) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 07-05107, MDL No. 1891 (C.D. Cal.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the...

objective of carrying out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
Rust has completed processing of all claims in the settlement. Distribution, however, is on hold pending submission of the plan of allocation to the court, and the court's approval of the plan. In addition, the parties to the settlement are actively working to set up a redemption process, including a brokerage site which will allow class members to sell a portion or all of their coupon/voucher in exchange for money.
Updates will be posted to the settlement website, https://koreanairpassengercases.com/, as they become available. Rust acknowledges that the process has been quite extensive and thanks class members for their continued patience.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/09/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to the settlement In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:07-CV-05634, MDL 1913 (N. D. Cal.) (“In re Transpacific”). Rust specializes in the administration of settlements and similar programs...

involving notification, contact centers, claims processing, and fund distribution. Rust is a neutral, third-party administrator engaged to carry out certain administrative aspects of the In re Transpacific settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms. To clarify apparent confusion in the complaint, we would like to note that there are two currently ongoing, separate antitrust settlements involving Korean Air Lines in some way: the above-cited In re Transpacific, and In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 07-205107, MDL 07-01891 (C. D. Cal.) (“In re Korean Air Lines”). Korean Air Lines was an alleged co-conspirator in the former, and was one of two defendants in the latter. Rust has received a claim the complainant submitted online in In re Transpacific Air. The claims period is still open in this settlement and claims continue to be submitted. Payments will begin to mail once appeals are addressed and the claims have all been validated. We do not have any information as to when appeals to the settlement may be resolved by the parties, but updates will be posted on the settlement website as they become available: https://airlinesettlement.com/. The complainant may also contact Rust directly regarding In re Transpacific Air toll free at [redacted] with any additional questions or to check on the status of his claim. Rust did not receive a claim from the complainant in In re Korean Air Lines, the deadline to participate in that settlement has passed, and payments in that settlement have been mailed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/10) */
Rust Consulting is in receipt of complaint #[redacted], which relates to Federal Trade Commission and State of Connecticut v. Leanspa, LLC, No. 311-cv-01715 (D. Conn.). Rust is engaged as the Settlement Administrator in this matter with the...

objective of carrying out the terms of the settlement from a neutral, administrative perspective. Rust is not a party to the settlement and does not have the authority to act outside of its terms.
Rust received the complainant's written reissue request on Oct. 22, 2015, and has updated her record with her new mailing address. The FTC's process is to typically wait until the initial void date has passed on all checks before beginning to fulfill reissue requests. That initial void date in this matter was Nov. 30, 2015 and Rust is currently working with the FTC to receive approval to reissue checks.
We anticipate approval of the complainant's reissue sometime next week. We will call the complainant directly with an update when more information is available.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I don't agree because I've called several times and I have gotten several different reasons as of why I haven't received a reissue of the check.