Plaintiff and parties named
Plaintiff Mayra Duarte filed a class action complaint on November 20, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 1:26-cv-00025-JDB). The complaint names as defendants Angeion Group LLC; Epiq Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration (collectively the “Administrator Defendants”); Tremendous LLC; Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.; and Digital Settlement Technologies LLC d/b/a Digital Disbursements Payments (collectively the “FinTech Defendants”); and Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank (collectively the “Bank Defendants”).

Allegations — two core schemes
The complaint alleges two principal schemes that, according to the pleading, reduced the money that class members received from class action and mass tort settlements.

1) Interest-sharing/kickback arrangements with trustee banks: The complaint alleges that Administrator Defendants and Bank Defendants entered into agreements pursuant to which banks holding Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) deposits paid undisclosed portions of interest or investment returns to Administrator Defendants. Plaintiff alleges those arrangements produced below-market interest rates reported to courts and class members while the banks paid additional sums to administrators through separate channels (including special purpose entities, or SPEs) that were not disclosed to courts, class counsel, or class members. The complaint asserts this conduct depressed payouts and increased administration costs that otherwise would have gone to class members.

2) Revenue-sharing tied to digital payment cards and “breakage”: The complaint alleges that, when settlement distributions were made via digital prepaid cards, gift cards, or e-gift cards, a portion of funds went unredeemed (“breakage”), and issuers and retailers retained those unspent funds. Plaintiff alleges FinTech Defendants and card issuers provided rebates or revenue sharing to Administrator Defendants in exchange for using particular digital payment platforms, and that those payments were not disclosed to courts or class members. The complaint further alleges that Administrator Defendants formed SPEs to conceal receipt of these payments.

Market power and alleged coordination
The complaint describes the Administrator Defendants as major providers of class settlement administration services, alleging they control more than 65% of that market, and asserts Huntington and Western together control over 80% of the market for settlement deposit services. The complaint alleges the defendants conspired to preserve and leverage market positions in the “Administrator Market” and the “Settlement Deposit Market,” and that the arrangements described began or expanded in or about 2021 as interest rates rose.

Examples and alleged impacts
The complaint provides examples of settlements administered by the defendants and alleges reported QSF interest rates were substantially lower than market rates and that defendants received undisclosed remuneration equal to portions of the difference. The complaint cites third-party reports and a white paper (the Hilsee Report) and a Forbes article as corroborating materials cited by plaintiff.

Claims asserted
The complaint asserts multiple causes of action on behalf of proposed nationwide classes, including: breach of fiduciary duties (against Administrator and Bank Defendants); fraud (against Administrator Defendants); violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (separate counts as to Administrator Defendants and as to Bank Defendants); violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) including substantive and conspiracy counts (against all defendants); negligent misrepresentation and negligence (against Administrator Defendants); breach of implied contract (against Administrator and Bank Defendants); unjust enrichment/quantum meruit; civil conspiracy; and aiding and abetting (against Bank and FinTech Defendants). The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief resulting from the alleged schemes.

Relief sought and procedural posture
Plaintiff seeks class certification, an accounting, injunctive relief to enjoin continued conduct, restitution and disgorgement of revenues wrongfully retained, actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The complaint demands a jury trial. As of the filing, the complaint alleges the acts were concealed from courts and class members and that discovery is necessary to identify SPEs and other details.

Court and case information
Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California. Filing date: November 20, 2025. Case number (as reflected in the court docket): 1:26-cv-00025-JDB.

CLASS DEFINITION: “Class 1 – All persons in the United States who were
members of a settlement class in which Defendants
provided claims administration services and distributed
qualified settlement funds via digital payment cards, gift
cards, and prepaid cards and whose distributions from the
settlement were reduced in part by remuneration,
incentives, or compensation of any kind to the
Administrator Defendants.
Class 2 – All persons in the United States who were
members of a settlement class in which (a) the
Administrator Defendants provided claims administration
services, (b) the Bank Defendants distributed Qualified
Settlement Funds pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations
§1.468B3(e), and (c) whose distributions from the
settlement were reduced in part by remuneration,
incentives, or compensation of any kind to the
Administrator Defendants.
Class 3 – All persons in the United States who were
members of a settlement class in which (a) the
Administrator Defendants provided claims administration
services, (b) the Bank Defendants distributed Qualified
Settlement Funds pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations
§1.468B3(e), and (c) whose distributions from the
settlement were reduced because the Bank Defendants did
not pay market interest rates on the deposits for that
settlement.”