In Re Peloton Interactive, Inc. Securities Litigation

District Court, E.D. New York

In Re Peloton Interactive, Inc. Securities Litigation

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x IN RE PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM & ORDER 21-cv-2369 (CBA) (PK) AMON, United States District Judge: On April 25, 2025, Richard Neswick (“Lead Plaintiff”) filed an unopposed Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) # 108.) I referred Lead Plaintiff’s motion to the Honorable Judge Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation. (Text Order dated April 29, 2025.) On May 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kuo issued a report and recommendation finding that: (1) the inclusion of late but eligible claims does not delay the distribution to those who timely filed authorized claims; (2) the five claimants that requested judicial review have a recognized loss of zero and are ineligible to receive a distribution of the net settlement fund; (3) a deadline of January 6, 2025 for all claims is reasonable and those submitted after the aforementioned date are ineligible to receive distribution; and (4) any further claims made against the net settlement fund beyond the amount allocated to authorized claimants are barred and all claims arising out of the administration of this settlement are to be discharged. (See generally D.E. # 112 (“R&R”).) In deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). To accept those portions of the report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no “clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis v, N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P.,

823 F. Supp. 2d 161

, | (E.DN.Y. 2011) (quoting Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,

262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169

(S.DN.Y. □

2003).

Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for doing so has passed. After □

reviewing the record, I find no clear error in Magistrate Judge Kuo’s recommendations, so I adopt □ them in full. Accordingly, the settlement funds are to be distributed as recommended in Magistrate

_ Judge Kuo’s R&R and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

□□ ORDERED. Dated: July af2025 oe a . Brooklyn, New York . s/Carol Bagley Amon . Carol Bagley ‘Amog 4 United States District'Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown