Apple's batterygate settlement fund didn't have enough money to pay a $92.17 check

AppleInsider

So much for being the world's most valuable company. An iPhone "batterygate" settlement check has bounced and allegedly because of insufficient funds.

The bounced check that will bring down Apple. (Source: First Coast News)

Maybe those falling sales in China are worse than we think. When Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri next announce Apple's earnings on August 1, 2024, perhaps they're going to have to own up to some devastatingly bare coffers.

For according to Florida's First Coast News, Clay County resident Desiree McNeil had some bad news from her credit union. She was one of the many iPhone users included in Apple's settlement of the so-called batterygate case, and the checks from that began being sent out in January 2024.

When McNeil deposited her check for $92.17, it was returned unpaid because of to insufficient funds.

Subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube

The key word there, though, is "when." The check, labeled "In Re Apple lnc Device Performance Litigation," was dated January 3, 2024, but McNeil deposited it on April 1.

"By April 3rd, my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds, they said that the litigants didn't pay it," said McNeil.

The crack team at First Coast News first confirmed that Apple really was sending out such checks. This should have been pretty easy, since they reported on it themselves.

They then contacted the credit union. Reportedly, they were told that the check was now too old.

"According to the front of the check she had until April 18th before it would become void," reported news anchor Anthony Austin.

The credit union directed Austin to the check's issuer, Huntington Bank, who then shuffled him off to some administrator of the account. That's as far as the hot investigation has led, for now.



Read on AppleInsider

jayweiss

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

Stabitha_Christie

Pro Tip: If you are going to take a snarky tone and take shots at other news outlets at least get the story factually correct. As written, this is embarrassing. 

iOS_Guy80

Where on the check is dated January 3, 2024?

nubus

Funny story in the silly season. No products, no announcements, and iPhone rumors are mostly about colors and last-minute production problems as always in July.
A bit surprised that US banks still handle checks at all.

foregoneconclusion

iOS_Guy80 said:

Where on the check is dated January 3, 2024?

That's a UK mistake...United States does month/day/year but they were reading it as day/month/year. 

guerro

The date on the cheque is "03/01/2024", Huntington Bank is a US bank, yes? So would the date not indicate March 1st, instead of the 3rd of January. I thought in the US, dates are written as MM/DD/YYYY not as DD/MM/YYYY.  

nubus said:

Funny story in the silly season. No products, no announcements, and iPhone rumors are mostly about colors and last-minute production problems as always in July.
A bit surprised that US banks still handle checks at all.

I agree, It is strange about cheques there. Here everything is transfer, either through a service (like Bizum) or by IBAN. 

VictorMortimer

guerro said:

The date on the cheque is "03/01/2024", Huntington Bank is a US bank, yes? So would the date not indicate March 1st, instead of the 3rd of January. I thought in the US, dates are written as MM/DD/YYYY not as DD/MM/YYYY.  

nubus said:

Funny story in the silly season. No products, no announcements, and iPhone rumors are mostly about colors and last-minute production problems as always in July.
A bit surprised that US banks still handle checks at all.

I agree, It is strange about cheques there. Here everything is transfer, either through a service (like Bizum) or by IBAN. 

That is correct, that check is dated March 1, not January 3.

VictorMortimer

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

Somebody didn't read the article.  The check was marked as good until April 18, she deposited it on April 1.  And if it's the check in the picture, it's dated March 1, much less than 90 days.

In any case, she deposited it in time, and it bounced.

bloggerblog

Forward her check to the lawyers who took on this case, they received millions.

Xed

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

mike1

Xed said:

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

Something else is odd. I seriously doubt the check would only be valid for a month and a half. I've seem 3-months, 6-months or a year, but nothing that short.

jimh2

Is the AppleInsider or the National Enquirer. The check was not from Apple, but was from the fund set up by the winning Attorney's office. They are ones with insufficient funds. This is no different than the media stumbling over themselves to connect Trump to any story they publish just to get the name in for clickbait. We have a lot of supposed writers and journalists whose last 9 years have been writing about Trump or referencing him in whatever they right about. 

This is not a pro-Trump posting. Just noting the usage of his name as compared to the original post.

AppleZulu

So, an inconclusive article about a $92 clerical error of some sort, made by someone who is not Apple and does not work for Apple. 

Why is this article on this site if it isn't for the purposes of "clickbait?" 

This should be embarrassing, but not for Apple.

grandact73

AppleZulu said:

So, an inconclusive article about a $92 clerical error of some sort, made by someone who is not Apple and does not work for Apple. 

Why is this article on this site if it isn't for the purposes of "clickbait?" 

This should be embarrassing, but not for Apple.

How is it a clerical error?

Xed

mike1 said:

Xed said:

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

Something else is odd. I seriously doubt the check would only be valid for a month and a half. I've seem 3-months, 6-months or a year, but nothing that short.

That's possible. The company handling the refunds probably wanted to close out the account they set up as soon as possible to save on expenses. Not just from the open account, but also from an administrative stand point. Any unclaimed funds would likely just find their way into each state's unclaimed property office for the state to deal with.

hammeroftruth

Xed said:

mike1 said:

Xed said:

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

Something else is odd. I seriously doubt the check would only be valid for a month and a half. I've seem 3-months, 6-months or a year, but nothing that short.

That's possible. The company handling the refunds probably wanted to close out the account they set up as soon as possible to save on expenses. Not just from the open account, but also from an administrative stand point. Any unclaimed funds would likely just find their way into each state's unclaimed property office for the state to deal with.

Doubtful. In a class action settlement, whatever money that is left over, the plaintiffs attorney gets. It has a time limit for the claim and if you do not exercise your claim within the time limit you give up your rights to the claim. It isn’t like money in a bank or proceeds from an investment that has been sold, it’s a claim. 

Apple gave the money already and the account is setup in an account that was approved by the judge presiding over the case.  Usually the banks that have accounts for class action funds do not charge more than any standard banking institutions standard rate. There “could” be a refund to the plaintiff for not using the full time allotted to process all of the claims which would make closing it quickly more lucrative for the lawyers and less for the claimants. Big shock. 

Xed

hammeroftruth said:

Xed said:

mike1 said:

Xed said:

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

Something else is odd. I seriously doubt the check would only be valid for a month and a half. I've seem 3-months, 6-months or a year, but nothing that short.

That's possible. The company handling the refunds probably wanted to close out the account they set up as soon as possible to save on expenses. Not just from the open account, but also from an administrative stand point. Any unclaimed funds would likely just find their way into each state's unclaimed property office for the state to deal with.

Doubtful. In a class action settlement, whatever money that is left over, the plaintiffs attorney gets. It has a time limit for the claim and if you do not exercise your claim within the time limit you give up your rights to the claim. It isn’t like money in a bank or proceeds from an investment that has been sold, it’s a claim. 

Apple gave the money already and the account is setup in an account that was approved by the judge presiding over the case.  Usually the banks that have accounts for class action funds do not charge more than any standard banking institutions standard rate. There “could” be a refund to the plaintiff for not using the full time allotted to process all of the claims which would make closing it quickly more lucrative for the lawyers and less for the claimants. Big shock. 

I thought that was only funds that were UNCLAIMED from settlement agreement, not after it was CLAIMED by a party. Cashing a check that was written to a specific party shouldn't make those funds revert back to the attorney. If so, there are so many ways where you can make a "whoopsie" to lose or misdirect someone's check that could be deemed innocent (or at least with reasonable deniability).

ronn

hammeroftruth said:

Xed said:

mike1 said:

Xed said:

jayweiss said:

Misleading Title. 

It was not Insufficient Funds, but someone didn’t deposit the check within the period stated on the check before it became void (usually within 90 days). When did the person get the check?

Click bait…

The check was drawn on 01 March 2024. She deposited it on 01 April 2024. It was only void after 18 April 2024.

We also have a news story and a quote that says, "my credit union returned the check because for insufficient funds."

Something else is odd. I seriously doubt the check would only be valid for a month and a half. I've seem 3-months, 6-months or a year, but nothing that short.

That's possible. The company handling the refunds probably wanted to close out the account they set up as soon as possible to save on expenses. Not just from the open account, but also from an administrative stand point. Any unclaimed funds would likely just find their way into each state's unclaimed property office for the state to deal with.

Doubtful. In a class action settlement, whatever money that is left over, the plaintiffs attorney gets. It has a time limit for the claim and if you do not exercise your claim within the time limit you give up your rights to the claim. It isn’t like money in a bank or proceeds from an investment that has been sold, it’s a claim. 

Apple gave the money already and the account is setup in an account that was approved by the judge presiding over the case.  Usually the banks that have accounts for class action funds do not charge more than any standard banking institutions standard rate. There “could” be a refund to the plaintiff for not using the full time allotted to process all of the claims which would make closing it quickly more lucrative for the lawyers and less for the claimants. Big shock. 

In many instances, the attorneys get a set amount and any unclaimed funds usually go to a charity fund set up by the administrator once the settlement is approved by the judge and all parties to the class action.

davidw

grandact73 said:

AppleZulu said:

So, an inconclusive article about a $92 clerical error of some sort, made by someone who is not Apple and does not work for Apple. 

Why is this article on this site if it isn't for the purposes of "clickbait?" 

This should be embarrassing, but not for Apple.

How is it a clerical error?

Either some one didn't realize that the check had a void date of 4/18/2024, when it should had been like 3/31/2024. (Which would make sense as 3/31/2024 would be the end of a calendar 1st quarter.) But the account was closed as scheduled, after close of business on 3/31/2024.

Either that, or the account was schedule to close on 4/18/2024 but some one closed it on 4/1/2024 by mistake.

Either way, this is most likely not a case of running out of funds. On the part of Apple or the law firm handling the distribution of claims. It's a clerical error.

My guess would be that the 4/18/2024 void date is generated by adding 45 days to the check date of issue (with a couple of days extra to cover delivery time). This is done automatically. But the account was schedule to close on end of business on 3/31/2024. So checks issued with less than 45 days from the account closing should had had a void date no later that 3/31/2024. And most likely, 3/1/2024 would be about the last date claims checks were issued as this would give the receiver 30 days to cash the check. Which might be short but not unreasonable. It's not like the check was issued on 3/24/2024 and then bounced 7 days later on 4/1/2024.

mikethemartian

The Uniform Commercial Code gives you 180 days.