i must know the answer to this unimportant question

I find myself a member of the aggrieved class in a class-action lawsuit. For a variety of reasons I don't want to discuss the specifics of this suit. Who the defendant is, and what it is accused of doing are not important for my blogging purposes.

What I am addressing is one aspect of the proposed settlement, and something that I find unclear. The fact is that the answer to my question won't make a material difference to me, but it's just a matter of curiosity.

According to the proposed settlement, the settlement fund will be divided among eligible class members, pro-rata, based on a certain well-defined measure (which I will call "M"). But, presumably to avoid administrative costs, no one will get a payout of less than ten dollars. Any class member whose share is calculated as less than ten dollars will forfeit his or her share, which will then be redistributed among the members of the class who are getting ten dollars or more.

But there is a subtlety to how this is to be accomplished that has me puzzled. Will they:

1. Make one pass at calculating shares. Then redistribute the settlements amounts of all class members receiving less than ten dollars; or
2. Make successive passes, each time taking the smallest shares and (if they are less than ten dollars) redistribute them to the members receiving more than ten dollars.

The second method will result in more people getting payouts.

To illustrate, I've created a very simple illustrative. Suppose there are three members of the class, Anna, Bertha and Claire. Their "M" values are, respectively, 90, 10 and 1 (for a total of 101). The total settlement fund is $100.

Under method 1:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"

Anna: 100 × 90 / 101 = $89.11
Bertha: 100 × 10 / 101 = $9.90
Claire: 100 × 1 / 101 = $0.99

Bertha and Claire each have shares that are less than $10, so they both get nothing. The $10.89 that was their initial share gets redistributed back to Anna, who ends up with the whole $100.

Under method 2:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"

Anna: 100 × 90 / 101 = $89.11
Bertha: 100 × 10 / 101 = $9.90
Claire: 100 × 1 / 101 = $0.99

Claire has the smallest share, and it's under $10. So she loses hers, which is redistributed to Anna and Bertha. Their preliminary shares are now recalculated as:

Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M" (among those remaining)

Anna: 100 × 90 / 100 = $90.00

Bertha: 100 × 10 / 100 = $10.00

Bertha has the smallest share, but it's at least $10. So she keeps it and there is no more redistributing.

I worked this all out in a spreadsheet here.

Now, of course, these numbers are artificial, and constructed to make the point. The actual lawsuit has a settlement fund of several million dollars, and the class has several thousand members. I am reasonably sure that my share will be higher than the ten dollar minimum, so I am better off if they follow method 1. Whether the difference (to me) is material, I can't say. But somehow I doubt it.

how do i gets me some o' dat money?

I keep getting letters from Chase Bank about an account that is near abandonment. This started a few years ago, at which point the account wasn't abandoned. I never got account statements as such -- just mailed notices about the account. Now the notices are that the account is abandoned for lack of activity and will soon be turned over to the state.

If you have read this far, you may be wondering why I don't just do what I have to to get the account unabandoned. Well, it's because the account isn't mine. The name on the account is Asian, and there has never been anyone living here with that name.

I tried -- a few times -- calling the customer service number on the letter in order to inform them that they have the wrong address. That Ling Soo Wang (not the real name) doesn't live here and never has lived here, and there is a mistake. The customer service reps have always been pleasant (once I get in touch with them) and have said all the right things. "Oh, thank you so much!" "Yes, we'll do everything we can to find the right person." Blah. Blah. Blah. At the risk of seeming cynical, I find it hard to believe that anything was done. And I note that getting in touch with an actual person was no easy task. It took a lot of waiting. And saying "Representative." I hate going through that process for my own account. It's that much worse when I'm going through it because I'm trying to help a stranger not lose her money.

Yesterday's letter informed that if Ling Soo doesn't make some kind of transaction before April 6, her accounts will be abandoned to the state.

I am sorely tempted to write back a very nice letter explaining the situation. It would go something like this:

Dear Chase Bank, 

I am writing in response to  a letter I received (photocopy thoughtfully included) regading account number 012345678910 in the name of Ling Soo Wang. 

I have lived in this house since 2000. Before that it was owned and occupied by Oinkah McDorsett [also not the real name], who was the first owner -- her father was a contractor and built the house for her as a wedding gift. In the entire history of this house, there has never been a Ling Soo Wang living here. And before the house was built, this land was occupied by trees, shrubs and grass. And the occasional raccoon. 

You have been sending me letters about this account for several years. I have repeatedly informed you of the mistake, and you have repeatedly said that you would track down Ms. Wang to her actual home. But here we are. Your system still thinks this account belongs here. 

It would be a terrible shame is all of Ms. Wang's hard-earned money ended up going to the state. So here is what I suggest we do. Howzabout you transfer the balance into my checking account? Since I already do my checking with Chase (my account is #019876543210), this should be very easy. 

Thank you in advance,
Marc Whinston

Of course, I am not deluded enough to actually believe that Chase would actually do that. There are laws and, (I am sure) corporate policies that would preclude that. But I would enjoy sending off the letter as an expression of frustration and as a joke. But I can't count discount the possibility that someone at Chase will think the letter is serious, and accuse me of trying to commit financial fraud. That is not something I would want to have to deal with.

Maybe, once the account is officially abandoned, I will stop getting the letters. I'll be happy about that, I suppose, but I'll also feel bad for Ling Soo Wang.