agreement that Adaptive allegedly mailed as part of its welcome kit. In weighing Spivey’s testimony about whether he received the agreement against Adaptive’s testimony about its business practices regarding mailing welcome kits, the district court relied on precedents from this circuit holding that “[w]here a letter is properly addressed and mailed, there is ‘a presumption that it reached its destination in usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed,’ ” Boomer v. AT & T Corp., 309 F.3d 404, 415 n. 5 (7th Cir.2002) (quoting Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932)). The district court relied on the Muller deposition as evidence of Adaptive’s mailing practices. See Godfrey v. United States, 997 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The deposition combined with Adaptive’s
holding that the invocation of a presumption of notice requires the agency to prove that the notice was properly addressed holding that evidence of a cursory investigation can give rise to an inference of an unlawful motive holding that a presumption of receipt exists where there is proof of procedures followed in the regular course of operations which give rise to a strong inference that the correspondence was properly addressed and mailed holding that where a defendant sold no stock at all this suggested that there was no insider information from which to benefit and there was not a strong inference of scienter recognizing presumption of effective service by regular mail