Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Auto finance company agrees to $19.7 million preliminary class action settlement over extra lease fees

    Courts

    On June 15, the lead plaintiff filed a motion in the U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida for preliminary approval of an approximately $19.7 million class action settlement between a group of consumers and an auto finance company over allegations that extra fees were charged beyond the set purchase option price disclosed in certain vehicle lease contracts. According to the motion, the lead plaintiff alleged that after he chose to purchase his vehicle at the end of his lease term and he was charged extra third-party fees not included in his original lease contract. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Leasing Act and breach of contract. The settlement class consists of consumers nationwide who entered into certain lease contracts with the company, purchased their leased vehicle after June 4, 2009, and that were required to pay a documentary or dealer fee not disclosed in the lease contract, which allegedly averages about $238 per consumer. The settlement would allow prospective opt-in members to submit a claim for repayment of 100% of the extra fees charged. The $19.7 million settlement figure was determined using a statistically significant sample of the transactional records available and includes up to $2.95 million in attorneys costs and fees. The settlement is awaiting the court’s approval.

    Courts Class Action Auto Finance Consumer Leasing Act

    Share page with AddThis
  • 8th Circuit affirms $17 million class settlement for retailer data breach

    Courts

    On June 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling approving a $17 million class settlement to resolve consumer claims related to a 2013 data breach, which resulted in the compromise of at least 40 million credit cards and theft of personal information of up to 110 million people. The settlement, which consists of $10 million in consumer redress and almost $7 million in plaintiffs’ attorney fees, was preliminarily approved in 2015 by the district court (previously covered by InfoBytes here) but was remanded back to the court by the 8th Circuit for failing to conduct the appropriate pre-certification analysis. After the district court recertified the class, two settlement challengers appealed, arguing that the class was not properly certified as there were not separate counsel for the subclasses and that the court erred in approving the settlement because the award of attorney’s fees was not reasonable. The appellate court disagreed, holding that no fundamental conflict of interest required separate representation for named class members and class members who suffered no actual losses. The court also concluded that the 29 percent in total monetary payment to the plaintiffs’ attorneys was “well within the amounts [the court] has deemed reasonable in the past” and therefore, the district court did not error in its discretion.

     

    Courts Appellate Eighth Circuit Class Action Data Breach Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in TCPA action, questions accuracy of report citing number of robocalls

    Courts

    On May 21, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against a solar company that she claimed made multiple unwanted robocalls to her cell phone, holding that questions remained about the accuracy of a report identifying the number of illegal calls the company allegedly placed. The plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint asserting that the company, in order to market products and services, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it used a “predictive dialer” to contact cell phone numbers the company bought from third parties. The plaintiff further claimed that none of the alleged call recipients had provided prior express consent to receive the calls, and that an expert retained by the plaintiff found that the company had made 897,534 calls to 220,007 unique cell phones. After the class was certified, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, requesting that class members be awarded damages available under the TCPA of $1,500, or $500 per call.

    While the court determined that there is no argument as to the plaintiff’s TCPA claim concerning whether the company made telemarketing calls (and failed to receive prior express consent), a dispute remained over whether the plaintiff had “carried its burden of demonstrating” that the high number of calls cited in the report were actually made. First, the court stated that, because the company “stipulated that the [p]laintiff’s expert in fact reached a certain conclusion, it does not follow that [the company] stipulated to the accuracy of the conclusion.” Second, the court held that, since a reasonable jury could find the report’s “conclusions are flawed for any number of reasons,” a fact issue as to the report’s accuracy remained. A settlement conference has been set for June 6.

    Courts TCPA Class Action Robocalls Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

    Share page with AddThis
  • 11th Circuit holds national bank did not waive arbitration for unnamed plaintiffs

    Courts

    On May 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a national bank did not waive its right to arbitration with respect to the unnamed plaintiffs in five class actions. The decision stems from multiple class action filings against that bank and over a dozen other banks in 2008 and 2009, alleging unlawful overdraft practices. In late 2009, the actions were consolidated and the bank filed answers to the five complaints, in each answer stating, “[a]bsent members of the putative classes have a contractual obligation to arbitrate any claims they have against [the bank].” The bank originally chose to not move for arbitration against the named class members, but after the Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the bank filed a motion to compel the named plaintiffs to arbitrate. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. The bank then moved to compel arbitration against the unnamed class members, which the district court denied and the appellate court vacated, holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the arbitration obligations without a class certification. After the district court granted class certification, the bank moved to compel arbitration against the unnamed class members again and the district court denied the motion, holding that the bank “acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights” during the precertification litigation efforts.

    In vacating the district court’s decision, the appellate court concluded that the bank had not acted inconsistently with respect to the unnamed plaintiffs and had expressly stated it wished to preserve arbitration rights against those class members when the matter became ripe. The panel vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.

    Courts Arbitration Eleventh Circuit Appellate Overdraft Class Action

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court holds lenders may not require borrowers to use an affiliated appraisal management company under RESPA; denies class certification

    Courts

    On February 7, a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recommended denial of a motion for class certification in a case alleging that a mortgage lender, an affiliated appraisal management company (AMC), and the individual owner, through trusts, of both the lender and the AMC committed RESPA violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the individual owner received a thing of value, i.e, profit distributions from the AMC, that were generated from the lender’s referrals to the AMC in violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA, notwithstanding the exemption for affiliated business arrangements, (i) because no disclosure of the affiliation was provided to the borrowers, or (ii) because, even when a disclosure was provided, the borrowers were required to use the AMC.

    While reviewing whether the class would have standing, the court disagreed with the defendant’s assertion that the affiliated business arrangement exemption under Section 8(c)(4) of RESPA, which generally bans the required use of an affiliate, but permits a lender to impose its choice of an attorney, credit reporting agency, or real estate appraiser to represent the lender’s interest, should be interpreted to permit the mortgage lender’s required use of an affiliated AMC. The defendants argued that allowing a consumer to shop for an appraisal management company would be inconsistent with TILA and Regulation Z, whose official commentary to Section 1026.37(f)(2) lists “appraisal management company fee” as an example of an item that may be disclosed under “services you cannot shop for” in the Good Faith Estimate.  The court rejected that assertion, stating that there are multiple settlement services the lender may require the consumer to use which do not run afoul of RESPA or TILA and that Section 8 is only implicated where there is a kickback involved. The court further examined the plain meaning of Section 8(c)(4) and determined that, from a statutory interpretation perspective, an appraiser and an appraisal management company are not “one and the same.”

    Additionally, the court disagreed with the defendants argument that the plaintiffs’ payment to the AMC was covered under the exception in Section 8(c)(2) of RESPA because the payment was not a “thing of value” under Section 8(a). In rejecting the defendants’ argument, the court noted the kickback at issue is the profit ultimately paid to the individual owner, not the plaintiffs’ payment to the AMC, and the defendants did not present any authority that the exception applies when the payment is for ownership interest.

    The court ultimately recommended the denial of the class certification because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that ascertaining the class was administratively feasible, including the problem of ascertaining which loans were federally related mortgage loan and which were not. The court also concluded that, given the number of individual inquiries in the case, the requirement that common question of law and fact predominate was not satisfied. 

     

     

    Courts RESPA Affiliated Business Relationship Kickback Class Action

    Share page with AddThis
  • National bank reaches $480 million settlement with investors over incentive compensation sales program

    Securities

    On May 4, a national bank announced it reached an agreement in principle to pay $480 million to certain investors to resolve a consolidated securities fraud class action, related to the bank’s previous incentive compensation sales program. The class action stems from the September 2016 consent order between the bank and the CFPB which resolved allegations that the bank’s employees opened deposit and credit card accounts for consumers without obtaining consent to do so (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The class action alleges that the bank made misrepresentations and omissions in certain securities disclosures related to its sales practices matters. The bank acknowledged the agreement, which is still pending court approval, in its May 4 10-Q securities filing.

     

    Securities Incentive Compensation Class Action CFPB

    Share page with AddThis
  • 11th Circuit denies motion to compel arbitration; rules claims relate to BSA violations and not to terms of user agreement

    Courts

    On April 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a district court’s decision to deny a global money services business’s motion to compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. According to the unpublished opinion, the plaintiff-appellee—a customer of a now defunct cryptocurrency exchange (defunct exchange)—filed a proposed class action against the money services business and the CEO of the defunct exchange, alleging that when the money services business liquidated bitcoin into cash for two accounts that the CEO opened, it aided and abetted the defunct exchange’s breach of fiduciary duty and the CEO’s theft of customer assets. The customer claimed that the money services business had a duty under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to monitor or investigate the CEO’s actions, detect the CEO’s theft of customer assets, and report the CEO’s suspicious activity to appropriate authorities. However, the business argued that when the CEO opened his accounts, he agreed to be bound by an arbitration clause in the user agreement, and that therefore, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the customer was bound by the arbitration clause because the customer’s claims were based on the user agreement. The district court rejected the business’s argument and found that the customer was not asserting any rights or benefits that arose out of the user agreement but rather on duties created under the BSA. The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, stating that the customer’s claims were predicated on duties the defendant-appellant owed under federal statutes and regulations as well as state common law and not on enforcing the terms of the user agreement, and, therefore, the customer could not be compelled to arbitrate the claim.

    Courts Financial Crimes Fintech Virtual Currency Arbitration Class Action Appellate Eleventh Circuit Bank Secrecy Act

    Share page with AddThis
  • 9th Circuit denies online retailer’s petition for full panel review of decision on standing in data breach case

    Courts

    On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied an online retailer’s request to have the full bench reconsider the court’s March 8 ruling, which ruling held that the increased risk of fraud or identity theft from a data breach gave consumers Article III standing to sue. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the underlying action results from a 2012 data breach affecting over 24 million shoppers. Previously, the three-judge panel held that the district court erred in dismissing claims brought by consumers who did not allege financial losses as a result of the data breach because, among other things, the stolen information provided hackers the “means to commit fraud or identity theft.” The online retailer appealed the decision, asking the full panel to review. The panel disagreed, upholding the previous decision that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the risk of future harm.

    Courts Ninth Circuit Appellate Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Data Breach Class Action U.S. Supreme Court

    Share page with AddThis
  • FCPA class action against Brazilian aerospace firm dismissed

    A class action against a Brazilian aerospace firm was recently dismissed by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman. The class action, which was brought in federal district court in New York, alleged that the firm had failed to adequately disclose the scope and possible financial impact of ongoing corruption investigations by the DOJ and SEC, harming the company’s investors.

    In granting the firm’s motion to dismiss, Judge Berman held that the company’s disclosures were sufficient as a matter of law, and that requiring disclosures advocated by the putative class plaintiffs would effectively require reporting companies to acknowledge guilt for conduct that was still being investigated and had not yet been charged.

    The underlying bribery alleged in the complaint (and being investigated by regulators) involves the firm’s October 2016 admissions that from 2007 to 2011, company executives made payments to government officials in several countries, including the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, and India, totaling $11.5 million. The firm received government contracts resulting in profits over $83 million in exchange.

    This decision is a clear win for publicly traded companies currently under investigation for corruption-related conduct. Had the case proceeded, companies may have faced difficult choices between making more detailed disclosures to investors regarding the potential merits of ongoing investigations and protecting themselves against incriminatory public statements about these same matters.

    DOJ SEC FCPA Class Action Bribery

    Share page with AddThis
  • Bank and shareholders reach settlement over BSA/AML compliance allegations

    Securities

    On March 30, a regional bank reached a $13 million settlement with a group of its shareholders over allegations of misleading statements and omissions regarding the bank’s compliance with fair lending laws, and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. The shareholders—purchasers of the bank’s stock between July 2013 and July 2014—allege that the bank’s misrepresentations regarding their compliance with BSA/AML laws, as well as other laws and regulations, artificially inflated the price of the bank’s stock. According to the settlement, both parties’ decisions to enter into the agreement were partially due to the length and expense of continued litigation, which began in 2014. The shareholders initiated the class action litigation in July 2014; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit vacated the initial class certification in September 2016, remanding to the district court for further proceedings. The class was recertified by the district court in June 2017 with the 6th Circuit denying the bank’s petition for appeal of the recertification. The bank denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability in the settlement.

    Securities Settlement Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering Appellate Sixth Circuit Class Action

    Share page with AddThis

Pages