|
|
|
Settlement Announced In U.S. Bank Overdraft Fee Class Action
Class Action |
2012/07/02 10:59
|
U.S. Bank has agreed to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers' debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuits, part of multidistrict litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.
The lawsuits claim that U.S. Bank's internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers' debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuits, U.S. Bank's practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.
"We are pleased to have achieved this result for U.S. Bank customers who were adversely affected by this anti-consumer practice," said Robert C. Gilbert, Plaintiffs' Coordinating Counsel, who oversees and manages this multidistrict litigation with Co-Lead Counsel Aaron S. Podhurst and Bruce S. Rogow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Madoff's brother to plead guilty in NY
Court Watch |
2012/06/28 09:02
|
The brother of Ponzi scheme king Bernard Madoff will plead guilty on Friday to conspiracy and falsifying records, admitting his role in the multibillion-dollar fraud that destroyed the savings of thousands of investors, prosecutors told a judge on Wednesday.
Peter Madoff is the former chief compliance officer at the private investment arm of Bernard Madoff's business.
Court papers signed by a federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday show Peter Madoff, who had worked with his brother since 1965, will plead guilty to two criminal counts, admitting his role in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud, falsify records of an investment adviser, falsify records of a broker dealer, make false filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, commit mail fraud and obstruct the Internal Revenue service.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa A. Baroni wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain that, pursuant to a plea agreement with the government, Madoff had agreed "not to seek a sentence other than 10 years' imprisonment."
Madoff also agreed to the criminal forfeiture of $143 billion, including all of his real estate and personal property. The $143 billion, representing the amount of money believed to have flowed through the business accounts during the multi-decade Ponzi scheme, is included in the criminal forfeiture agreement, though authorities know that Peter Madoff's assets would never approach that figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court ruling vindicates Obama on health care
Breaking Legal News |
2012/06/28 09:02
|
Marking a pivotal point in the presidential campaign, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's sweeping federal health care law handed the Democratic incumbent crucial election-year vindication for his signature legislative accomplishment.
Republican rival Mitt Romney, an ardent opponent of the law, prepared to use the decision for his own political gain and planned to cast himself as the next best hope for the millions of Americans who favor the law's repeal.
The decision put an end to what had been one of the biggest unknowns in the presidential race. Four months from Election Day, both Obama and Romney will seek to use the high court ruling to bolster their vision for the country, as well as raise money for their campaigns.
The Romney campaign said it had collected more than $100,000 in online donations in the hour after the decision was announced.
Both men were expected to comment around midday Thursday from Washington. Romney was scheduled to speak first, followed by Obama.
The high court announced Thursday, in a 5-4 decision, that it was upholding the requirement at the heart of the health care law: that most individuals must buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court upholds damages in drug lawsuit
Law Center |
2012/06/22 11:25
|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday upheld damages that were awarded in a lawsuit the state brought against a prescription drug company accused of inflating prices.
The lawsuit dates back to 2004 when then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager sued 36 drug companies alleging they inflated wholesale prices to get larger payments from Medicaid, private insurers and consumers.
The case against Pharmacia Inc. was the first to go to trial, and in 2009 a jury found that the drug maker violated the state's Medicaid fraud law 1.44 million times over a decade. After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the actual tally was 4,578 and ordered the company to pay $4.5 million in forfeitures and other costs. The jury also awarded $9 million in damages.
Pharmacia appealed, arguing that the jury incorrectly calculated the damages, that the number of violations should be reduced to zero, and that a jury trial was improper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Union must give fee increase notice
Legal Spotlight |
2012/06/21 11:17
|
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.
"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-AT&T executive pleads guilty in NY insider case
Court Watch |
2012/06/19 09:23
|
A former executive at AT&T has pleaded guilty in New York to charges in an insider trading scheme that authorities say involved the passing of secrets disguised as expert guidance.
Alnoor Ebrahim pleaded guilty Monday in federal court in Manhattan to charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. He was formerly an associate director of channel marketing at AT&T.
Prosecutors say the information that Ebrahim provided through his work for an expert networking firm involved information about product sales for the company's handset devices.
The government said Ebrahim was paid more than $180,000 to serve as a consultant for employees of Manhattan-based investment firms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with state in DNA case
Current Cases |
2012/06/18 12:14
|
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a rape conviction over objections that the defendant did not have the chance to question the reliability of the DNA evidence that helped convict him.
The court's 5-4 ruling went against a run of high court decisions that bolstered the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them.
Justice Clarence Thomas provided the margin of difference in the case to uphold the conviction of Sandy Williams, even though Thomas has more often sided with defendants on the issue of cross-examination of witnesses.
The case grew out of a DNA expert's testimony that helped convict Williams of rape. The expert testified that Williams' DNA matched a sample taken from the victim, but the expert played no role in the tests that extracted genetic evidence from the victim's sample.
And no one from the company that performed the analysis showed up at the trial to defend it.
The court has previously ruled that defendants have the right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports used at trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
