On April 6, 2017, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that an arbitration agreement that waives the right to public injunctive relief is contrary to California public policy and therefore is unenforceable under California law.
Menu
A New York federal judge on Tuesday approved a settlement that will have Citigroup, Inc. pay $730 million to an investor class that alleged the bank misled purchasers about its exposure to collateralized debt obligations (“CDO’s”) backed by subprime assets.
The Second Circuit ruled Monday that Citigroup Inc.’s individual arbitration policy must be enforced in an overtime collective action, reinforcing its acceptance of class waivers in Fair Labor Standards Act cases.
Continue reading “Second Circuit rulings might eliminate FLSA class actions”
Citigroup, the third largest U.S. bank by assets, agreed to pay $730 million to settle claims it misled debt investors about its condition during the financial crisis. The deal would resolve a lawsuit by investors who bought Citigroup bonds and preferred stock from May 2006 through November 2008. The settlement requires requires court approval and according to the bank, is covered by existing litigation reserves. Continue reading “Citigroup agrees to pay $730 million to settle securities fraud class action”
Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $590 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit accusing it of hiding tens of billions of dollars of toxic mortgage assets, one of the largest settlements stemming from the global financial crisis.
The agreement resolves claims that shareholders ended up with massive losses after the bank failed to take timely writedowns on collateralized debt obligations, many backed by subprime mortgages, and engaged in self-dealing transactions that hid the risks. Continue reading “Citigroup settles securities fraud lawsuit arising out of CDO’s”
An account holder in California has filed suit against Citibank alleging that Citibank’s unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees is in violation of its contractual terms with the customers in which the contract affirmatively states: “That there is no Citibank fee charged for POS transactions.” The case is entitled Ronald S. Arendas v. Citibank Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06462 (N.D. Calif., December 19, 2011).
This case is not like the debit transaction reordering cases that I have referred to several times on this blog, i.e. those that have been transferred to an MDL proceeding in Florida. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that Citibank imposed on customers overdraft fees in certain prescribed circumstances known only to Citibank, charging its customers an overdraft fee of as much as $34 per transaction — even when this transaction was for only a few dollars. He accuses Citibank of intentionally designing this automatic, fee-based overdraft scheme to maximize overdraft fee revenue. He adds that Citibank misled customers to believe that, if a debit card transaction was approved, no overdraft fees would be due, and that Citibank never obtained the agreement of its customers to the imposition of overdraft fees in the context of debit card transactions.
On May 23, a federal district judge in Florida preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action alleging that Bank of America had charged excessive overdraft fees on debit cards. The bank reordered the processing of the debit charges from highest to lowest, which resulted in more overdraft fees. Under the settlement, the Bank would pay $410 million.
Bank of America was the first defendant to settle in the case. Roughly 30 defendants remain, including US Bank, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, and Citibank. Bank of America no longer charges overdraft fees for debit purchases. Instead, it declines the card if there are not sufficient funds.
Click here to see the order preliminarily approving the settlement.