The Supreme Court of Indiana recently reversed and remanded a trial court’s order compelling arbitration of two bank customers’ putative class action complaint. In so ruling, the Court held that the account agreement’s change-of-terms clause did not allow the defendant bank to add an addendum compelling arbitration and restricting class actions to the terms and conditions of the customers’ account agreement.
Posts tagged as “Banking”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026. In so ruling, the Third Circuit held that TILA does not require disclosure of each individual component of the total annual fee in a renewal notice for a credit card.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently reversed the ruling of a trial court and concluded that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Prepaid Rule, which regulates digital wallets and other prepaid accounts, does not mandate a “model clause” in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the ruling of a trial court rejecting various claims by a non-customer that a bank owed a fiduciary duty to ensure that assets were kept in a trust for the non-customer.
After nearly a decade of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought against more than 20 international financial institutions alleging a conspiracy to manipulate Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rates.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit recently held that, when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a final agency action, the right of action accrues, and the limitations period begins to run upon publication of the regulation.
Calif. App. Court (1st Dist) Allows Private State False Claims Action for Failure to Report and Deliver Escheated Property
The California Court of Appeal, First District, recently held that a qui tam plaintiff may pursue a California False Claims Act (CFCA) action predicated on a bank’s failure to report and deliver escheated property, even if the California State Controller does not provide appropriate notice to the bank under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1576.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's ruling that a credit union’s fee practices did not breach its contract with a customer. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the credit union did not make any promises not to use the "available balance" method to assess nonsufficient fund (NSF) fees or not to charge multiple fees when a transaction is presented to it multiple times.
Calif. App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Late Fee Was ‘Unlawful Penalty’ Under Calif. Law, Vacates Arbitration Award in Lender’s Favor
The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District recently reversed a trial court's decision to affirm an arbitration award that upheld the validity of a late payment fee assessed to borrowers in the event of a borrower's default.
11th Cir. Holds Florida’s ‘Standard Search Logic’ Exception Did Not Save Incorrect Debtor Name in UCC-1s
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a bank did not perfect its security interest in a business debtor’s assets because the two UCC-1 Financing Statements filed with the Florida Secured Transaction Registry that failed to correctly name the debtor were “seriously misleading” under Florida Statute Section 679.5061(2), as the Registry does not implement a “standard search logic” necessary to trigger the safe harbor exception set forth in Florida Statute Section 679.5061(3).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lender’s RICO claims asserted in connection with a borrower’s default on a $5 million loan.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that, consistent with rulings as to an identical New York law, the one-year period to make a demand for a refund of a fraudulent wire transfer under Florida Statutes § 670.202 may be not modified by contract.