BankBryanCave.com

Bank Bryan Cave

Class Actions

Main Content

CFPB Customer Complaint Data: Seeing What the Plaintiffs’ Bar Sees

February 1, 2017

Authors

Douglas Thompson

CFPB Customer Complaint Data: Seeing What the Plaintiffs’ Bar Sees

February 1, 2017

by: Douglas Thompson

CFPB watchers know that since 2013 customer complaints have been solicited and complaint data has been made available on the CFPB website. January is ubiquitous with New Year’s resolutions (perhaps you’ve already broken all of yours, but hopefully not). It is a great time to review the 2016 customer complaint data and see what the Plaintiffs’ Bar sees about your customers and your institution.

Undoubtedly, in due course, the CFPB has contacted your compliance and legal teams directly about these consumer complaints on an individualized basis. And undoubtedly, you have investigated the issue and provided responsive information to the CFPB and the consumer. Hopefully, each individual customer complaint matter is resolved and closed.

As a class action litigator, however, it is important to highlight that there is more here than

Read More

3 Takeaways (a Litigator’s Perspective) from CFPB Supervisory Highlights

June 27, 2016

Authors

Douglas Thompson

3 Takeaways (a Litigator’s Perspective) from CFPB Supervisory Highlights

June 27, 2016

by: Douglas Thompson

The CFPB recently issued its newest edition of Supervisory Highlights Mortgage Serving Special Edition, Issue 11 (June 2016).

From a litigator’s perspective, the Supervisory Highlights do more than summarize recent supervisory findings, they also shine a light on future examination and putative class action risks that are emerging. The CFPB is providing key insights into what it believes should be industry standards. Banks and mortgage servicers should read carefully both the specific findings summarized and slightly more subtle clues to evolving future CFPB requirements.  Here are three takeaways on the Highlights from a financial services class action litigator’s perspective:

  • ECOA & Special Servicing Populations Continue to be a Strong CFPB focus.
  • In section 2, “Our approach to mortgage servicing examinations,” the CFPB uses a fair amount of real estate to highlight ECOA requirements. In fact, the report states clearly “…Supervision will be conducting more comprehensive ECOA Targeted Reviews of

    Read More

    Bryan Cave Files Amicus Brief On Behalf of GBA in Overdraft Case

    January 3, 2016

    Authors

    Bryan Cave

    Bryan Cave Files Amicus Brief On Behalf of GBA in Overdraft Case

    January 3, 2016

    by: Bryan Cave

    Byran Cave filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Georgia Bankers Association and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce in the Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank litigation currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court in which a bank customer seeks to certify a class action against SunTrust to challenge the propriety of certain overdraft charges.

    The trial court below ruled that while the plaintiff could opt out of an arbitration clause in the deposit agreement with SunTrust to pursue such challenges in his own right, the plaintiff could not do so on behalf of a class. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that “the deposit agreement contract and its arbitration clause prohibit [plaintiff] from altering others’ contracts where he is neither a party nor in privity with a party.” The plaintiff in the case then petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case.

    Read More

    FTC Targets Banks under FDCPA

    September 28, 2015

    Authors

    Douglas Thompson

    FTC Targets Banks under FDCPA

    September 28, 2015

    by: Douglas Thompson

    Who Is An FDCPA Excluded “Creditor”?

    The FTC Seeks to Overturn An 11th Circuit Ruling That A Bank Is.

    Banking lawyers whose institutions acquire loans or card accounts may want to watch how this 11th Circuit putative class action case issue plays out. The FTC’s brief supports the plaintiffs’ class action bar, and the outcome of the appeal if reversed could further spur both regulatory enforcement activity and consumer class actions.

    The FTC recently filed an amicus brief in a consumer’s appeal pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Davidson v. Capital One Bank, NA, Case No 14-14200. In the appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Georgia’s dismissal of Davidson’s claims (and those of a putative class) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC § 1692.   The FTC now seeks en banc review to

    Read More

    New Legislation Introduced on ATM Notices

    April 20, 2012

    Authors

    Bill Custer and Jennifer Dempsey

    New Legislation Introduced on ATM Notices

    April 20, 2012

    by: Bill Custer and Jennifer Dempsey

    Legislation has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives that, if passed, would relieve banks of the responsibility of installing and monitoring the presence of physical notices on their ATMs notifying customers about the imposition of ATM transaction fees.

    On April 17, 2012, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) and David Scott (D-GA) introduced H.R. 4367 which seeks to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure requirement for operators of ATMs to the electronic notice alone. The electronic notice allows a consumer to choose whether the consumer wishes to continue with the ATM transaction and pay the fee or exit the transaction.  This proposed bill comes in the wake of class action litigation filed against banks and other ATM operators nationwide (and most recently against several Georgia community banks) alleging that the banks failed to post or maintain the physical notice on their ATMs.

    As

    Read More

    Class Actions Filed Against Four Georgia Banks Over ATM Physical Fee Disclosure

    March 15, 2012

    Authors

    Bill Custer and Jennifer Dempsey

    Class Actions Filed Against Four Georgia Banks Over ATM Physical Fee Disclosure

    March 15, 2012

    by: Bill Custer and Jennifer Dempsey

    Four class action complaints have been filed in the last two weeks against four different Georgia community banks alleging that the banks have violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.  The complaints were filed in the federal courts and all allege that the banks imposed fees on consumers who withdrew cash from the bank’s ATMs and that the banks allegedly failed to post a physical notice on the ATMs that a fee would be imposed for such services.

    The Electronic Fund Transfer Act requires both a physical notice at or on the ATM in addition to the electronic notice the customer receives on the computer screen when making the withdrawal.  There are statutory penalties for a failure to comply with the Act.   While there is no minimum penalty proscribed for a class action, the statute provides that in a successful class action, plaintiffs may recover up to “the lesser of $500,000

    Read More
    The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.