As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: lawsuit

A group of fresh, unemployed lawyers have banded together to sue law schools. 73 alumni have filed at least fifteen class-action lawsuits, alleging the schools inflated employment figures and salary data to attract students and increase rankings. The real goal of the lawsuits seems to be to effect systemic change in the education industry and associations that accredit law schools, like the American Bar Association.

Schools are in the business of generating alumni, and to a great extent, use as many marketing tricks that any company uses in order to influence public opinion. It’s true that a 90% graduate employment rate looks better than a 75% rate on paper, and I’d be more inclined to choose a school with a higher employment rate, with all other factors being equal. But a 90% graduate employment rate doesn’t guarantee that I would receive the job I want after graduation, even if I were in the top 10% of the class.

Furthermore, I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that any statistic used for marketing purposes is subject to manipulation in an attempt to further the goals of marketing. Hard numbers give the impression of fact. From an early age, we’re trained to believe that one plus one equals two, in all circumstances, and numbers are truth. Statistics can be misleading in many ways, and are used more often to try to convince others of a point of view rather than quantify facts in reality.

Law school graduationThe group of lawyers probably can’t prove that the blame for their unemployment situation rests with the law schools. There are many factors that contribute to unemployment, including the overall economy, local job markets, and the effort, skills, and self-marketability of each alumnus. It doesn’t appear as if the former students are suing to have the schools compensate them for the lack of expected income from working, but they are suing to enlighten the public to the issue of misleading statistics throughout the educational industry.

Mutual funds must advertise that “past performance does not guarantee future results.” Even if a graduate employment rate were perfectly measured and accurately reflected exactly what a potential student understood the number to be, a good rate today is no indication that the rate will continue to be high by the time the school awards a degree or certification. If my index mutual fund returned 12% last year and lost 8% this year, I can’t sue the fund manager or the stock market for not providing the dividends I was hoping for. If fraud was involved, it might be a different situation. Perhaps misleading statistics like graduate employment rates are somewhat fraudulent, but I don’t see a parallel as schools do not typically promise that students will be employed at the level they’d like after graduation — and in the case of lawyers, after passing the bar exam.

There might be better ways of raising the issue of misleading statistics in the marketing endeavors in which institutes of education engage. Using the courts to make a point is only one tool that’s available to increase awareness of an issue. When you’re a hammer, though, everything looks like a nail.

Several years ago, while I was completing my Masters in Business Administration degree, I considered attending law school. Ultimately, I decided not to pursue a law degree and to focus my energy on my business instead. I think I made the right decision.

Photo: CubanRefugee
WNYC

{ 15 comments }

As many Presidents of the United States have done, President Obama avoided confrontation with Congress by appointing an individual to direct a government organization while lawmakers were on recess. Yesterday, the President appointed former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray to the long-delayed position of director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Now that this department has a director, it can move forward in enacting regulations — not just suggestions — for non-bank financial entities.

Lately, the CFPB has been working on simplifying customer agreements for financial accounts. A great example is this redesigned credit card agreements. The new design highlights the important terms of the agreement, describes financial terms in plain language, and helps consumers increase awareness of their obligations and rights. The bureau is currently working on a similar resigned agreement for mortgage contracts.

Richard CordrayWithout a director, none of these recommendations would be required to be enacted by financial firms. Some banks have already taken steps to improve communication, but banks are also regulated by the Federal Reserve. The Fed issued some regulations as part of the Credit CARD Act of 2009, but the regulations do not extend to non-bank financial firms.

The CFPB may face legal challenges from industry groups who insist that the bureau can have no power to issue regulations.

Who is Richard Cordray?

When Richard Cordray was the attorney general in Ohio, and when he was Ohio’s treasurer before assuming the role of attorney general, I would receive marketing emails from him every couple of months. He championed pro-consumer causes and worked to ensure the public had a better understanding of predatory financial arrangements. His emails were directed at the press to help raise issues in the media. For example, he campaigned for closing loopholes that allows payday lenders to practice predatory tactics and he warned consumers of scams related to the Cash for Clunkers program. Cordray lost in his campaign to be re-elected attorney general in Ohio.

Cordray wasn’t without enemies in the banking industry. He filed a lawsuit against Bank of America and its executives in 2009 on behalf of Ohio’s state pension funds related to the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Cordray is also a five-time champion on Jeopardy.

In general, judging by his past actions, Cordray appears to be comfortable with a position strongly in opposition with Wall Street interests, which is a change in direction for Washington politicians for as long as I’ve been an adult. Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all, despite occasional moments of pro-consumer rhetoric, appointed Wall Street insiders to major financial roles in government and pseudo-government agencies.

There is some validity to that philosophy, after all, Wall Street executives have the connections and relationships with other Wall Street executives, and these connections are necessary for the government to operate efficiently with one of the largest driving forces of the American and global economy. The government, however, can’t be expected to issue effective regulations if it needs to stay on Wall Street’s “good side,” however.

It’s a tough balance to manage, and it’s one of the many reasons why I avoid politics.

Photo: Richard Cordray

{ 14 comments }

Many Consumerism Commentary readers have written in to let me know that they recently received a check for about $98 from Bank of America. This check is not a result of the Bank of America overdraft fee class action lawsuit, but it is the result of a similar lawsuit. First of all, the overdraft lawsuit has only recently entered an appeal process. It could be another year or more before customers see any benefits from this latest class action.

The check is the benefit that customers are receiving due to an earlier class action lawsuit, Closson v. Bank of America. Customers who are eligible had a Bank of America, Fleet Bank, LaSalle Bank or U.S. Trust Company debit card and paid an insufficient funds fee, overdraft fee or similar fee before December 31, 2007. In order to receive a benefit, customers would have needed to file a claim form before May 1, 2009. The deadline to receive any benefits has long since passed, so even if you fit this description, it is too late to become a member of this lawsuit.

This is one of many class action lawsuits against Bank of America, some of which pertain to companies that were purchased by the bank, like Countrywide Financial.

  • Ross, et al. v. Bank of America, et al. This lawsuit pertains to the bank’s forcing of customers into mandatory binding arbitration, much like Wells Fargo is doing today. This is a new class action lawsuit.
  • Closson v. Bank of America. This is the class action lawsuit I described above. Bank of America encouraged its customers to use debit cards that were designed to increase the number of fees. If you received a check in December 2011, it is likely a result of this lawsuit.
  • Bank of America overdraft lawsuit. Nearly 1,000 Consumerism Commentary readers have offered their thoughts about Bank of America’s processing of customers’ debits in a certain order that ensured that they could maximize fee revenue from overdrafts. Read more here.
  • Homeowner lawsuits. Class action lawsuits in several states, including California and Washington, allege that Bank of America or its related companies withheld taxpayer money designed to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
  • Foreign currency conversions. Bank of America was one of many defendants (also including Visa, MasterCard, Chase, Citibank, and more) in a class action lawsuit regarding a conspiracy to set fees for foreign currency conversions, eliminating competition in this particular aspect of business.

Class action lawsuits are usually settled by the defendants, often without admitting any wrongdoing. As a result of settlement, affected customers often only receive a small award while the lawyers representing the class receive significant payments for their work and time. For example, in the overdraft fee settlement, lawyers will receive $123 million, or 30% of the settlement fund, unless the verdict is successfully appealed. At the same time, each affected customer will only receive a portion of the overdraft fees paid. That could be $35 or less per individual.

Are you included in a Bank of America class action lawsuit? Have you received a check in the mail from Bank of America and you don’t know why?

{ 19 comments }

If you enter into an agreement with a company, and that company does something to wrong you, most of the time you can avail yourself of the American judicial system to correct the problem. This happens frequently, with both individual lawsuits and class action lawsuits. For example, Bank of America is dealing with several lawsuits stemming from shady fee practices and other policies enacted by Countrywide Financial, a company Bank of America acquired.

In order for bank to protect themselves from problems and major expenses like these is to take away their customers’ rights to a trial with a jury or a judge. This is legal, and you don’t even need to sign these rights away. Companies can change these terms of your banking agreement, and your continued patronage implies that you agree and are willing to waive your rights for the benefit of remaining a customer.

Wells FargoI make it a point to thumb through the mailed statements because banks will occasionally update terms and change fees, and it’s easy to miss this information if I were to only check my account online or in my Quicken software. A few days ago, I received my statement from Wells Fargo in the mail, and discovered a notice informing me that by remaining a customer at Wells Fargo beyond February 15, 2012, I would never be able to be included in a class action lawsuit or sue the bank myself. Any disputes would go through a binding arbitration process.

Binding arbitration has its benefits. It is often less costly, and businesses can generally get a sense for the result before moving forward. The benefits, plainly one-sided, end there.

Binding arbitration is usually detrimental to consumers. The costs for an individual often outweigh the potential reward, and potential rewards are low because binding arbitration often favors the large company over the individual, unlike juries and most judges. It’s easy to see why arbitrators favor big businesses; arbitration is a business, and if they favor a large corporation, that corporation will likely bring more business to the arbitrator.

A consumer initiating arbitration through the American Arbitration Association, the administer Wells Fargo identifies in its new terms, would be subject to fees, such as:

  • $250 for telephone consultation if the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise
  • $750 for in-person consultation of the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise
  • Up to $125 in additional fees if the claim is less than $10,000, up to $375 if the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise

The business would be subject to fees higher than those listed above for the consumer, but the total expense for a corporation could still be considerably less than dealing with a lawsuit. Not every arbitration organization follows the same pattern for fees, though. In some cases, the consumer could spend more money initiating arbitration than filing his or her own suit.

Also a detriment to the consumer, arbitrators are not required to follow an established process. This uncertainty can limit the consumer’s ability to argue. For example, arbitration does not include a discovery process, making it difficult for consumers to present evidence to support their cases. Also, the consumer does not have the ability to choose the arbitrator. The business selects the arbitrator, so it’s clear that this could easily be a biased approach to settling a disagreement.

Binding arbitration is reviled so much that Congress has been inspired to take action to determine whether binding arbitration clauses can be considered legal — in cellular phone contracts, only. So far, this effort has failed to produce any results beneficial for the consumer.

Bank of America and other banks have been the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging they have forced customers into mandatory binding arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court has ruled 5 to 4 in favor of companies’ options to put binding arbitration into customer agreements.

What a consumer can do about binding arbitration clauses

I’ve been a customer of Wells Fargo or its predecessors for most of my life. I’ve had my primary checking and savings accounts at this bank. But with this change, I am not wasting any more time in moving my money out of this bank. It’s not that I anticipate having any problems that require a lawsuit or arbitration, and if I am included in any class action lawsuit, I don’t expect to gain much.

Businesses and employers force binding arbitration on customers when the customers or employees are in a weaker position than the larger entity. For example, with unemployment high, many Americans feel lucky to have jobs. They’re willing to waive rights in order to be employed, and most do. Most customers will be unaware that by continuing to hold their accounts they waive their rights. Others will be aware and not consider this to be an issue worthy of going through the process of closing their accounts. Very few will use this as an incentive to move money elsewhere.

Banking institutions are everywhere, however, and customers have choices. For example, I could move all of my money held at Wells Fargo to Chase Bank. At one point, Chase included binding arbitration in its customer contracts for credit cards but has recently abandoned this approach. There is always a danger that the terms will change, particularly as more big banks want to protect the revenue they earn from fees. With a Chase branch within walking distance to me, this move makes sense, but it still isn’t a perfect solution.

I would prefer to switch to a credit union, but I’ve researched my options many times, and there are no credit unions convenient for me. Additionally, one of the largest and most popular credit unions, USAA, is as bad as Wells Fargo when it comes to members’ rights: USAA requires customers to waive their rights to a trial by judge or jury, just like the bank I intend to leave.

I’ll be moving my money out of this bank as soon as possible.

If you decide to move your business to a company that does not limit your rights, be sure to let the company know exactly why it is lowing your business. Unfair fee practices and binding arbitration could be only two of many reasons you’d be better off being a customer elsewhere.

Read the entire Wells Fargo notice below. Read the full article →

{ 32 comments }

Judge Rejects Citigroup Lawsuit Settlement

by Flexo

The Securities and Exchange Commission, an organization designed to regulate and oversee the financial industry, is charged with acting in investors’ best interests. Most of the time, however, the SEC works on behalf of the large financial companies under its purview. As a result, when consumers demand that companies be held accountable for misleading investors ... Continue reading this article…

3 comments Read the full article →

Netflix Wal-Mart Class Action Lawsuit

by Flexo
Netflix

A few years ago, Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly entered an agreement where Wal-Mart agreed to exist the DVD rental business and promote Netflix’s service and Netflix would not sell new DVDs to compete with Wal-Mart. A group of Netflix customers have banded together to enter a class action anti-trust lawsuit against the two companies for ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

Citi Settles Lawsuit for $285 Million

by Flexo

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Citigroup has settled a major lawsuit. The Securities and Exchange Commission claimed that Citi misled investors, and to settle the claims, the financial behemoth was ordered to pay $285 million to customers. The issue focuses on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in 2007. The bank packaged subprime mortgages, loans with a good ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →

Bank of America Cutting More Jobs

by Flexo
Bank of America

After Bank of America investors have endured a year of suffering, Bank of America employees will start to feel the company’s troubles. Although the bank already announced significant layoffs this year, hot on the heels of a $5 billion boost from Warren Buffett, an overdraft fee lawsuit settlement, and a settlement for a lawsuit pertaining ... Continue reading this article…

13 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 512345