Consumer Finance Law Blog : Consumer Finance Lawyer & Attorney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm : Financial Privacy & Security

This week, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”) in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893. ATTM’s petition asked the Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts states from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures – here, class-wide arbitration – when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims. 

In this consumer class action, plaintiff alleged that ATTM’s offer of a “free” cellular phone with the purchase of a new service contract was fraudulent to the extent the company charged the new subscriber a substantial sales tax on the retail value of each free phone. ATTM moved to compel the consumers to participate in arbitration, as required by the service agreement. The district court denied ATTM’s motion, finding that the provision of the arbitration agreement barring class actions was unconscionable under California law and therefore was unenforceable. The district court further held that California unconscionability law was not preempted by the FAA, which provides that arbitration agreements are valid except where they can be revoked on grounds that could also apply to invalidate an entire contract. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

In its cert petition, ATTM contended that the case presented an exceptionally important question, the resolution of which could lead to the invalidation of tens of millions of arbitration contracts under California law, if the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was upheld. ATTM argued that, even though its arbitration provision does not permit class arbitration, it gives consumers sufficient incentives to vindicate their claims on an individual basis and is therefore valid and not unconscionable. ATTM also argued that review was warranted because courts were divided on the issue and the decision below conflicted with the FAA and Supreme Court precedent. ATTM noted that the primary purpose of the FAA, as stated by the Supreme Court, is to ensure that private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms. ATTM also pointed to Supreme Court precedent holding that the FAA prohibits courts from imposing prerequisites to enforcement of arbitration agreements where those prerequisites are not applicable to contracts generally. Finally, ATTM argued that there is a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding state policies to the contrary.

How this issue is resolved could have a wide spread effect on companies sued in consumer class actions. For instance, a decision in favor of ATTM could be interpreted broadly to allow companies to limit their exposure to class actions simply by including a class action waiver in their arbitration agreements.  On the other hand, a ruling in favor of plaintiffs could result in many arbitral class action provisions being invalidated.

Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Restoring American Financial Stability Act passed by the Senate on May 20 (discussed in an earlier post ) includes an amendment authored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), which would toughen the risk-and size-based capital standards facing financial institutions. Sen. Collins has stated that smaller financial institutions should no longer be subject to more lenient standards than large institutions because the “failure of larger institutions is much more likely to have a broad economic impact” and having different standards creates the incentive for banks to become “too big to fail.” The amendment would hold banks with assets above $250 billion to capital requirements at least as stringent as those applicable to smaller institutions.

Under U.S. rules, bank regulators look to the ratio of a financial institution’s Tier 1 capital to total risk-adjusted assets as a key indicator of financial health. Tier 1 capital, which includes common stock and some preferred stock, serves to cushion banks in the event of potential loss. The language in Senator Collins’ amendment apparently orders federal bank regulators to set minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for all banks, implies that trust-preferred securities will no longer be included within the definition of Tier 1 capital, and implies that all banks would need to comply with this new rule immediately. In an interview with the American Banker, however, Senator Collins said that what’s intended is that the new measure would apply only to “systemically important firms,” would be phased in over time, and that the language of the amendment will be changed before the bill is passed to reflect these intentions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate last night passed its long-awaited version of financial system regulatory reform legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. In the coming weeks, each congressional chamber will select a group of lawmakers to negotiate a final bill. That bill will then need to be voted on again in both chambers before going to the President for his signature or veto. The process is expected to take at least a month.

The following are a handful of the more significant amendments considered by the Senate.

• Federal Preemption – As written, the bill would have allowed states to enact consumer protection laws more strict than their federal counterparts. By amendment, the Senate preserved federal preemption of state consumer financial protection laws, with preemption standards being determined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and reported to Congress. Also per this amendment, state attorneys general would be permitted to file civil lawsuits against state-charted institutions to enforce consumer financial protections.

• Definitions of Non-bank Institutions – The Senate passed an amendment without opposition that revises important definitions of non-bank financial institutions. This amendment seeks to limit the reach of the new consumer protection regulator with regard to non-bank financial companies to those companies that are “predominantly engaged” in providing financial services. In contrast, the underlying bill included broad language that would have allowed for regulation of nearly any company engaged in financial activities. In the Senate version, the new consumer regulator would only have authority over non-bank firms that receive at least 85 percent of their revenue from financial activities.

• ATM Fee Cap – The proposed amendment to limit the fees banks could charge on ATM transactions (discussed in an earlier post) did not receive a vote and therefore is not included in the final Senate bill.

• Interchange Fee Cap – The Senate adopted an amendment to allow the Federal Reserve to set limits on the fees charged to retailers by credit card companies for the processing of credit card transactions. The specific language, if included in a final bill, would allow the Federal Reserve to set “reasonable and proportionate” interchange charges – a threshold sure to provoke additional future battles. Institutions with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from such limits.

• Auto-dealer Exemption – An amendment proposed to exempt auto-dealers from the jurisdiction of the Senate’s proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strongly opposed by the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and the White House did not receive a vote before adoption of the bill.

• FTC Authority Preservation – The Senate passed without opposition the proposed amendment to revise the Consumer Protection Bureau provisions to allow the FTC to retain its existing rulemaking authority, carving it out of the new consumer protection regulator.

• Derivatives – The proposed provisions in the underlying bill that would require banks to spin off their derivative operations, strongly opposed by banks and the FDIC, was not taken up.

• Mortgage underwriting – This amendment, which would bar mortgage brokers and loan originators from receiving payments based on the terms of the loans they sell, was added to the bill. Under this amendment, lenders would be required to verify a borrower’s ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home’s value. Assessment of the ability to repay would have to be based on the maximum interest rate allowed in the first five years of the loan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 29, 2010, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed a consumer protection bill which requires gift card issuers to redeem the card, upon request, if the remaining value is $5 or less. In addition, it bans retailers, restaurants and others from selling gift cards that have any type of fee, including a service fee, a dormancy fee, an inactivity fee or a maintenance fee. This new law will apply to gift cards issued on or after August 11, 2010.

Under this law, “gift card” is defined as a prefunded tangible or electronic record of a specific monetary value evidencing an issuer’s agreement to provide goods, services, credit, money, or anything of value. A gift card includes a tangible card, electronic card, stored-value card, or certificate or similar instrument, card, or tangible record, all of which contain a microprocessor chip, magnetic chip, or other means for the storage of information and for which the value is decremented upon each use.

A gift card does not include a prefunded tangible or electronic record issued by, or on behalf of, any government agency, a gift certificate that is issued only on paper, a prepaid telecommunications or technology card, or a card that is donated or sold below face value at a volume discount to an employer or charitable organization for fundraising purposes. Likewise, a card or certificate issued to a consumer pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotional program for which no money or other item of monetary value was exchanged is expressly excluded from the definition of a gift card.

In addition, this new law does not apply to gift cards that are usable with multiple sellers of goods or services, but expressly applies to a gift card usable only with affiliated sellers of goods or services.

A violation of this new law will be deemed a violation of Colorado’s deceptive trade practice law.

Once the law is effective, Colorado will join a handful of other states with laws requiring redemption of gift cards with less than a certain cash value. Under California law, as just one example, any gift certificate with a cash value of less than $10 is redeemable in cash for its cash value.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If your company has suffered property damage or lost business as a result of recent catastrophic events – the extended closure of airspace due to volcanic ash from Iceland, the flooding of Nashville, Tennessee and surrounding areas, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – help may be on the way. While some insurance companies are already taking the position that coverage is not available for these losses, recovery for some companies is in fact likely, under the business interruption coverage often found in a property insurance policy. Whether coverage exists may depend on the business interruption language contained in your policy.

Physical damage to a business, such as water damage to a store in Nashville, may not be the only type of loss your property insurance covers. Insurance often also covers loss of business income. For example, if a business was forced to close or stop production because of physical damage to property, the inability to access property, or in response to an evacuation or curfew order, business interruption insurance may help. Business interruption insurance may also cover losses resulting from the closure of an insured company’s key supplier or customer, if that closure caused the insured company to stop or slow production. And that may be true even if the insured company is hundreds of miles away from the physical damage.

For further information about business interruption coverage for losses suffered as a result of the recent volcanic ash, flooding, or oil spill, and tips on how to maximize the chances of insurance recovery, please see the recent advisory prepared by Kelley Drye's Insurance Recovery attorneys.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, the Federal Reserve Board announced the final rules that amend Regulation E to implement the gift card provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (“CARD Act”). The rules restrict fees and expiration dates on various types of gift certificates and cards, and require sellers and issuers to make specific disclosures. These restrictions and requirements will apply to qualifying gift cards sold on or after August 22, 2010.

Scope

Generally, the rules restrict fees, expiration dates, and impose certain disclosure requirements for (1) gift certificates, (2) store gift cards, and (3) general-use prepaid cards, as these terms (collectively, “gift cards”) are defined in the CARD Act. The rules state that the CARD Act’s scope is intended to extend to gift cards that are sold or issued to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Gift cards which qualify under the rules as loyalty, award, or promotional gift cards are exempt from the fee and expiration date rules but must still follow strict disclosure requirements.   

Exclusions

The rules also provide specific exclusions, meaning none of its provisions apply to gift cards used solely for telephone services, cards that are reloadable and not marketed or labeled as a gift card or certificate, cards not marketed to the general public, cards issued in paper form only, or cards redeemable solely for admission to specific events or venues. Although the rules exclude several categories of gift cards, the exclusions should be interpreted narrowly to ensure that consumers receive the full protection contemplated by the CARD Act. 

Preemption

The lingering issue of how the CARD Act should be treated along with the patch-work of state gift card laws that regulate dormancy fees, inactivity charges or fees, service fees, expiration dates, or escheatment is addressed in the rules as well. State laws that provide greater protection for consumers than the CARD Act, are not preempted according to the rules. Because the question of what is meant by “greater protection” is still unclear, the rules provide a mechanism by which parties may request a preemption determination by the Board with respect to a particular state’s escheat law. Due to the ambiguity surrounding state gift card law preemption, gift card issuers and sellers should continue to track or consult legal counsel regarding current state gift card laws and pending legislation in all states. 

Information

Check back for future posts on the details of the rules, including posts specific to loyalty, award or promotional gift cards, fee and expiration date restrictions, disclosure requirements, and preemption analysis for state gift cards laws.

Kelley Drye Partner David Ervin contributed to this post. Click here for a post from the Kelley Drye Advertising Group's "Ad Law Access Blog" for further information regarding the Federal Reserve gift card rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate is expected to soon consider placing a fifty-cent per transaction cap on ATM fees, as an amendment to the financial reform bill. The proposed amendment, introduced last week by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), is an effort to regulate ATM fees by “ensur[ing] that fees charged to consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction.” By Senator Harkin’s calculations, each ATM transaction today costs only about 36 cents, yet on average, consumers pay an average of over $2.50 to use ATMs.

Whether there should be a cap on ATM fees has been a topic of debate for years. For a recent discussion of these opposing views, see the article Senators Push for a Cap of 50 Cents on ATM Fees, printed by AOL Daily Finance. On the one hand, consumer groups have lobbied for the elimination of ATM fees, arguing that it is unfair to charge consumers to access their own money. In addition, proponents of the amendment contend that banks and ATM operators are charging far above the amount of their operating and maintenance costs. 

On the other hand, critics of the amendment question whether banks are being unfairly targeted as a result of the current economic climate and wonder whether the proposed amendment would serve consumers’ bests interests. Capping fees could lead to independent ATM operator companies going out of business, the elimination of ATMs in less-traveled areas, the slowing of technological updates to ATMs, a ban on non-bank customers from using their ATMs, or increased charges for other bank services to offset bank losses.

Previous attempts by states to eliminate or limit ATM fees have been blocked by federal court rulings that local bans could not be imposed on banks with national charters.

We will keep you posted as the amendment makes its way through the Senate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit in Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc. held that denial of class certification does not eliminate subject matter jurisdiction in a case removed from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). You may remember that CAFA creates federal diversity jurisdiction over certain class actions in which at least one member of the class is a citizen of a different state from any defendant. The Seventh Circuit noted that jurisdiction attaches when a suit is filed as a class action, and that “invariably precedes certification.” This follows the general principle that jurisdiction once properly invoked is not lost by developments after a suit is filed, such as a change in the state of which a party is a citizen that destroys diversity. The Seventh Circuit held that remanding the case to state court would be contrary to the policy behind CAFA of relaxing the diversity requirements to allow parties to resolve interstate class action issues in federal courts.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit adopted this same approach in United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLV v. Shell Oil Company. As in Cunningham, the district court concluded it no longer had jurisdiction after denying class certification, and remanded the case, which had been removed under CAFA, to state court. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “[h]ad Congress intended that a properly removed class action be remanded if a class is not eventually certified, it could have said so.” The Ninth Circuit continued that it is more likely that Congress intended that the usual and long-standing principles apply – post-filing developments do not defeat jurisdiction if jurisdiction was properly invoked as of the time of filing.

The Eleventh Circuit in Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is the only other Circuit to have considered the issue.

This does not mean, however, that a class action can never be remanded to state court. According to the Seventh Circuit in Cunningham, if the plaintiff amends away jurisdiction in a subsequent pleading, the case can be dismissed. Similarly, if the plaintiff’s class allegations are completely frivolous, the district court can remand the case to state court.

These decisions allow corporate defendants to vigorously oppose class certification in interstate class actions without the fear that, if successful, the case may end up being resolved back in state court.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 26, 2010 the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. ruled in a divided 6-5 vote to affirm certification of a class of 500,000 current female employees of Wal-Mart Stores for alleged gender discrimination in their pay and promotion under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Wal-Mart had argued that the number of putative class members would be too large to defend. These female employees may now proceed in a nationwide class action.

In this decade old lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart pays women less than men in comparable positions even when the women have higher performance ratings and greater seniority and that the company gives women fewer promotions to in-store management positions and makes them wait longer than men for such promotions. The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart has a strong, centralized corporate structure that fosters gender stereotyping and discrimination in Wal-Mart’s 3,400 stores, that policies and practices supporting discrimination are consistent throughout all the stores, and that gender discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked for the company.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that a district court must rigorously analyze the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but warned district courts not to decide merits issues unnecessary to the Rule 23 requirements. Further, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that plaintiffs must adduce “significant proof” of commonality in order to satisfy Rule 23. Rather, plaintiffs need only put forth sufficient evidence to support a common question of law and fact. At first glance, the Ninth Circuit’s decision appears limited to putative class action cases involving discrimination under Title VII. However, it potentially may have much broader implications. The majority’s opinion may impact other employment and civil rights litigation, securities fraud litigation, product liability, and antitrust litigation. For example, a suit arising out of a small number of discrete incidents in a company with de-centralized management decision-making or de-centralized control but which also has centralized or common policies, may suffice for the “commonality” prerequisite under Rule 23(a)(2) because, under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, “significant proof” is not required to bridge the gap between individual actions and class-wide actions.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz released the FTC’s 2010 Annual Report, which focused largely on the FTC’s endeavors to defend financially distressed consumers and to spur competition during these tough economic times.

For example, the FTC, among other things, emphasized that while the past year’s economic downturn prompted companies to offer new services targeted towards those most in need, some of these companies failed to deliver on these services. The FTC obtained preliminary or temporary relief in all twenty-two federal lawsuits filed against operators who allegedly falsely asserted they would obtain a loan modification or halt a foreclosure on consumers’ behalf. Typically, the operator allegedly was paid a high initial fee by the consumer, and then did little or nothing to help to modify the loan or halt foreclosure.

In order to maximize its efforts, the FTC indicated that it has renewed its efforts to partner with state and local enforcement agencies. The FTC secured relief through its participation in ten mortgage fraud task forces all over the nation. For example, the FTC entered into an $8.5 million settlement with a foreclosure “rescue” company, which precludes the company from making representations about the likelihood that it could stop a foreclosure. The FTC had alleged that the company collected high fees from consumers often exceeding $1,000, but did not endeavor to help them to avoid foreclosure.

The FTC also announced that in settling five Federal Credit Reporting Act suits (four of which were against users of credit reports and one of which was against a Credit Reporting Agency), the FTC obtained $447,000 in civil penalties and $157,000 in suspended penalties. In two of these actions, the FTC alleged that the users made adverse employment decisions predicated on background checks without notifying them of their rights under the FCRA.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate, after spending last week engaged in procedural battles, will enter full scale debate this week on that chamber’s version of a financial reform package. This morning Congress Daily provided a brief preview of the debate. Several amendments affecting consumer protection are expected, including relating to the proposed new bureau to oversee consumer finance issues. As just one example, an effort to preserve federal preemption of state authority is certain to be renewed. To read one take on the consumer protection aspects of the bill, including as it relates to credit card reform and the role of the new consumer finance agency, check out a recent article from Forbes Magazine, which quotes Kelley Drye attorney and co-editor of this blog John McGuinness. As Mr. McGuinness notes, there is still significant ambiguity in the language and purpose of the consumer protection provisions that could lead to significant regulatory and litigation risk for consumer financial service providers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link