Posted by Allison Zieve on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Vindicating a simple principle in a case with a complex procedural background, the Court held unanimously today in Gelboim v. Bank of America that investors who sued banks for manipulating the globally influential LIBOR interest rate in violation of federal antitrust law had the right to take an appeal when their case was dismissed.
The basic point that parties who lose in a federal district court can appeal to a federal court of appeals had been obscured here by the use of a procedure to consolidate numerous similar cases for certain purposes in a single court before a single judge. This type of consolidated procedure is known as an "MDL" for "multi-district litigation." The plaintiffs in the case decided by the Supreme Court today (Gelboim) had had their case joined to several dozen others in an MDL. The district court dismissed the Gelboim case without dismissing all the various cases in the MDL. Since the Gelboim plaintiffs had lost and that decision was final as to them, they appealed, but the court of appeals said they had to wait until the rest of the MDL concluded, however long that might be. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals today, holding that -- MDL or no -- when parties lose their case and the decision is final as to them, they may appeal. So the Gelboim appeal will now be heared on the merits back in the court of appeals.
A good decision for access to justice. You can read it here.
Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The President highlighted consumer issues several times in his speech tonight. Here's some of the relevant text:
On middle class economics: "[A]t every moment of economic change throughout our history, this country has taken bold action to adapt to new circumstances, and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot. We set up worker protections, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity. We gave our citizens schools and colleges, infrastructure and the internet — tools they needed to go as far as their effort will take them. That’s what middle-class economics is — the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:09 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy, Credit Cards, Student Loans | Permalink | Comments (0)
...is the title of this op-ed from the NYT over the weekend. The piece highlights a recent Pew study finding that most wealthy Americans think that poor people have it easy then debunks that myth with some sobering numbers. These include the fact that an estimated 11 million Americans work without making enough to move out of poverty, and the fact the poorest fifth of American pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than the wealthiest fifth. Another eye-popping number is the cost of being "unbanked" (i.e., not served by a financial institution), as many low-income Americans are: the article quotes a study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve calculating that when you add up the costs associated with cashing checks and buying money orders, a household with a net income of $20,000 might pay 6% of its income in fees. The steep cost of transportation for low-income individuals and the outsize effect of court fees and fines for minor offenses also contribute to the difficulties of being poor in America, as the article describes.
Posted by Scott Michelman on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
by Jeff Sovern
In our casebook, we quote a 1982 article that reports on a credit scoring system that took into account, in calculating the score, the first letter of the applicant's last name. Credit scoring has evolved since then but maybe history is repeating itself or at least rhyming. Today's Times includes an article, Banking Start-Ups Adopt New Tools for Lending, that opens:
When bankers of the future decide whether to make a loan, they may look to see if potential customers use only capital letters when filling out forms, or at the amount of time they spend online reading terms and conditions — and not so much at credit history.
The article reports on what are essentially credit scoring systems that identify characteristics that correlate with paying back loans. The article also discusses how these new big data systems run the risk of discriminating in violation of ECOA, and the fact that one of those involved, Raj Date, was once one of the key figures in the CFPB.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, January 19, 2015 at 09:14 PM in Credit Reporting & Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (0)
The latest FTC settlement with a company that was deceiving consumers requires the company and its head "to turn over virtually all of their assets to the agency, and prohibit[s] them from deceiving consumers in any future sales pitches." The FTC reports:
Cream Group, Inc., which operates as Oro Marketing, and its mastermind Sami Charchian have agreed to a permanent ban on telemarketing to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they targeted Spanish-speaking women with false promises that they could make money reselling brand-name goods, such as Gucci and Ralph Lauren.
The agency alleged that, far from fulfilling their promises, the California-based defendants charged hundreds of dollars up-front for shoddy, generic products. ...
“These defendants preyed on people who were just trying to make an honest living,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Consumers are better off now that the defendants are out of the telemarketing business.”
The FTC's full press statement and links to the complaint and final order are available here.
Posted by Allison Zieve on Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Washington Post reports.
Posted by Scott Michelman on Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Check out Meredith v. CVS Health, a lawsuit just filed in California state court. The suit alleges that CVS promotes a nutritional supplement to help treat or prevent macular degeneration based on a National Institutes for Health study, even though the supplement doesn't contain the ingredients that NIH found might be beneficial. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved in the suit. Go here to see what CSPI has to say.
Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Here. The subtitle reads: Consumer-Debt Adviser Howard Dvorkin Has Financial Links to Firms Such as Payday Lenders That Often Drive People Deeper into Debt.
And here's the beginning of the article:
One of the most prominent advocates for consumer debt relief has ties to firms that can leave people deeper in debt.
Howard S. Dvorkin is the founder and former president of Consolidated Credit Counseling Services Inc., a nonprofit that says it has helped more than five million Americans get their borrowing under control. Mr. Dvorkin says he has personally counseled at least 40,000 people on reducing their debt and navigating bankruptcy.
Mr. Dvorkin also owns interests in businesses that provide services to payday lenders, a Wall Street Journal review found.
(HT: Mark Budnitz)
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 03:06 PM in Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0)
Last month, we recommended an NPR story discussing the problem of collections against low-income hospital patients.
In response to this problem (as reported by the New York Times), "The Obama administration has adopted sweeping new rules to discourage nonprofit hospitals from using aggressive tactics to collect payments from low-income patients. Under the rules, nonprofit hospitals must now offer discounts, free care or other financial assistance to certain needy patients. Additionally, hospitals must try to determine whether a patient is eligible for assistance before they refer a case to a debt collector, send negative information to a credit agency, place a lien on a patient’s home, file a lawsuit or seek a court order to seize a patient’s earnings."
Read more here.
Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 03:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)