US Bank is a national provider of credit cards and other financial services directed at consumers through various forms of solicitation. Each card was issued with specific terms and agreements, however US Bank decided the terms were not sufficient and so they enacted a “change in terms”, specifically altering way APR was calculated. As a result US Bank cardholders have brought suit for violations of the Truth in Lending Act which mandates that credit card solicitations disclose, clearly and conspicuously, all required cost of credit information. Their TLA violations include a lack of disclosure that APR was not determined by calculating “Prime +1%”, but instead by adding a “margin” to the prime rate, “margins” range from 9.99% for purchases to 14.99% for cash advances. Additionally their “change in terms” took on a more deceptive role allowing for US Bank to conduct a subjective review of a cardholder’s credit score or report in order to adjust (raise) their APR. The suit seeks damages both actual and treble along with restitution of the revenue US Bank attained illegally.

Amended Complaint

The defendant companies are:

• Chicago Title Insurance Company
• Conestoga Title Insurance Company
• Guarantee Title and Trust Company
• Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
• Stewart Title Guaranty Company

This consumer class action arises out of Defendants’ illegal sale of “‘Premium Care’ Theft-Gard” (“PCTG”). The PCTG is an aftermarket product distributed, sold and administered by Defendant Alexico Corporation (“Alexico”). It is then sold directly to consumers by the remaining Defendants, each of which is a Pennsylvania car dealer who eitherbrokers the sale on behalf of the consumer or as Alexico’s “Theft-Gard Representative.” The PCTG itself includes the etching of an arbitrary number into the windows of the vehicle to purportedly deter theft while offering a $3,000 indemnity benefit if the covered vehicle is stolen and not recovered. Plaintiff herein contends that the PCTG is insurance that is illegally sold by Defendants, who have not registered as insurance agents or submitted the PCTG to the Insurance Department for rate review and approval. In addition, Defendants misrepresent the PCTG to be a form of “warranty,” but they fail to include the required disclosures under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), and thereby violate that Act if the PCTG is considered to be a “warranty” or “service contract” within the meaning of the MMWA. Regardless of its characterization, the PCTG, as marketed and sold by Defendants, is an unfair and deceptive act or practice.

Complaint: Alexico Arbitration Complaint

The Firm represents Pennsylvania and Illinois borrowers in class action litigation against Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase alleging that the banks failed to comply with their obligations to modify borrowers’ mortgages under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program  (“HAMP”).  Both cases have been consolidated with other class actions filed throughout the country and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Cases:

IN RE: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation
(Case No. 1:11-md-02290-RGS)

IN RE: Bank of America HAMP Contract Litigation
(Case No. 10-md-2193-RWZ)