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)

The firm was co-lead counsel.  This case was brought about in May of 2006 against Yahoo! on behalf of pay-per-click search advertising customers who claim Yahoo! breached its contract by allowing Yahoo! ads to be displayed in spyware, domain name parking sites (also known as bulk registration sites), pop-ups, pop-unders, and typosquatting sites. After participating in four mediation sessions the parties finally reached a settlement of this class action, documentation found below:

Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

212 F.R.D. 271 (E.D. Pa. 2002)

The Firm is co-counsel in this class action involving 10,000 Pennsylvania consumers against Kia Motors America, Inc. The class claims arise from a systematic defective brake system in Kia Sephia automobiles, model years 1995-2001.

Court Orders & Opinions:

Memorandum and Order Approving Class Certification  September 17, 2004

Judge Bernstein’s Post Trial Opinion  December 29, 2006

Pennsylvania Superior Court Opinion October 24, 2007

Judge Bernstein’s Opinion and Findings of Facts  November 14, 2007

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion  December 2, 2011

Notice to Class : Notice to Class Members in Bassett v. KIA

2003 WL 1847695 (Pa. Com. Pl. January 15, 2003)

The Firm is co-counsel to the plaintiff and class in this action to recover unpaid wages earned by Wal-Mart employees for overtime work and missed or shortened meal and break periods. Plaintiff has obtained a court ruling prohibiting Wal-Mart from conducting ex parte interviews with current and former employees who are class members. Discovery is currently proceeding.  On December 27, 2005, the Court certified a class consisting of all current and former Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania from 1998 through the present.   Trial is scheduled for September 5, 2006 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  To view the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and other pertinent materials, please click on the links below.

Complaint:  Braun v. Walmart

Briefs:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court:  Brief of Appellees  March 22, 2013
United States Supreme Court:  Brief in Opposition  April 20, 2015

Court Orders & Opinions:
Court of Common Pleas – Order Approving Class Certification  December 27, 2005
Judge Bernstein’s Opinion on Damages  October 3, 2007
Judge Bernstein’s Order, Opinion and Findings of Fact  November 14, 2007

Pennsylvania Superior Court Opinion  June 10, 2011

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion  December 15, 2014

United States Supreme Court Denies Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari  April 4, 2016

Notice to Class:  Notice to Class

Gillis v. Respond Power, LLC

This case arises from a deceptive scheme perpetrated by Defendant Respond Power LLC. Respond is an Electric Generation Supplier (EGS) in Pennsylvania that uniformly mis-portrays the contractual rates it can and will charge to consumers by omitting material facts and deceiving reasonable consumers as to the actual risks, costs, charges, and savings a reasonable consumer will realize (and should reasonably expect to realize) after switching from his or her local regulated electric utility to Respond.

These omissions led to consumer’s to believe they were protected from any future rate increases being greater than what they were being charged by their current utility, when in fact Respond would end up charging consumer’s up to 3x their previous regulated electric utility rate.

Respond ended up having their Motion to Dismiss Granted by the District Court but the case was then appealed to the Third Circuit.  After briefing/argument was complete the Third Circuit released their opinion concluding that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in denying class certification.  Therefore the Third Circuit vacated the District Courts order denying class certification and remand for further proceedings.

Third Circuit Opinion