A press release from HR&S Claims Administration foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator details more about the recent court settlement by Visa, MasterCard and others over foreign currency transactions. Details about who is eligible for settlement refunds and exact billing disclosures have yet to be announced. The full text of the press release reads as follows and is available as a .PDF from CCFSettlement.com.
A nationwide settlement agreement has been reached in a consolidated federal class action lawsuit about use of certain payment cards for foreign transactions, In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409). The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval. The parties will submit the settlement agreement to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.
The lawsuit concerns the prices that cardholders foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator of Visa- and MasterCard-branded credit and debit/ATM cards, and Diners Club cards, have been charged to make transactions denominated in a foreign currency or with a foreign merchant. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, disclosure laws, and other legal requirements. The defendants deny any wrongdoing. The Court has not made any ruling on the merits of the case. Settlement was reached following years of litigation, after extensive negotiations, and with the assistance of a mediator.
Under the settlement, defendants will pay $336 million to create a settlement fund to pay monetary claims by eligible cardholders, the costs of administering the settlement and notice to cardholders, and any Court-approved fees and expenses to attorneys for the class and awards to the class representatives. The settlement also includes provisions relating to disclosures on billing statements and other documents. Implementation of the claims process will involve a third party administrator.
Defendants in the case include Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, Bank One/First USA, Chase, Citibank, Diners Club, HSBC/Household, MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian. Card accounts covered by the settlement include brands such as Visa, Interlink, Plus, MasterCard, Cirrus, and Maestro.
The settlement documents also include agreements to settle certain related lawsuits, including Schwartz v. Visa, No. 822404-4 (Alameda Cty., CA). If this settlement is approved, claims in those and other related lawsuits will be extinguished.
7 feb. 2010
$336 million settlement in credit card currency conversion case
A nationwide settlement agreement has been reached in a consolidated federal class action lawsuit about use of certain payment cards for foreign transactions, In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409). The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval. The parties will submit the settlement agreement to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.
The lawsuit concerns the prices that cardholders of Visa- and MasterCard-branded credit and debit/ATM cards, and Diners Club cards, have been charged to make transactions denominated in a foreign currency or with a foreign merchant. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, disclosure laws, and other legal requirements. The defendants deny any wrongdoing. The Court has not made any ruling on the merits of the case. Settlement was reached following years of litigation, after extensive negotiations, and with the assistance of a mediator.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator New York will be asked to give its preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. If the Court does so, further details about the proposed settlement will be published on Settlement Web Page. They will also be available by calling 800-945-9890.
Under the settlement, defendants will pay $336 million to create a settlement fund to pay monetary claims by eligible cardholders, the costs of administering the settlement and notice to cardholders, and any Court-approved fees and expenses to attorneys for the class and awards to the class representatives. The settlement also includes provisions relating to disclosures on billing statements and other documents. Implementation of the claims process will involve a third party administrator foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.
Defendants in the case include Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, Bank One/First USA, Chase, Citibank, Diners Club, HSBC/Household, MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian. Card accounts covered by the settlement include brands such as Visa, Interlink, Plus, MasterCard, Cirrus, and Maestro.
The settlement documents also include agreements to settle certain related lawsuits, including Schwartz v. Visa, No. 822404-4 (Alameda County, CA). If this settlement is approved, claims in those and other related lawsuits will be extinguished.
The lawsuit concerns the prices that cardholders of Visa- and MasterCard-branded credit and debit/ATM cards, and Diners Club cards, have been charged to make transactions denominated in a foreign currency or with a foreign merchant. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, disclosure laws, and other legal requirements. The defendants deny any wrongdoing. The Court has not made any ruling on the merits of the case. Settlement was reached following years of litigation, after extensive negotiations, and with the assistance of a mediator.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator New York will be asked to give its preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. If the Court does so, further details about the proposed settlement will be published on Settlement Web Page. They will also be available by calling 800-945-9890.
Under the settlement, defendants will pay $336 million to create a settlement fund to pay monetary claims by eligible cardholders, the costs of administering the settlement and notice to cardholders, and any Court-approved fees and expenses to attorneys for the class and awards to the class representatives. The settlement also includes provisions relating to disclosures on billing statements and other documents. Implementation of the claims process will involve a third party administrator foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.
Defendants in the case include Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, Bank One/First USA, Chase, Citibank, Diners Club, HSBC/Household, MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian. Card accounts covered by the settlement include brands such as Visa, Interlink, Plus, MasterCard, Cirrus, and Maestro.
The settlement documents also include agreements to settle certain related lawsuits, including Schwartz v. Visa, No. 822404-4 (Alameda County, CA). If this settlement is approved, claims in those and other related lawsuits will be extinguished.
Legal Lawyers- foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator
Whether you’re looking for a criminal attorney, a divorce attorney, a personal injury attorney or another type, you want to make sure you find the right attorney for you. As you research, you are likely to find that attorneys very in specialty. In other words you aren’t likely to find one attorney that is the best there is in every category of the law.
Because of this you’ll want to make sure you find an attorney that specializes in the area where you need the help. foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.
Because of this you’ll want to make sure you find an attorney that specializes in the area where you need the help. foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.
Government favours strengthening RTI Act, defends CAT foreign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator
NEW DELHI - The union government Sunday said it is moving to amend and strengthen the country’s Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 to bring in more transparency in the government’s functioning and to help resolve grievances of officials.
“The historic Right to Information Act, 2005, has brought great transparency in governance,” said Minister of State for Personnel and Pubic Grievances Prithviraj Chavan.
“We are taking further steps to improve the Right to Information Act, 2005, to strengthen it to increase proactive disclosure, so that most of the information except national security and personal privacy related information would be in the public domain,” added the minister, while addressing the annual All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT).
The conference was organised to mark the silver jubilee year of establishment of CAT in Nov 1, 1985.
Addressing the conference, Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan took note of the growing criticism and demand to abolish CAT as all the rulings of the country’s quasi-judicial tribunal to resolve the grievances of government employees are liable to be challenged before the high courts, adding to one more tier of litigation.
“Critics have argued that since all orders of the CAT benches can be questioned before the high courts following the L. Chandra Kumar decision, they have been rendered redundant and hence there is a case for their abolition,” the CJI said.
The CJI, however, favoured continuation of the CAT. “In light of the L. Chandra Kumar decision, it is desirable to continue with the administrative tribunals, despite the power of the high courts to scrutinize their decisions.”
When CAT was established, it was envisaged that its ruling would not be challenged before any high court. Some state high courts subsequently held that they have constitutional right to hear the appeal against CAT’s ruling. This was later upheld by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar’s case.
“For one, if its decisions were not questioned before the high court, it would definitely contribute to the piling up of service-disputes before the Supreme Court,” the CJI pointed out.
“Furthermore, many litigants with limited means would find it difficult to approach the Supreme Court in the event of unfavourable decisions by the tribunals. For such litigants, the high court is the next and most easily accessible forum for seeking a remedy against the decisions of the CAT,” he pointed out.
“It must be noted at this point that an overwhelming majority of the decisions given by the benches of the CAT are upheld by the respective high courts,” said the CJI.
“Therefore,” he added, “if the quality of decisions given by the tribunals is of a high standard, then the additional layer of scrutiny by the high courts is not an adequate ground for doing away with the tribunals altogetherforeign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.”
“The historic Right to Information Act, 2005, has brought great transparency in governance,” said Minister of State for Personnel and Pubic Grievances Prithviraj Chavan.
“We are taking further steps to improve the Right to Information Act, 2005, to strengthen it to increase proactive disclosure, so that most of the information except national security and personal privacy related information would be in the public domain,” added the minister, while addressing the annual All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT).
The conference was organised to mark the silver jubilee year of establishment of CAT in Nov 1, 1985.
Addressing the conference, Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan took note of the growing criticism and demand to abolish CAT as all the rulings of the country’s quasi-judicial tribunal to resolve the grievances of government employees are liable to be challenged before the high courts, adding to one more tier of litigation.
“Critics have argued that since all orders of the CAT benches can be questioned before the high courts following the L. Chandra Kumar decision, they have been rendered redundant and hence there is a case for their abolition,” the CJI said.
The CJI, however, favoured continuation of the CAT. “In light of the L. Chandra Kumar decision, it is desirable to continue with the administrative tribunals, despite the power of the high courts to scrutinize their decisions.”
When CAT was established, it was envisaged that its ruling would not be challenged before any high court. Some state high courts subsequently held that they have constitutional right to hear the appeal against CAT’s ruling. This was later upheld by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar’s case.
“For one, if its decisions were not questioned before the high court, it would definitely contribute to the piling up of service-disputes before the Supreme Court,” the CJI pointed out.
“Furthermore, many litigants with limited means would find it difficult to approach the Supreme Court in the event of unfavourable decisions by the tribunals. For such litigants, the high court is the next and most easily accessible forum for seeking a remedy against the decisions of the CAT,” he pointed out.
“It must be noted at this point that an overwhelming majority of the decisions given by the benches of the CAT are upheld by the respective high courts,” said the CJI.
“Therefore,” he added, “if the quality of decisions given by the tribunals is of a high standard, then the additional layer of scrutiny by the high courts is not an adequate ground for doing away with the tribunals altogetherforeign currency antitrust litigation settlement administrator.”
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)