Settlement: Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement

Home > Settlements > Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement May 16 2013 San Francisco, CA: US District Judge William Alsup has issued an order to reinstate a $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo Bank. The judgment is based upon the court's findings, as affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, that Wells Fargo violated California's unfair competition law by deceiving its customers that debit card purchases would be posted chronologically to their accounts when in fact Wells Fargo posted them in a high-to-low order for the sole purpose of generating overdraft fees. The case before Judge Alsup was brought on behalf of California Wells Fargo customers who, from November 15, 2004 to June 30, 2008, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a result of the bank's practice of sequencing transactions from highest to lowest. On August 10, 2010, Judge Alsup issued a 90-page opinion finding that Wells Fargo manipulated its processing of customer debit card purchases by its California customers, and made misleading statements to consumers regarding is resequencing practice, to maximize overdraft fees in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. This practice had the greatest impact on the bank's low income customers because their accounts often had the smallest balances. As noted above, instead of posting transaction chronologically, Wells Fargo deducted the largest charges first, drawing down available balances more rapidly and triggering a higher volume of overdraft fees. Judge Alsup ordered that Wells Fargo return to its customers approximately $203 million in restitution and enjoined the abusive accounting practices. Judge Alsup's August 10, 2010, decision followed two and half years of extended litigation that culminated in a two-week bench trial which ended in May 2010. On September 9, 2010, Wells Fargo filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 26, 2012, the appellate court issued an opinion upholding and reversing portions of Judge Alsup's order, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The appellate court found the National Bank Act preempted application of state law to Wells Fargo's decision to use high-to-low posting. Importantly, the appellate court also found that false and misleading statements by Wells Fargo were not preempted and the bank could be held liable for affirmative misrepresentations in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. In his decision, Judge Alsup reinstated the judgment against Wells Fargo, finding: "This order is not penalizing Wells Fargo for a practice protected by federal preemption. Instead, it is penalizing Wells Fargo for affirmatively misleading the class as to what the practice was, namely engaging in a practice likely to mislead the class to believe that processing would be done in chronological order when, in fact, processing was done in high-to-low, non-chronological order." Overdraft Fees Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/wells-fargo-203m-overdraft-fees-class-action.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement

Home > Settlements > Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement April 17 2013 New York, NY: Bank of America has reached a settlement in the pending securities fraud class action http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange attorney-attorney-office lawsuit brought by investors who purchased mortgage investments from Countrywide Financial. BoFA acquired Countrywide in 2008. The proposed settlement would see BoFA pay $500 million to settle the lawsuit, which would be paid out to plaintiffs that include Dubai's Mashreq Bank and public and union pension funds in California, Maine, Nevada, Vermont and Washington states. The plaintiffs claimed they were misled about the risks of securities they bought from California-based Countrywide between 2005 and 2007. The settlement surpasses the $315 million accord reached with Merrill Lynch in May 2012, making it the largest to resolve federal class-action litigation over mortgage-backed securities since the financial crisis began. The accord requires court approval. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please click the link below. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/bank-of-america-reaches-500m-settlement-countrywide.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Ameriprise Agrees Preliminary Settlement in Securities America Investor Class Action

Home > Settlements > Ameriprise Agrees Preliminary Settlement in Securities America Investor Class Action Ameriprise Agrees Preliminary Settlement in Securities America Investor Class Action April 13 2011 New York, NY: A preliminary settlement has been reached by Ameriprise Financial and its brokerage unit, Securities America Inc, and clients who allege in they lost roughly $400 million on fraudulent private placements. The preliminary agreement would see Securities America pay $80 million, further to a separate agreement in which SA has agreed to pay $70 million. If approved, the settlement would mean a recovery of 40 cents on the dollar, after fees. If approved, the majority of the settlement will be paid by Ameriprise. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/ameriprise-agrees-preliminary-settlement-in.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement

Home > Settlements > Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement Bank of America Reaches $500M Settlement April visit here 17 2013 New York, NY: Bank of America has reached a settlement in the pending securities fraud class action lawsuit brought by investors who purchased mortgage investments from Countrywide Financial. BoFA acquired Countrywide in 2008. The proposed settlement would see BoFA pay $500 million to settle the lawsuit, which would be paid out to plaintiffs that include Dubai's Mashreq Bank and public and union pension funds in California, Maine, Nevada, Vermont and Washington states. The plaintiffs claimed they were misled about the risks of securities they bought from California-based Countrywide between 2005 and 2007. The settlement surpasses the $315 million accord reached with Merrill Lynch in May 2012, making it the largest to resolve federal class-action litigation over mortgage-backed securities since the financial crisis began. The accord requires court approval. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please click the link below. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/bank-of-america-reaches-500m-settlement-countrywide.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action

Home > Settlements > Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action June 15 2011 Miami, FL: A $54.4 Million settlement has been reached in a Chinese drywall lawsuit brought againt Banner Supply by homeowners in the Orlando area. The agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes south of Orlando. Some 7 million sheets of tainted drywall were imported from China between 2000 and 2009, according http://www.socallawsupport.com/ to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, most of which was supplied folllowing the devastating Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. According to Builderonline "at least 95 companies have been implicated as distributors in lawsuits filed against Chinese manufacturers accused of being the source of tainted drywall. Banner Supply tops the list, while others on it include such ProSales 100 companies as L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber. " While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it reportedly works out to between $18,000 and $24,000 for each of the 2,000 to 3,000 homes, however there are estimates which suggest the cost of repairing the affected homes could be as much as $100,000. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/banner-supply-agrees-to-pay-54-4-million-in-chinese.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face Illegal Debt Collection Class Action

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face my website Illegal Debt Collection Class Action Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face Illegal Debt Collection Class Action Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Las Vegas, NV: A foreclosure class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 16 Nevadans against five companies hired by banks and lenders to handle the foreclosures on properties owned by the plaintiffs and one additional defendant who purchased property through the foreclosure process. The lawsuit claims illegal debt collection activities and deceptive trade practices by the defendants against the plaintiffs during the foreclosure process as the defendants were not licensed or registered in the State of Nevada to carry out the foreclosure process. The plaintiffs are Nevadans who not only lost their houses in one of the hardest hit real estate markets, but were also adversely affected by foreclosure companies that did not follow the law during the foreclosure process. The lawsuit names as defendants: Quality Loan Service Corporation; Appleton Properties, LLC; MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps; Meridian Foreclosure Service dba MTDS, Inc. dba Meridian Trust Deed Service; National Default Servicing Corporation; and California Reconveyance Company. The lawsuit seeks to compensate the plaintiffs and compel the defendants to surrender all fees collected for many thousands of foreclosures during the time they were operating illegally. The case was filed as a class action lawsuit because there are thousands of potential plaintiffs who were victims of these foreclosure companies. The lawsuit alleges that the debt collection activities of the defendants are and/or were illegal and improper because each of the defendants did not hold a license to engage in debt collection activities in the State of Nevada and each also failed to register as a foreign debt collection agency with the Nevada Financial Institutions Division. The illegal and improper debt collection activities include the issuance of debt-related notices, demands, collection communications and/or foreclosure sales and processes. In addition, the plaintiffs also claim deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, trespass, quiet title and in two instances, elder abuse. Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and consequential damages in excess to $10,000, disgorgement of any amounts paid to defendants for their respective illegal and improper debt collection activities, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. Nevada Illegal Foreclosure Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/nevada-foreclosure-companies-class-action-illegal.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement

Home > Settlements > Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $203M in Overdraft Fees Class Action Settlement May 16 2013 San Francisco, CA: US District Judge William Alsup has issued an order to reinstate a $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo Bank. The judgment is based upon the court's findings, as affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, that Wells Fargo violated California's unfair competition law by deceiving its customers that debit card purchases would be posted chronologically to their accounts when in fact Wells Fargo posted them in a high-to-low order for the sole purpose of generating overdraft fees. The case before Judge Alsup was brought on behalf of California Wells Fargo customers who, from November 15, 2004 to June 30, 2008, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a result of the bank's practice of sequencing transactions from highest to lowest. On August 10, 2010, Judge Alsup issued a 90-page opinion finding that Wells Fargo manipulated its processing of customer debit card purchases by its California customers, and made misleading statements to consumers regarding is resequencing practice, to maximize overdraft fees in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. This practice had the greatest impact on the bank's low income customers because their accounts often had the smallest balances. As noted above, instead of posting transaction chronologically, Wells Fargo deducted the largest charges first, drawing down available balances more rapidly and triggering a higher volume of overdraft fees. Judge Alsup ordered that Wells Fargo return to its customers approximately $203 million in restitution and enjoined the abusive accounting practices. Judge Alsup's August 10, 2010, decision followed two and half years of extended litigation that culminated in a two-week bench trial which ended in May 2010. On September 9, 2010, Wells Fargo filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 26, 2012, the appellate court issued an opinion upholding and reversing portions of Judge Alsup's order, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The appellate court found the National Bank Act preempted application of state law to Wells Fargo's decision to use high-to-low posting. Importantly, the appellate court also found that false and misleading statements by Wells Fargo were http://www.socallawsupport.com/ not preempted and the bank could be held liable for affirmative misrepresentations in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. In his decision, Judge Alsup reinstated the judgment against Wells Fargo, finding: "This order is not penalizing Wells Fargo for a practice protected by federal preemption. Instead, it is penalizing Wells Fargo for affirmatively misleading the class as to what the practice was, namely engaging in a practice likely to mislead the class to believe that processing would be done in chronological order when, in fact, processing was done in high-to-low, non-chronological order." Overdraft Fees Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/wells-fargo-203m-overdraft-fees-class-action.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action

Home > Settlements > Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action June 15 2011 Miami, FL: A $54.4 Million settlement has been reached in a Chinese drywall lawsuit brought againt Banner Supply by homeowners in the Orlando area. The agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes http://www.socallawsupport.com/ south of Orlando. Some 7 million sheets of tainted drywall were imported from China between 2000 and 2009, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, most of which was supplied folllowing the devastating Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. According to Builderonline "at least 95 companies have been implicated as distributors in lawsuits filed against Chinese manufacturers accused of being the source of tainted drywall. Banner Supply tops the list, while others on it include such ProSales 100 companies as L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber. " While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it reportedly works out to between $18,000 and $24,000 for each of the 2,000 to 3,000 homes, however there are estimates which suggest the cost of repairing the affected homes could be as much as $100,000. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/banner-supply-agrees-to-pay-54-4-million-in-chinese.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action

Home > Settlements > Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action June 15 2011 Miami, FL: A $54.4 Million settlement has been reached in a Chinese drywall lawsuit brought againt Banner Supply by homeowners in the Orlando area. The agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes south of Orlando. Some 7 million sheets of tainted drywall were imported from China between 2000 and 2009, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, most of which was supplied folllowing the devastating Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. According to Builderonline "at least 95 companies have been implicated as distributors in lawsuits filed against Chinese manufacturers accused of being the source of tainted drywall. Banner Supply tops the list, while others on it include such ProSales 100 companies as L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber. " While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it reportedly works out to between $18,000 and $24,000 for each of the 2,000 to 3,000 homes, however there are estimates which suggest the cost of repairing the affected homes could be as much as $100,000. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/banner-supply-agrees-to-pay-54-4-million-in-chinese.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: Saxon Mortgage Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Use of HAMP

Home > Lawsuits > Saxon Mortgage Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Use of HAMP Saxon Mortgage Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Use of HAMP April 7 2011 San Francisco, CA: Saxon Mortgage Inc, the mortgage service division of Morgan Stanley, is Orange Attorney facing a a potential class action lawsuit alleging that the company uses the Homeowners Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to attract customers into making "trial" payments on loans it has no intention of ever permanently modifying. Filed in Northern California, the suit, titled Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services Inc, alleges a pattern of misconduct by Saxon of collecting trial payments, delaying the processing of loan modifications, and then denying the application altogether for demonstrably false reasons. According to the suit, Marie Gaudin, lead plaintiff and owner of a San Francisco bridal boutique that suffered hard times as a result of the recession brought on by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, asked Saxon for loan modification on her home. Gaudin was directed to Saxon's "Home Preservation Department" and subsequently asked to provide extensive documentation of her financial condition, which she did. She was assured by Saxon that they were "committed to assisting you in any way we can to complete the [the loan modification]. We want to help!" She received a written agreement from them that appeared to promise a permanent HAMP loan modification after she made three "trial" payments as proof she could handle the loan repayments. The complaint notes that Saxon instead delayed the processing of the HAMP loan modification, while urging Gaudin to continue making trial payments. However, after receiving numerous trial payments and fulfilling the rest of her obligations under the agreement Saxon denied her a permanent HAMP modification. They falsely claimed that Gaudin had failed to make payments or comply with document requests. Saxon's correspondence with Gaudin shows a pattern of inaccurate and irresponsible behavior on the part of a major global bank. The company claimed that she did not make payments, while in the same letter actually acknowledged that she was current on all payments. It also claimed that the U.S. Treasury Department was involved in reviewing HAMP applications. The class action alleges that Saxon's breach of contract, rescission and restitution, deceptive debt collection practices violated California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) and fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Saxon Mortgage HAMP Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this case, please fill in the form to the right and your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/saxon-mortgage-faces-class-action-illegal-use-of.html?ref=rss

Settlement: Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action

Home > Settlements > Banner Supply Agrees to http://www.socallawsupport.com/ Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action Banner Supply Agrees to Pay $54.4 Million in Chinese Drywall Class Action June 15 2011 Miami, FL: A $54.4 Million settlement has been reached in a Chinese drywall lawsuit brought againt Banner Supply by homeowners in the Orlando area. The agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes south of Orlando. Some 7 million sheets of tainted drywall were imported from China between 2000 and 2009, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, most of which was supplied folllowing the devastating Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. According to Builderonline "at least 95 companies have been implicated as distributors in lawsuits filed against Chinese manufacturers accused of being the source of tainted drywall. Banner Supply tops the list, while others on it include such ProSales 100 companies as L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber. " While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it reportedly works out to between $18,000 and $24,000 for each of the 2,000 to 3,000 homes, however there are estimates which suggest the cost of repairing the affected homes could be as much as $100,000. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in the form to the right. Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/banner-supply-agrees-to-pay-54-4-million-in-chinese.html?ref=rss

Settlement: $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement

Home Page >> Settlements >> $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Los Angeles, CA: A $3,907,000 settlement has been reached in an unfair business practices lawsuit brought against Wyndham, a time-share company. The settlement, which involves a $3,192,000 award for fraud and a $715,000 for breach of contract, among other things, was brought against Wyndam by Casablanca Express. Over a 19 year period, Casablanca Express and Wyndham built a business relationship whereby Casablanca helped Wyndham market and sell its timeshare products. At Wyndham's request, Casablanca worked almost exclusively for Wyndham. As part of the contract between the parties, Wyndham agreed to give Casablanca a "wind-down" severance agreement, whereby Wyndham would pay Casablanca for three years after terminating its relationship with Casablanca so as to allow Casablanca time to rebuild its business with other clients. Wyndham also promised to give Casablanca the right of first refusal on all travel certificates used by Wyndham. In October 2008, claiming it needed help during the recession, Wyndham requested that Casablanca waive the wind-down clause in exchange for promises of a long-term, growing and exclusive business relationship going forward. At the time Wyndham asked for the deletion of the wind-down clause Wyndham had secretly decided to cease doing business with Casablanca. Shortly after Casablanca agreed to delete the wind-down provision of the agreement (and give up other financial entitlements) in exchange for the promise of a long-term, growing and exclusive business relationship going forward, Wyndham abruptly ceased doing business with Casablanca. Loss of the value of the wind-down clause was valued at $6 million, and, lost profits on the breach of the right of first refusal provision of the contract in the amount of approximately $1 million. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please click the link below.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/3-9m-breach-of-contract-lawsuit-settlement.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face Illegal Debt Collection Class Action

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face Illegal Debt Collection Class Action Nevada Foreclosure Companies Face Illegal Debt Collection Class Action Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Las Vegas, NV: A foreclosure class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 16 Nevadans against five companies hired by banks and lenders to handle the foreclosures on properties owned by the plaintiffs and one additional defendant who purchased property through the foreclosure process. The lawsuit claims illegal debt collection activities and deceptive trade practices by the defendants against the plaintiffs during the foreclosure process as the defendants were not licensed or registered in the State of Nevada to carry out the foreclosure process. The plaintiffs are Nevadans who not only lost their houses in one of the hardest hit real estate markets, but were also adversely affected by foreclosure companies that did not follow the law during the foreclosure process. The lawsuit names as defendants: Quality Loan Service Corporation; Appleton Properties, LLC; MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps; Meridian Foreclosure Service dba MTDS, Inc. dba Meridian Trust Deed Service; National Default Servicing Corporation; and California Reconveyance Company. The lawsuit seeks to compensate the plaintiffs and compel the defendants to surrender all fees collected for many thousands of foreclosures during the time they were operating illegally. The case was filed as a class action lawsuit because there are thousands of potential plaintiffs who were victims of these foreclosure companies. The lawsuit alleges that the debt collection activities of the defendants are and/or were illegal and improper because each of the defendants did not hold a license to engage in debt collection activities in the State of Nevada and each also failed to register as a foreign debt collection agency with the Nevada Financial Institutions Division. The illegal and improper debt collection activities include the issuance of debt-related notices, demands, collection communications and/or foreclosure sales and processes. In addition, the plaintiffs also claim deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, trespass, quiet title and in two instances, elder abuse. Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and consequential damages in excess to $10,000, disgorgement of any amounts paid to defendants for their respective illegal and improper debt collection activities, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. Nevada Illegal Foreclosure Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/nevada-foreclosure-companies-class-action-illegal.html?ref=rss

Settlement: $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement

Home Page >> Settlements >> $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement $3.9M Breach of Contract Lawsuit Settlement Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Los Angeles, CA: A $3,907,000 settlement has been reached in an unfair business practices http://www.socallawsupport.com/ lawsuit brought against Wyndham, a time-share company. The settlement, which involves a $3,192,000 award for fraud and a $715,000 for breach of contract, among other things, was brought against Wyndam by Casablanca Express. Over a 19 year period, Casablanca Express and Wyndham built a business relationship whereby Casablanca helped Wyndham market and sell its timeshare products. At Wyndham's request, Casablanca worked almost exclusively for Wyndham. As part of the contract between the parties, Wyndham agreed to give Casablanca a "wind-down" severance agreement, whereby Wyndham would pay Casablanca for three years after terminating its relationship with Casablanca so as to allow Casablanca time to rebuild its business with other clients. Wyndham also promised to give Casablanca the right of first refusal on all travel certificates used by Wyndham. In October 2008, claiming it needed help during the recession, Wyndham requested that Casablanca waive the wind-down clause in exchange for promises of a long-term, growing and exclusive business relationship going forward. At the time Wyndham asked for the deletion of the wind-down clause Wyndham had secretly decided to cease doing business with Casablanca. Shortly after Casablanca agreed to delete the wind-down provision of the agreement (and give up other financial entitlements) in exchange for the promise of a long-term, growing and exclusive business relationship going forward, Wyndham abruptly ceased doing business with Casablanca. Loss of the value of the wind-down clause was valued at $6 million, and, lost profits on the breach of the right of first refusal provision of the contract in the amount of approximately $1 million. Legal Help If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please click the link below.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/3-9m-breach-of-contract-lawsuit-settlement.html?ref=rss