Law Suit Filed: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Newport Beach, CA: A consumer fraud class action filed against JPMorgan Chase alleges the bank routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges. The lawsuit, filed by Ernest Michael Bakenie, states "Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs'); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players." Bakenie further claims that Chase's "pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players" resulted in the bank securing motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases. According to the lawsuit, an extensive network of attorneys working for Chase filed more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs." The lawsuit also claims that Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans. Essentially, the lawsuit claims, "Rather than incur the cost of 'proving up' its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents. " The lawsuit also claims "That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by Washington Mutual (WAMU) and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer. Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU to MBST bond investors." Bakenie seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, disgorgement and "an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase's misrepresentation and deceptive business practices". Chase Bankruptcy Fraud 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/jpmorgan-chase-fraud-bankruptcy-filings-lawsuit.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Newport Beach, CA: A consumer fraud best site class action filed against JPMorgan Chase alleges the bank routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges. The lawsuit, filed by Ernest Michael Bakenie, states "Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs'); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players." Bakenie further claims that Chase's "pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players" resulted in the bank securing motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases. According to the lawsuit, an extensive network of attorneys working for Chase filed more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs." The lawsuit also claims that Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans. Essentially, the lawsuit claims, "Rather than incur the cost of 'proving up' its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents. " The lawsuit also claims "That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by Washington Mutual (WAMU) and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer. Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU to MBST bond investors." Bakenie seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, disgorgement and "an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase's misrepresentation and deceptive business practices". Chase Bankruptcy Fraud 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/jpmorgan-chase-fraud-bankruptcy-filings-lawsuit.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Newport Beach, CA: A consumer fraud class action filed against JPMorgan Chase alleges the bank routinely fabricated http://www.socallawsupport.com/ documents to deceive bankruptcy judges. The lawsuit, filed by Ernest Michael Bakenie, states "Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs'); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players." Bakenie further claims that Chase's "pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players" resulted in the bank securing motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases. According to the lawsuit, an extensive network of attorneys working for Chase filed more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs." The lawsuit also claims that Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans. Essentially, the lawsuit claims, "Rather than incur the cost of 'proving up' its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents. " The lawsuit also claims "That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by Washington Mutual (WAMU) and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer. Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU to MBST bond investors." Bakenie seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, disgorgement and "an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase's misrepresentation and deceptive business practices". Chase Bankruptcy Fraud 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/jpmorgan-chase-fraud-bankruptcy-filings-lawsuit.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 http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange attorney-attorney-office 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: 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 Orange Lawyer 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: Historic $10M Settlement Reached in Debt Collection Class Action

Home > Settlements > Historic $10M Settlement Reached in Debt Collection Class Action Historic $10M Settlement Reached in Debt Collection Class Action September 12 2011 Greenville, SC: Thousands of people have been forgiven their debts in a historical unfair business class action settlement reached Friday in Maryland. The class action lawsuit was brought by Jason Hauk and Freddy Velazquez who led the class action suit, against LVNV Funding LLC, a Greenville, SC-based company that buys consumer debt. According to the terms of the settlement some 3,500 people in the class will receive about $2000 each, for a total of http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange-attorney-office $7 million. The total settlement forgives about $10 million in debt, according to filings in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. Further, LVNV will not pursue the 3,500 debtors in order to collect the debt, nor will they be able to sell those debts to other third party collection agencies. And LVNV have to remove information it gave to the major credit bureaus for each of those debtors, a step taken to improve their credit ratings. The settlement is being hailed as historic, and a major win for the class. 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/debt-collection-class-action-law.html?ref=rss

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

Home > Settlements > Ameriprise Agrees Preliminary Settlement http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange-attorney-office 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

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 review 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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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: Fisker employment lawsuit

Home > Lawsuits > Fisker employment lawsuit Fisker Faces Employment Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violations April 9 2013 Houston, TX: An employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisker Automotive for failure to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are in violation of US and California labor laws. Specifically, the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under http://www.socallawsupport.com/ California state law. The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California's state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County. Fisker Employment Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries, 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. Last updated April 9 2013 Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/Fisker-Employment-Class-Action-Lawsuit.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 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

Law Suit Filed: Fisker employment lawsuit

Home > Lawsuits > Fisker employment lawsuit Fisker Faces Employment Orange Lawyer Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violations April 9 2013 Houston, TX: An employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisker Automotive for failure to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are in violation of US and California labor laws. Specifically, the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under California state law. The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California's state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County. Fisker Employment Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries, 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. Last updated April 9 2013 Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/Fisker-Employment-Class-Action-Lawsuit.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: Fisker employment lawsuit

Home > Lawsuits > Fisker employment lawsuit Fisker Faces Employment Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violations April 9 2013 Houston, TX: An employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisker Automotive for failure to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are in violation of US and California labor laws. Specifically, the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under California state law. The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California's state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County. Fisker Employment Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries, 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. Last updated April 9 2013 Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/Fisker-Employment-Class-Action-Lawsuit.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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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: 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 Orange Lawyer 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: 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: 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 Orange Lawyer 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: $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

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

Law Suit Filed: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings

What are you looking for? Home Page >> Lawsuits Filed >> Lawsuit: JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings JPMorgan Chase Accused of Fraud in Bankruptcy Filings Please click here for a free evaluation of your claim Newport Beach, CA: A consumer fraud class action filed against JPMorgan Chase alleges the bank routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges. The lawsuit, filed by Ernest Michael Bakenie, states "Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs'); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players." Bakenie further claims that Chase's "pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players" resulted in the bank securing motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases. According to the lawsuit, an extensive network of attorneys working for Chase filed more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange attorney-attorney-office be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs." The lawsuit also claims that Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans. Essentially, the lawsuit claims, "Rather than incur the cost of 'proving up' its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents. " The lawsuit also claims "That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by Washington Mutual (WAMU) and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer. Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU to MBST bond investors." Bakenie seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, disgorgement and "an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase's misrepresentation and deceptive business practices". Chase Bankruptcy Fraud 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/jpmorgan-chase-fraud-bankruptcy-filings-lawsuit.html?ref=rss

Law Suit Filed: Fisker employment lawsuit

Home > Lawsuits > Fisker employment lawsuit Fisker Faces Employment Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violations April 9 2013 Houston, TX: An employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisker Automotive for failure to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are in violation of US and California labor laws. Specifically, the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under California state law. The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California's state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County. Fisker Employment Class Action Legal Help If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries, please fill in the form to the right and Orange Lawyer your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation. Last updated April 9 2013 Submit Claim
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/Fisker-Employment-Class-Action-Lawsuit.html?ref=rss

Bridge City High School Student of the Month announced

Throughout the school year, 7th through 10th grade members of Community Christian School's Robotics Club met weekly to design and build robots to perform various activities. June 2, 2013 1 Photo Members of the Orange County Retired Teachers Association visited West Orange–Stark Elementary earlier this month to deliver cookies in honor of Teacher Appreciation Day. June 2, 2013 1 Photo Baylor's George W. Truett Theological Seminary held its commencement ceremony at 6 p.m. Friday, May 17, at First Baptist Church in Waco. June 2, 2013 Mauriceville Elementary fifth grade teacher, Mary Kay Berndt, also sponsors the school's student council, made up of fourth and fifth grade representatives. June 1, 2013 1 Photo Local schools announce Valedictorian and Salutatorian June 1, 2013 11 Photos School lunch prices are on the rise once again at many local school districts. June 1, 2013 1 Photo St.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://Orange Attorneyleader.com/ourschools/x240786817/Bridge-City-High-School-Student-of-the-Month-announced

Charges unlikely for Newburgh's ex-City Manager Herbek

Anonymous visitors to recordonline.com can access up to 3 premium articles per calendar month. Users who become free registered users of recordonline.com can access up to 10 premium articles per month. Access to additional premium content requires a paid subscription. To register or subscribe, please visit recordonline.com/subscribe on a desktop or laptop computer Premium recordonline.com content is available to sample on a limited basis. Learn more about registering or subscribing to increase your access.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130601/NEWS/306010305/-1/NEWS07

East Orange police seek class action suit, claim $8M in unpaid overtime

24, 2009. Several officers complained in the suit that the police department simply takes attendance and "does not keep accurate track of the time that the officers work." The suit claims that the city violated federal statutes under the Fair Labor Standard Act by requiring hourly paid officers like Stephen Rochester to start work before the start of his shift and stay after his shift ended. Rochester and officers Jermaine Wilkins and Raymond Donnerstag are named as the three lead plaintiffs in the suit, which was initially filed Sept. 24, 2012. East Orange officials responded by saying they would "seek to dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety." "The City values the hard work and contribution of the dedicated members of the East Orange Police Department," the city said in a statement. "Certain officers have filed a lawsuit alleging that they are entitled to additional overtime compensation.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/06/east_Orange Attorney_police_seek_class.html

Video of Los Alamitos City Council meeting on May 20

To receive a daily email summary of the news, subscribe to our free daily feed ! About the Author This author is used when OC Breeze publishes news releases from other organizations.   (Click above for our June 2013 print issue.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.) (Click above for more information.)   More to read every day   Groundbreaking ceremony for new all-weather track at Los Al A giant step in a process that began over 12 years ago was made yesterday afternoon when the Los Al School District held a groundbreaking ceremony for the new lighted all-weather track and synthetic turf athletic complex on the Los Al HS site. Despite some challenges posed by the existing baseball field and the student parking lot, the new facility, which wi […] GIRLS SOCCER: Griffins down Marina in Sunset opener The Los Al Griffins girls soccer team ended their Holiday vacation with a 2-0 win over the Marina Vikings in the Sunset League opener for both teams. Senior midfielder Hannah Goldsmith and senior forward Rachel Price both scored first half goals for Los Al.  It was Goldsmith's third goal of the season. The Griffins. who have been beset by injuries in the pas […] BOYS WATER POLO: Jarrels leads Griffin in post-season honors Five Los Al Griffins boys water polo players earned post-season honors on the All-Sunset league team. The Griffin award winners were led by senior Chandler Jarrells who made the all-Orange County team,  all-CIF and all-Sunset League.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.oc-breeze.com/2013/05/31/33827_video-of-los-alamitos-city-council-meeting-on-may-20/

Q&A with Sunil Taneja, Orange City hotelier

The crowd you get for jazz isn't a drinking crowd. They'll order a glass of wine or whiskey and sip on it. But, you have to raise the bar. There has to be class. I don't mind (the expense). I'll let this thing run for as long as I can. It might not give us a return for another six months or eight months, but there has to be a place where people can say, "Let's have a nice evening (out)." The Heritage Inn in Orange City, seen here prior to its December sale, has undergone numerous changes under ownership by Sunil Taneja. News-JournalOnline.com June 1, 2013 4:42 PM

ORANGE CITY — Sunil Taneja bought the 1876 Heritage Inn hotel here for $1.05 million in December.

Since then, Taneja has made numerous improvements to the historic Southwest Volusia hotel, which was built in the 1870s and once carried the nickname the "White Elephant."

Since buying the 37-room hotel at 300 S.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20130602/BUSINESS/305309986/1024/business

SENIOR LIFESTYLES: Orange City Woman's Club hosts district gathering

It joined the General Federation in 1898. It is a non-profit volunteer, service organization whose purpose is to promote and provide civic, educational and charitable activities.

Florida is in the Southern Region and is divided into 14 districts. District 6 extends through Brevard, Flagler and Volusia counties. The Florida state headquarters is located in Lakeland.

Historically, the clubwomen worked on projects that led to the passage of laws affecting child labor compulsory education and fire protection in the schools.

Another of their concerns had to do with free ranging cattle.

"It took 55 years to rid cattle roaming streets, lawns and gardens,'' said O'Toole.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20130530/NEWS09/130529737

Roos haunted in a nightmare of a game

"It's huge on a day like today," Hamson said of his side's home ground advantage, with Pride Park resembling a mud bath in patches. "We probably get conditions like this twice a week. I don't think Dubbo enjoyed it too much at all." Orange City defied the early rain and slippery ball in the opening six minutes, throwing caution to the wind to eventually crack Dubbo's defence through lanky winger Jackson Coote, sliding in for the home side's first five-pointer. Duncan Young missed the conversion from the sideline, then, 10 minutes later, missed a relatively simple penalty attempt from in front of the posts to see the score remain 5-0. Josh Dodd soon posted Roos' first points, slotting his own penalty attempt to take the score to 5-3. The two-point difference remained until just after halftime when fullback Sam Dwyer found a gap, again out wide, to post first points for City in the second half.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1543375/roos-haunted-in-a-nightmare-of-a-game/

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 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 http://cortrightlaw.com/location/orange attorney-attorney-office 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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

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 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 http://www.socallawsupport.com/ 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