Class Actions Blog

Archive for the ‘Class Action Facts’ Category

SEC Commissioner suggests that SEC will allow corporations to put mandatory arbitration clauses into their charters to avoid shareholder securities fraud class actions

Posted on: August 29th, 2017 by Steve Larson

A brief remark from SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar during a July 17, 2017, Q&A suggests that he believes the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission might soon allow companies to introduce mandatory arbitration clauses into their corporate charters. If the SEC were to allow such an action, required arbitration would have a fundamental, adverse effect on the ability of investors to protect themselves against wrongdoing by corporations and their directors and officers. If mandatory arbitration were to be widely adopted, investors could be prohibited from asserting claims in federal court under the federal securities laws, which would effectively result in the loss of the very protections that these laws were designed to provide.

Read more…

Share

Economic Policy Institute issues report saying average consumer does better in a class action than in arbitration

Posted on: August 1st, 2017 by Steve Larson

The Economic Policy Institute just released a fact sheet debunking industry claims that consumers recover more money in arbitration than class actions. They re-examined data from the CFPB study and found that the average consumer is ordered to pay their bank or lender $7,725 in arbitration.

Read more…

Share

Republicans move to invalidate new CFPB rule banning forced arbitration

Posted on: July 21st, 2017 by Steve Larson

On July 20, 2017, Congressional Republicans began a process to attempt to eliminate a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that stops companies from putting class action bans in their arbitration clauses and makes it easier for consumers to sue banks, credit card firms, payday lenders and other service providers in court. Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee filed resolutions disapproving of the CFPB’s arbitration rule, putting in motion a process under the Congressional Review Act that could see the bureau’s regulation invalidated.

Read more…

Share

Article in The Hill explains why the new CFPB banning mandatory arbitration is a good thing

Posted on: July 13th, 2017 by Steve Larson

Paul Bland has written an excellent article in The Hill that reviews the background behind the publication of the new CFPB rule banning mandatory arbitration, and addresses the merits and criticisms of the new rule.

Here is the link.  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/341472-who-will-gop-lawmakers-stand-with-the-people-or-crooked-bankers.

Share

CFPB issues rule banning mandatory arbitration agreements in consumer finance documents

Posted on: July 12th, 2017 by Steve Larson

On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a new rule to ban companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses to deny groups of people their day in court. Many consumer financial products like credit cards and bank accounts have arbitration clauses in their contracts that prevent consumers from joining together to sue their bank or financial company for wrongdoing. By forcing consumers to give up or go it alone – usually over small amounts – companies can sidestep the court system, avoid big refunds, and continue harmful practices. The CFPB’s new rule will deter wrongdoing by restoring consumers’ right to join together to pursue justice and relief through group lawsuits.

Share

J.C. Penney settles securities law class action for $97.5 million

Posted on: May 11th, 2017 by Steve Larson

J.C. Penney agreed to pay $97.5 million and make other concessions to a class of investors who had accused the retailer of lying about its financial health. Just two months after U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder adopted a magistrate judge’s ruling certifying a class of J.C. Penney investors, the two sides reached a deal and have hammered out terms, according to a notice of settlement filed by the parties. The parties are working on a motion for preliminary approval and other settlement documents to submit to the court.

Read more…

Share

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About Class Actions:

About this blog

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

About the author

  • Steve Larson

  • Steve Larson
  • Steve Larson has been representing investors, consumers and employees in class actions in Oregon for over 20 years. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Stoll Berne in Portland, Oregon.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog