Consumer Financial Services

Chase Bank's "Blank Check" Loans

To Contact an attorney at Green & Noblin, P.C., about your case, click here.

What is this class action about?

Green & Noblin, P.C. is representing clients regarding "blank check" loans or balance transfer promotional offers from Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase") that promised a low interest rate for the life of the loan or until paid off. Chase credit card customers allege that they were offered loans in the form of a balance transfer or blank checks that were connected to but with different terms than the credit cards. For the balance transfer loans, most consumers paid a substantial balance transfer fee to lock in their low interest rate APR for the life of the loan. The balance transfer and "blank check" loans offered by Chase had terms that were at significantly lower interest rates usually below 2.99%, 3.99% or 4.99% "for the life of the loan."

In November 2008, Chase sent its customers, with outstanding balances on this type of loan, a "change in terms" notice stating that the minimum monthly payments would go up by 150% from 2% of the balance to 5% of the balance. The new monthly charges effectively increase the customers' interest rates. Chase then told consumers that they must pay off their loans in full immediately or be subject to the new loan terms with higher interest rates. Green & Noblin, P.C. believes this practice to be unfair and illegal.

What Should You Do to Protect Your Rights?

First contact us to communicate with an attorney about your situation. If you have been impacted by Chase's conduct that is described above, you should probably file a class action lawsuit to correct the situation. The attorneys at Green & Noblin, P.C. are experienced class action attorneys, particularly with regard to this type of credit card claim. Click here to see a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling we obtained in favor of card holders with similar claims. And although there are some cases already on file, these cases may not adequately protect your interests, particularly if you live in one of the states listed below. To see a copy of the Complaint that Green & Noblin, P.C. filed in Oregon, click here.

What else did Chase do?

Chase treated all affected card holders the same by sending out a mass mailing of its "Important" Change in Terms notice. However, before doing that, Chase inserted provisions in its cardmember agreements that purport to require every cardholder to bring an individual arbitration, waiving rights to present their claims in court and prohibiting them from joining together in a class action. These terms are so onerous that many states refuse to enforce them. Cardholders who live in any of the following states should consider filing a lawsuit in their state to make sure they receive the benefit of their favorable laws on this issue. These states include:

  • Alaska

  • Arizona

  • California

  • Illinois

  • Florida

  • Maine

  • Michigan

  • Montana

  • Massachusetts

  • New Jersey

  • North Carolina

  • Ohio

  • Oregon

  • New Mexico

  • Pennsylvania

  • Washington

  • Wisconsin

  • West Virginia

If you are a Chase credit card holder affected by a "change in terms notice" that increased your payment or added a $10 service charge to you account, please contact Green & Noblin, P.C. by clicking here.

Webloyalty.com: Unauthorized Credit Card Charges

Webloyalty.com agreed to a settlement. Notice is being disseminated. Green & Noblin, P.C. prosecuted actions regarding the business practices of Webloyalty.com in relation to its Reservation Rewards program. Many consumers were charged by Webloyalty.com for membership in a program known as Reservation Rewards that they did not join.

The lawsuit against Web loyalty.com alleges that the Defendants enrolled consumers in certain Programs in the course of online retail transactions without obtaining sufficient authorization or consent, and thereafter wrongly charged fees for membership benefits. The Programs are known as Reservation Rewards, Shoppers Discounts & Rewards, Members Specials, Buyer Assurance, Classmates Rewards, Distinctive Privileges, PC Protection Plus, Travel Values, Travel Values Plus, and/or Wallet Shield.

A settlement was achieved that provides substantial benefits to the class.

These benefits include Cash Payments of up to $10 million dollars for eligible consumers. The payment would be equal to one month's membership or many months depending on what the class member was charged and whether one accessed the Program website.

The settlement also provides Remedial Relief in the form of comprehensive changes to the enrollment page used for these Programs and other changes to the programs themselves as described in the Notice.

You may be included in this proposed Settlement if you became enrolled in one of these Programs in the period beginning September 11,2000 through September 30, 2008 (the "Class Period"), subject to certain eligibility criteria described in the Notice. You can view the notice by clicking here.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to give final approval to the proposed Settlement. Valid claims will be paid if the proposed Settlement is approved.

If you would like to submit a claim to receive a payment in this settlement, you must do so by September 2, 2009.

If you would like to exclude yourself from this proposed settlement, you must do so by May 29, 2009.

If you would like to Comment or Object to the proposed settlement please follow the instruction on pages 7 and 8 of the Notice.

If you have any further questions please visit www.webmarketingsettlement.com or call 1-888-571-1765.

Bank of America

Green & Noblin, P.C. brought an action against Bank of America on behalf of all Bank of America credit cardholders alleging that the bank's practices violate the Truth in Lending Act and other consumer protection statutes. The lawsuit primarily obtained equitable relief in the form of an injunction stopping the bank's practices.

Under Federal law, a consumer who has a problem with the quality of goods or services purchased with a credit card, and has tried in good faith to correct the problem with the merchant, may withhold payment for the amount of the transaction until the dispute is settled. There are two limitations to this right: (1) the value of the goods or services must exceed $50, and (2) the transaction must have occurred in the consumers home state or within 100 miles of the consumer's residence if the transaction occurred out of state. Bank of America's cardholder agreements give consumers the same rights. Because withholding payment in this situation is permissible, a credit card company cannot report the withheld amount as delinquent to credit reporting agencies.

Plaintiff alleged that he was charged by Bank of America for services he did not receive. Plaintiff tried to resolve the problem with merchant and brought it to Bank of America's attention. Plaintiff withheld payment on the disputed amount as he is permitted to do. Notwithstanding the exercise of his rights under Federal law and the terms of his credit card agreement, Bank of America reported Plaintiff's account as delinquent to the credit reporting agencies.

Plaintiff requested an order preventing Bank of America from making reports to credit bureaus when a transaction is in dispute, preventing collections activity regarding disputed charges, and correcting reports for those consumers about whom Bank of America has issued derogatory credit reports under similar circumstances. The matter was ultimately settled in a manner favorable to Plaintiff. The District Court found that the settlement provided a substantial public benefit and ordered Bank of America to pay Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and cost.

If you have information concerning Bank of America’s credit card practices, or you want to inquire about your own rights, please contact us.

BankAtlantic

Green & Noblin, P.C. filed an action against BankAtlantic on behalf of BankAtlantic check cardholders alleging that the bank's practices violate the terms of its personal account depositor's agreement and disclosure statements. The lawsuit focuses on transactions with the check card that were processed and paid at a time when there were sufficient funds available in check card holders' accounts; however, the bank falsely treated the accounts as if those items were paid after a hold was placed on the account creating an overdraft charge (or multiple charges). If you are or were a BankAtlantic check card holder and would like to provide Green & Noblin, P.C. with more information regarding these practices click here.