Retail group against revised card settlement
Legal Marketing
A proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by retailers and trade groups against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. fails to protect merchants from abuse by credit card companies, a national retail group says.
The lawsuit, which dates to 2005, centers on the subject of swipe fees — charges banks collect every time a Visa or MasterCard is used to pay for a purchase.
The proposed settlement terms, initially disclosed in July, were revised and filed Friday with U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.
But changes to the deal failed to win over many of the retailers represented by the National Retail Federation.
In a statement Mallory Duncan, the trade group's general counsel, said that the proposed deal does virtually nothing to protect retailers or their customers, and it attempts to silence any objections for years to come.
"Retailers would rather take their chances in court than accept this one-sided swindle written by the card industry for the card industry," he added.
The National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail trade group, is not a party to the lawsuit.
In a statement Friday, Visa called the settlement a fair and reasonable compromise.
Under the proposed settlement, stores will be allowed to charge customers more if they pay with a credit card. The pact covers only U.S. transactions.
Related listings
-
Rosen Law Firm Files First Federal Securities Class Action
Legal Marketing 07/05/2012The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces today that it has filed the first federal class action against Lone Pine Resources, Inc. (LPR) alleging that Lone Pine made false statements of material facts in its prospectus issued in connection with the Company'...
-
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
Legal Marketing 07/05/2012Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District Court of the Virgin Islands on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common s...
-
Houston Auto Accident & Insurance Claims Law Firm
Legal Marketing 03/01/2012If you've been involved in an auto accident caused by speeding, drunk driving (DWI), unsafe lane changes, following too closely, running red lights & stop signs, reckless truck drivers, or any other cause, we ask you to keep the following in mind...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.