Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

More: InnerCityPro

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Settlement By Bank of America on Uber Overdraft Fees For $22M Gets SDNY Approval Ipsi Dixit For Uber

By Matthew Russell Lee

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, February 4 – While both the scale and belated scrutiny of predatory practices by large banks is for now somewhat reduced, in the shadow both still continues. Take for example the settlement by Bank of America approved by Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 31. BofA will pay $22 million to resolve a class action by customers alleging it improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions made with Uber Technologies Inc.   Nicoletta Pantelyat sued Bank of America for breaching its contractual obligations to consumers by charging overdraft fees on non-recurring debit card transactions made with Uber. Of the $22 million, class counsel get $5.5 million. As recited in Judge Nathan's order, " On July 25, 2018, consumer protection offices of the Attorneys General of the States of New York, Arizona, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode island, and Washington filed a letter with the Court expressing concern that the proposed settlement purported to release Uber from liability despite its third-party status... The Attorneys General's objection does not warrant modification of the final settlement, as the law of this Circuit permits third-party releases under the circumstances presented here." Ipsi dixit for Uber? The case was, or is, Pantelyat v. Bank of America, N.A. et al, 1:16-cv-08964-AJN.  In the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, investors are arguing against letting Deutsche Bank out of litigation about Residential Mortgage Backed Securities.

The case is 1:15-cv-10031, and on January 28 Deutsche Bank's lawyers tried to argue for longer than allowed briefs: "Magistrate Judge Freeman: We represent defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustees for the residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts at issue in the above-referenced actions (collectively, “Defendant”). Defendant requests that this Court (i) strike the briefs that the Phoenix Light plaintiffs (collectively, “Phoenix Light”) and Commerzbank filed this weekend in opposition to Defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment in those actions, because each of those briefs contained 27,945 words (92 pages), approximately twice the word limit set by this Court; (ii) order that each of Phoenix Light and Commerzbank may file an amended opposition brief that complies with the applicable 14,000-word limit within seven days after its non-compliant brief is struck and that any such amended brief may only contain text that is in its current, non-compliant brief (i.e., each Plaintiff should only be permitted to excise language from its current brief and not add new language, argument or citation); and (iii) order that Defendant’s reply briefs are due 35 days after Commerzbank and Phoenix Light file any compliant oppositions. As Defendant’s reply briefs are currently due on February 15, Defendant respectfully requests a telephonic conference on these issues at the Court’s earliest convenience."

Inner City Press will be following this


Feedback: Editorial [at]

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

 Search  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for