PNC Bank 2010 Annual Report Download - page 184
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 184 of the 2010 PNC Bank annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.for RESPA and TILA/HOEPA claims) of the date of filing of
the earliest complaint in these actions, (b) whether class
counsel is adequate in light of counsel’s justifications for not
bringing TILA/HOEPA claims, and (c) whether a sub-class of
North Carolina borrowers should be created. No proceedings
have yet occurred in the district court on those issues.
Other individuals, whose loans were not assigned to RFC,
have continued to pursue, on behalf of themselves or alleged
classes, claims similar to those asserted with respect to the
loans assigned to RFC and covered by the settlement. In one
case, where the alleged class overlaps the Kessler class, the
plaintiffs have asserted that there are as many as 50,000
borrowers in total represented in the MDL proceedings,
including both the borrowers in the Kessler class and those not
covered by the Kessler class.
Status of North Carolina Proceedings. Following the remand
to North Carolina state court, the plaintiffs in Bumpers sought
to represent a class of North Carolina borrowers in state court
proceedings in North Carolina. The district court in
Pennsylvania handling the MDL proceedings enjoined class
proceedings in Bumpers in March 2008. In April 2008, the
North Carolina superior court granted the Bumpers plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment on their individual claims.
CBNV appealed the grant of the motion for summary
judgment, which appeal is now before the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.
In September 2010, one of the Bumpers plaintiffs filed papers
in the superior court seeking permission to proceed with
certification proceedings for a class of North Carolina
borrowers. In January 2011, the superior court entered an
order stating that, if it had jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiff’s
motion (which it does not while its summary judgment order
remains on appeal), it would be inclined to rule that it would
entertain motions for class certification and consider class
relief at a future date.
Overdraft Litigation
Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank and National City
Bank have been named in six lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on
ATM and debit transactions to customers. Three lawsuits
naming PNC Bank and one naming National City Bank, along
with similar lawsuits against numerous other banks, have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL
Court”) under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ).
The first of these cases (Casayuran, et al. v. PNC Bank,
National Association (Case No. 10-cv-20496-JLK)) was
originally filed against PNC Bank in October 2009 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and an amended complaint was filed in June 2010 in the MDL
Court. The other cases that have been consolidated were filed
in June 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Cowen, et al. v. PNC Bank,
National Association (Case No. 10-CV-21869-JLK),
Hernandez, et al. v. PNC Bank, National Association (Case
No. 10-CV-21868-JLK), and Matos v. National City Bank
(Case No. 10-cv-21771-JLK). A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in December 2010 that consolidated all of
the claims in these four cases. It seeks to certify national
classes of customers for the common law claims described
below, and subclasses of PNC Bank customers with accounts
in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois branches and of
National City Bank customers with accounts in Illinois
branches, with each subclass being asserted for purposes of
claims under those states’ consumer protection statutes. No
class periods are stated in any of the complaints, other than for
the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state and
cause of action. We have moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.
In December 2010, an additional lawsuit (Henry v. PNC Bank,
National Association (No. GD-10-022974)) was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
on behalf of all current citizens of Pennsylvania who are
domiciled in Pennsylvania who had or have a PNC checking
or debit account used primarily for personal, family or
household purposes and who incurred overdraft and related
fees on transactions resulting from the methodology of posting
transactions from December 8, 2004 through August 14, 2010.
The sixth lawsuit (Trombley, et al. v. National City Bank
(Civil Action No. 10-00232 (JDB)) is pending against
National City Bank in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. The class sought to be certified in this
case is a national class of National City Bank customers with
subclasses of customers with accounts in Michigan and Ohio
branches for purposes of claims under those states’ consumer
protection statutes. In July 2010, the parties reached a
tentative settlement of this lawsuit. In August 2010, in light of
this settlement, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied a motion to transfer this lawsuit to the MDL Court. A
member of the proposed settlement class, who is the named
plaintiff in another lawsuit filed in the MDL Court, filed
objections to approval of this settlement. In January 2011, the
court granted preliminary approval and set a hearing on final
approval for June 2011. The settlement remains subject to,
among other things, notice to the proposed class and final
court approval. The amount of the settlement is not material to
PNC and has been accrued.
The complaints in each of these lawsuits allege that the banks
engaged in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees
arising from electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The
principal practice challenged in these lawsuits is the banks’
purportedly common policy of posting debit transactions on a
daily basis from highest amount to lowest amount, thereby
allegedly inflating the number of overdraft fees assessed.
Other practices challenged include the failure to decline to
176