BakerHostetler
Client Login Alumni Login
| Print Page | Client Login
Services
Professionals
About Us
Offices
News/Resources
Diversity
Careers
Alumni

Class Action Defense - Banking

Overview

"They perform miracles for us."

– Fifth Third Bank

Having successfully defended financial institutions in high-stakes class action lawsuits challenging a variety of operating procedures and lending practices under federal and state banking laws, BakerHostetler’s Banking Class Action team has the experience to protect clients’ interests in class action matters involving complex financial products and transactions worth billions of dollars.

With a thorough understanding of the banking and financial services industries and in-depth knowledge of the laws that govern them, we are the go-to law firm for class action matters for several Fortune 500 financial services organizations and regional and national banks.

Select Experience

  • Defeated class certification in a putative nationwide class action brought by an individual borrower alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiff alleged that the client and its subsidiary, an affiliated real estate settlement service provider, engaged in kickbacks and fee splitting.
  • Represented banks and other publicly held companies and their officers in securities class actions and derivative cases, including one series of ERISA "stock drop" cases involving a large financial institution’s stock fund that lost considerable value during a two-year period. Obtained a dismissal based on standing grounds in the district court, a judgment that was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Subsequently, obtained a dismissal of the remaining cases on the merits.
More »

Professionals

Name Title Office Email
Guenther Karl Fanter
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7918
Partner
Guenther Karl Fanter
Partner Cleveland
Lisa M. Ghannoum
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7872
Partner
Lisa M. Ghannoum
Partner Cleveland
Scott C. Holbrook
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7325
Partner
Scott C. Holbrook
Partner Cleveland
Mark A. Johnson
Columbus
+1.614.462.2698
Partner
Mark A. Johnson
Partner Columbus
Patrick T. Lewis
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7096
Partner
Patrick T. Lewis
Partner Cleveland
Michael Dominic Meuti
Cleveland / Los Angeles
+1.216.861.7709 / +1.310.442.8809
Partner
Michael Dominic Meuti
Partner Cleveland
Michael E. Mumford
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7578
Partner
Michael E. Mumford
Partner Cleveland
Deborah H. Renner
New York
+1.212.589.4654
Partner
Deborah H. Renner
Partner New York
James A. Slater
Cleveland
+1.216.861.7885
Partner
James A. Slater
Partner Cleveland
Daniel R. Warren
Cleveland / Chicago
+1.216.861.7145 / +1.312.416.8179
Partner
Daniel R. Warren
Partner Cleveland

Experience

  • Defeated class certification in a putative nationwide class action brought by an individual borrower alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiff alleged that the client and its subsidiary, an affiliated real estate settlement service provider, engaged in kickbacks and fee splitting.
  • Represented banks and other publicly held companies and their officers in securities class actions and derivative cases, including one series of ERISA "stock drop" cases involving a large financial institution’s stock fund that lost considerable value during a two-year period. Obtained a dismissal based on standing grounds in the district court, a judgment that was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Subsequently, obtained a dismissal of the remaining cases on the merits.
  • Successfully moved to dismiss a state-wide class action seeking to hold the client, a large regional bank, liable under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Ohio common law in connection with a Ponzi scheme involving unregistered securities orchestrated by a third party.
  • Successfully moved to dismiss a multistate class-action lawsuit challenging the client’s policy of electronically sequencing debits and credits from the largest to the smallest amount. Plaintiffs’ claims, brought under Ohio common law and the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987, were dismissed with prejudice.
  • Successfully moved to dismiss a state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs alleged that the client charged and collected improper fees in connection with the automobile purchase and lease transactions it financed in Ohio and that it paid improper referral fees to Ohio automobile dealers on these transactions. This matter involved claims under federal antitrust law, the federal Truth in Lending Act, the Ohio Retail Sales Installment Act and aiding and abetting the automobile dealer’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Achieved victory on behalf of a large regional bank with a Sixth Circuit decision providing greater assurance to Ohio banks that they cannot be held liable for alleged fraudulent activities of account holders years after those activities occur and that there is finality to commercial transactions involving negotiable instruments.

Recognition

  • Law360: Class Action "Practice Group of the Year" (2014)
  • LA Daily Journal: Top Appellate Reversals of 2014
  • Chambers USA 2017: Two Attorneys Listed
    • Paul Karlsgodt
    • Daniel Warren
  • Best Lawyers in America® 2017: Seven Attorneys Listed
    • Rodger Eckelberry
    • Joe Ezzie
    • Mark Johnson
    • Richard Knoth
    • Jerry Linscott
    • George Tzanetopoulos
    • Dan Warren
  • Recognized as one of the top law firms for client service, we were named to the 2018 BTI Client Service 30 for the fourth consecutive year.
  • Corporate Counsel® magazine guide to in-house law departments: "Go-to Law Firm" for litigation

News

Publications

Related Services

Key Contacts

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
The US Supreme Court's Ruling in American Pipe Does Not Extend to Allow Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Successive Class Actions
June 13, 2018
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has limited the reach of its landmark decision in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), which tolled the statute of limitations applicable to a timely filed putative class...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
State Court Adoption of Comcast v. Behrend
By Albert G. Lin, Rand L. McClellan
June 11, 2018
In Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), the United States Supreme Court clarified the requirements for establishing that classwide injury and damages predominate over individual issues for the purposes of FRCP 23(b)(3). In particular...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
2018 Class Action Landscape
May 15, 2018
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, resolving a circuit split on whether an unaccepted offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could moot a named...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Proposed Rule 23 Amendment for Class Action Settlement: Sea Change or Codification of the Status Quo?
May 11, 2018
Proposed amendments to the class action settlement process in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) are scheduled to take effect on Dec. 1, 2018. One of the proposed amendments requires that “[t]he parties must provide the court with...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Federal Authorities Continue to Monitor Proposed Class Action Settlements
By Douglas A. Vonderhaar
April 18, 2018
Officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continue to scrutinize class settlements to ensure that neither defendants nor class action counsel are improperly benefiting at the expense of class...
Read More ->

Services

Find Professionals

Offices

About Us

Careers

Firm Diversity

© 2018 Baker & Hostetler LLP