Eddie Holiday of Haber Law. Photo by Lynn Parks 'Milgram v. Chase Bank USA,' 72 F.4th 1212 (11th Cir 2023)
Imagine you have an employee that opens a credit card in your name for your business. Your employee then runs up tens of thousands of dollars of debt on the account and illegally accesses your bank accounts to partially pay off the monthly statements. When you discover the scheme, you report the fraud to your bank, but the bank refuses to characterize those charges as fraudulent because payments to the account were made. Your now-former employee has pled guilty to identity theft, and you provide that information to your bank, but the bank still refuses to label the charges made on the account as fraudulent. You sue your bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) challenging the accuracy of the information on your credit report and allege that the bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation regarding the fraud. Do you have a cause of action against the credit information furnisher?Keep Your Credit Cards Close. Keep Your Employees Closer.
Imagine you have an employee that opens a credit card in your name for your business. Your employee then runs up tens of thousands of dollars of debt on the account and illegally accesses your bank accounts to partially pay off the monthly statements.
August 21, 2023 at 01:00 PM
7 minute read
Board of Contributors
Eddie Holiday of Haber Law. Photo by Lynn Parks
'Milgram v. Chase Bank USA,' 72 F.4th 1212 (11th Cir 2023)
Imagine you have an employee that opens a credit card in your name for your business. Your employee then runs up tens of thousands of dollars of debt on the account and illegally accesses your bank accounts to partially pay off the monthly statements. When you discover the scheme, you report the fraud to your bank, but the bank refuses to characterize those charges as fraudulent because payments to the account were made. Your now-former employee has pled guilty to identity theft, and you provide that information to your bank, but the bank still refuses to label the charges made on the account as fraudulent. You sue your bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) challenging the accuracy of the information on your credit report and allege that the bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation regarding the fraud. Do you have a cause of action against the credit information furnisher?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Navigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute read
Second Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
