Law firm defends work in $5.6 bln card fee case after disclosing fake claims
By Mike Scarcella
June 7 (Reuters) -A law firm that earlier said it unknowingly submitted fake claims as part of a $5.6 billion settlement with Visa and MasterCard told a U.S. judge on Thursday that other parties had also submitted fraudulent material in the case.
Responding to a request for more information from the Brooklyn judge overseeing the antitrust case, New York-founded Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman said it had terminated its relationship with nearly 2,000 merchant plaintiffs since disclosing the false claims last month.
The firm said it was being singled out unfairly and that other companies “and/or” law firms had also submitted fraudulent claims in the case.
“It is a very unfortunate part of the settlement process, particularly in a settlement as large as this one,” Milberg's filing said, without naming any company or firm.
Visa and Mastercard agreed to the $5.6 billion settlement in 2018 to resolve claims from millions of merchants who said they had overpaid credit and debit card fees. Milberg did not help craft the settlement but had sought part of the fund for its clients.
Representatives from Milberg and attorneys for the retailer class did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Visa and Mastercard denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.
Last month, attorneys for the class of 12 million retailers said they learned about fraudulent claims submitted by Milberg and raised their concerns to the court.
“If Milberg knows of fraud, it should alert class counsel or the court,” the class attorneys wrote in Thursday's filing, jointly submitted with Milberg.
Milberg in its May response said it had withdrawn dozens of "proofs of authorization" that are part of the claims process for clients. The firm blamed a third-party “referral” source, and the firm said it was no longer pursuing any new clients in the Visa and Mastercard case.
The class attorneys at plaintiffs’ firms Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Robins Kaplan said the court should consider punishing Milberg, or referring it to the U.S. Justice Department.
Milberg said it was making an effort to be “fully transparent” with the class attorneys. It said the idea of punishing the firm or referring it to law enforcement was “absurd.”
The case is Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 1:05-md-01720-MKB-VMS.
Read more:
US judge orders probe of Novartis $30 mln settlement claims process
Law firm says fake claims were submitted in $5.6 bln credit card settlement
Scammers flood US class action settlements with fraudulent claims
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
