Report

Hidden Risks

The Case for Safe Checking Accounts

Hidden Risks
PDF Downloads

Quick Summary

A checking account is the most basic and necessary financial product for American consumers. Nine out of 10 Americans have a checking account, making it the most widely utilized financial services product in the United States.

Executive Summary

A checking account is the most basic and necessary financial product for American consumers. Nine out of 10 Americans have a checking account, making it the most widely utilized financial services product in the United States. The federal government recognizes the importance of checking and other deposit accounts by insuring deposits up to $250,000 per account against the failure of the bank.1 Checking accounts provide a secure way for Americans to collect earnings and make payments, and for many, they serve as the entry to the financial mainstream, where savings and credit products are available. As the vehicles for billions of transactions each day, checking accounts are essential to the national economy.CheckingAccountRisks_teaser

  This ubiquitous product is at the center of profound changes to our system of transacting. Paper checks are increasingly a thing of the past as Americans use debit cards to access their checking accounts. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act of 2003 (Check 21 Act) allowed banks greater freedom to transmit funds electronically and reduced the paper trail provided to consumers.2 Overdraft coverage programs once reserved for occasional use are now widespread. These changes are little understood by consumers, and their impact has been little studied. Scarce comprehensive data exist on the state of checking accounts in
today's modern world.

In October 2010, the Pew Health Group's Safe Checking in the Electronic Age Project began a study of checking account terms and conditions to examine both the state of the marketplace and the effect of current regulations covering checking accounts. Pew analyzed more than 250 types of checking accounts offered online by the 10 largest banks in the United States, which hold nearly 60 percent of all deposit volume nationwide. In researching checking accounts, Pew charted the median and the range for many fees; the variations in key practices; and the extent of certain practices, including some that are the subject of legal challenges (see Table 4).3 Through this research, we identified five practices that put consumers at financial risk, potentially exposing them to high costs for little benefit. TransactionInfraction_teaser  

Pew's findings are as follows:

  • Banks do not provide important policies and fee information in a concise and easy-to understand
    format that allows customers to compare account terms and conditions among banks.
    Pew's research showed that the median length of bank disclosures for key checking account policies and fee information was 111 pages. In addition, the banks often used different names for the same fee or service; put the information in differentdocuments, different media (Web or hard copy), or different locations in a document; and did not summarize or collect key information anywhere.
  • Accountholders are not provided full information about the respective costs of overdraft options. All 10 of the banks in the study, for at least some transactions, offered programs—"overdraft penalty plans"—in which the bank covers overdrafts for a set per-overdraft charge. Nine of the 10 banks also offered "overdraft transfer plans" in which the bank transfers funds to cover overdrafts in a customer's checking account from the customer's savings account, credit card, or line of credit. Customers can also choose not to enroll in any overdraft plan to avoid these fees for ATM and point-of-sale (POS) debit card transactions. These planshave significantly different features and fees; however, banks are not required to provide full information at the time of opt-in about all overdraft options available, including the price for lower-cost options.
  • Bank overdraft penalty fees are disproportionate to the size of the median overdraft amount. Overdraft fees will cost American consumers an estimated $38 billion in 2011—anall-time high.4 The median overdraft amount is $36, yet the median overdraft penalty fee is $35. In addition, the majority of checking accounts charged an extended overdraft fee after a median of seven days if the fees and principal were not paid. The median extended overdraft fee was $25. While banks have to incur a risk that they will not be repaid, most institutions manage this by limiting the overdraft amount given to any customer.5 Banks have long argued that overdraft penalty fees are not compensation for the cost of overdrafts to the bank but rather are designed to deter customers from repeating this behavior. Penalty fees in other consumer financial products (e.g., credit cards) are related in size to the violation.
  • Banks reserve the right to reorder transactions in a manner that will maximize overdraft fees. Overdraft penalty fees are imposed each time a withdrawal is posted to an account with insufficient funds to cover it at that moment. Banks can maximize the number of times an account "goes negative" by reordering deposits and withdrawals to reduce the account balance as quickly as possible. Posting withdrawals before deposits and posting withdrawals from largest to smallest have the effect of maximizing overdrafts. Currently, no federal regulation governs posting order.6 Only two banks in this study, representing 48 percent of accounts, commit to posting deposits before withdrawals. The rest reserve the right to post withdrawals first. As of October 2010, when Pew collected its data, all banks studied reserved the right to reorder transactions from highest to lowest amount. Since then, a limited number of banks have altered this policy and no longer post all withdrawals from highest to lowest for all of their accounts.
  • More than 80 percent of accounts examined contain either binding mandatory arbitration agreements or fee-sharing provisions that require the accountholder to pay the bank's losses, costs, and expenses in a legal dispute regardless of the outcome of the case.7 Seventy-one percent of account agreements reviewed by Pew require accountholders to submit to the decision of a private arbitrator selected by the bank inthe case of a dispute. An additional 12 percent of checking account agreements in this study provided that accountholders have the right to settle their claims in a court, but the customer is liable for the bank's losses, costs, and expenses regardless of outcome. In the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Congress required the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to look at mandatory arbitration in contracts for financial products and services and, based on the findings, authorized the CFPB to write new rules limiting these clauses.8

Based on these findings, Pew recommends the following policy solutions to protectconsumers, promote a competitive marketplace, and foster a level playing field among financial institutions:

  • Policy makers should require depository institutions to provide information about checking account terms, conditions, and fees in a concise, easy-to-read format, similar to the Schumer Box used for credit cards.9
  • Policy makers should require depository institutions to provide accountholders with clear, comprehensive pricing information for all available overdraft options when a customer is considering opting in to a program so that the customer can make the best choice among overdraft options, including choosing not to opt in for any overdraft coverage.
  • Policy makers should require overdraft penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to the bank's costs in providing the overdraft loan. Furthermore, we suggest that regulators monitor overdraft transfer fees and impose similar reasonable and proportional requirements if it appears that they are becoming so disproportionate as to suggest that they have become penalty fees as well.
  • Policy makers should require depository institutions to post deposits and withdrawals in a fully disclosed, objective and neutral manner that does not maximize overdraft fees, such as in chronological order.
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in its study of arbitration agreements, should examine the prevalence of binding arbitration clauses; of fee shifting provisions; and of "loss, costs, and expenses" clauses in checking accounts and assess whether such provisions prevent consumers from obtaining relief.
1. Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 1821.
2. Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21), 12 U.S.C.S § 5001 et seq.
3. See, e.g., In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
4. Press Release, Moebs Services, Overdraft Fee Revenue Drops to 2008 Levels for Banks and Credit Unions, (Sept. 15, 2010), available at http://www.moebs.com/Pressreleases/tabid/58/ctl/Details/mid/380/ItemID/193/Default.aspx.
5. "Most banks (73.0 percent) with automated overdraft programs established overdraft coverage limits for customers in their written policies, consistent with the bank's lending policies. However, large banks were more likely than small banks to specify coverage limits on automated over draft programs in their written policies. About 83 percent of large banks established credit limits, compared with 65.2 percent of small banks. Automated overdraft coverage limits stipulated in written policies ranged from $85 to $10,000, and the median credit limit was $500. As with per-item fees, overdraft coverage limits established in policies also tended to be lower for small banks." Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "Study of Bank Overdraft Programs" (November 2008) p 16, available at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/overdraft/FDIC138_Report_Final_ v508.pdf.
6. Expedited Funds Availability Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 4002 (regulating when deposited funds must be made available), 12 U.S.C.S. § 4004 (providing for disclosure to customers of a bank's funds availability policies). The FDIC and OTS have issued guidance to the financial institutions that they oversee regarding best practices and admonishing financial institutions for manipulating transaction order, but these guidelines fall short of binding federal regulation. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Supervisory Guidance for Overdraft Protection Programs and Consumer Protection FIL-81-2010 (Nov. 24, 2010); Office
of Thrift Supervision Guidance on Overdraft Protection Programs, 70 Fed. Reg. 8428 (Feb. 18, 2005), available at http://files.ots.treas.gov/480028.pdf.
7. The "loss, costs, and expenses" clauses are found in the account agreements of four banks: PNC Bank, "Disputes Involving Your Account," in Account Agreement for Personal Checking, Savings, and Money Market Accounts, 10 (2010); TD Bank, "Indemnity," in Personal Deposit Account Agreement, 20 (June 2010); SunTrust, "Adverse Claims," in Rules and Regulations for Deposit Accounts, 20 (June 2010); HSBC, "Reimbursement of Bank in the Event of a Dispute," in Rules for Deposit Accounts, 27 (June 2010).
8. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1028, 12 U.S.C.S. § 5518.
9. 12 C.F.R. § 226.5a.
10. Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B. Kennickell, Traci L. Mach & Kevin B. Moore, "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Board - Division of Research and Statistics, February 2009, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/pdf/scf09.pdf.
11. Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 1821.
12. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, 111 Pub. L. No. 24, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1665d.
13. 12 C.F.R. §226.5a; Senator Charles E. Schumer, http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/consumers.cfm.
14. Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 1811 et seq.; Truth in Savings Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 4301 et seq.; Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1693 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 205.1 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 230.1 et seq. Following implementation of the Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will also be empowered to reduce the risks to consumers in checking accounts (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1011 et seq., 12 U.S.C.S. § 5491 et seq.).
15. Truth in Savings Act, 12 U.S.C.S. §§ 4302-4304; Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1693b-1693d; 12 C.F.R. §§ 205.4, .7-.9, .17, 230.3-.6, .11.
16. 12 C.F.R. 205.11; U.C.C. § 4-402 (2005).
17. Expedited Funds Availability Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 4002.
18. 12 C.F.R. § 229.12; Proposed Rule, Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, 76 Fed. Reg. 16862 (March 25, 2011).
19. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 57a(f). The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued regulations under the FTCA, including restrictions on unfair credit contract provision, misrepresentations to cosigners, and charging late fees for the untimely payment of late fees. 50 Fed. Reg. 16695 (April 29, 1985). Subsequently, the FTCA rules in Federal Reserve Board Regulation AA were reserved and replaced in Regulation Z by rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, 111 Pub. L. No. 24, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq.; 75 Fed. Reg. 7658 and 7926 (Feb. 22, 2010). Additionally, the Office of Thrift Supervision and National Credit Union Administration have limited their current regulation of unfair and deceptive practices to consumer credit contracts. 12 C.F.R. § 535.1 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 706.1 et seq. (these were not affected by the CARD Act). Agencies empowered to take action against unfair and deceptive acts or practices include the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Following implementation of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will also be empowered to take action
against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1031, 12 U.S.C.S. § 5531.
20. For a list of the roles of the various federal banking regulators, please see: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "Banking Regulators," available at http://www.sec.gov.
21. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USCS § 57a(f).
22. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1031, 12 U.S.C.S. § 5531.
23. Id. § 1032, 12 U.S.C.S. § 5532. The Act requires that the disclosure information provide consumers with the ability to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service. The Act specifically allows the CFPB to include in its rulemaking the use of a model form that includes plain language, clear format and design, and succinct information. Any financial institution that uses the model form will be deemed to be in compliance with the CFPB's disclosure requirements.
24. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1031(d), 12 U.S.C.S. § 5531(d).
25. The proliferation of so many checking accounts among only 10 banks is largely due to state-by-state variations for each type of checking account a bank offered. For example, although Bank of America only offered three types of checking accounts online in October 2010— Advantage with Tiered Interest, eBanking, and MyAccess Checking—they actually had 38 unique checking accounts in this study because the terms and conditions for each of those three types of checking accounts are not the same in all 50 states.
26. See, e.g., In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
27. Payments Source Database, "Total Deposits" (October 2010).
28. Truth in Savings Act, 12 U.S.C.S. § 4303(a), (d).
29. Id. § 4308 (providing authority to issue regulations and model forms); § 4309 (providing authority to enforce compliance with TISA requirements). See also, id. § 4303(e) (noting that disclosures must be clear, in plain language, and readily understandable).
30. Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1693c(a).
31. Id. §§ 1693o, 1693b(b).
32. 12 C.F.R. § 230.4(b)(3)(i)(A), (4).
33. Id. § 230.3(a).
34. 12 C.F.R. § 230 Supp. I 230.3(a)(1)(i), (iv).
35. Id. § 230.3(a)(1)(ii)-(iii).
36. 12 C.F.R. § 205.7(b)(1), (4)-(5).
37. Id. § 205.7(a) (regulation requires disclosure "at the time a consumer contracts for an electronic fund transfer service or before the first electronic fund transfer is made…").
38. Id. § 205.17(b)(1), (c).
39. Protecting Consumers from Abusive Overdraft Fees: The Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act Hearing, Before the S. Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 111th Congress (Nov. 17, 2009) (testimony of John P. Carey, Citigroup North America Consumer Banking), available at http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_ id=5fc3d6c8-2f17-4f94-a30f-37d28a69e6d0; Andrew Martin, "Bank of America to End Debit Overdraft Fees," N.Y. Times, March 9, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10overdraft.html.
40. Bank of America, Deposit Agreement and Disclosures—Effective June 19, 2010—Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington D.C., available at https://www3. bankofamerica.com/deposits/odao/popup/disclosure_popup.cfm?template=dad&Requ estTimeout=300; Citibank, Client Manual— Consumer Accounts—Including Our Privacy Notice—U.S. Markets—Effective July 1, 2010, available at https://online.citibank.com/JRS/popups/ao/Client_Manual_20100701.pdf.
41. 12 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2). For overdraft transfers that link to a line of credit or credit card, the accountholder will pay a minimal amount of interest in addition to the overdraft transfer fee.
42. 12 C.F.R. § 205.17(a), (b), (d)(5).
43. 12 C.F.R. § 205 App. A-9. The current model disclosure issued by the Federal Reserve only recommends the following statement: "We also offer overdraft protection plans, such as a link to a savings account, which may be less expensive than our standard overdraft practices. To learn more, please ask us about these plans."
44. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "Study of Bank Overdraft Programs" (November 2008), available at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/overdraft/FDIC138_Report_Final_v508.pdf.
45. Banks typically assess an extended overdraft fee (explained in a subsequent paragraph) after a balance is negative for seven days.We use this seven-day period in our calculation for this reason.
46. 12 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2).
47. "Excessive overdraft fees are analogous to loan flipping," in Comments of Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients) and Consumer Action, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates,U.S. PIRG, on FDIC's Proposed Overdraft Payment Supervisory Guidance FIL 47 2010, (September 27, 2010), 10
48. Dennis Campbell, Asis Martinez Jerez & Peter Tufano, Bouncing Out of the Banking System: An Empirical Analysis of Involuntary Bank Account Closures (Harvard Business School, June 6, 2008). See also Michael S. Barr, Financial Services, Savings and Borrowing Among Low- and Moderate-Income Households: Evidence from the Detroit Area Household Financial Services Survey (University of Michigan Law School, March 30, 2008) (finding that among those surveyed who formerly had a bank account, 70% chose to close the account themselves, citing moving, worrying about bouncing checks, and excessive fees as their reasons for closing the account. The remaining formerly banked, 30%, reported that their bank closed their account; the primary reason was bounced checks and overdrafts).
49. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Supervisory Guidance for Overdraft Protection Programs and Consumer Protection, FIL-81¬2010 (Nov. 24, 2010).
50. 12 C.F.R. § 227.1 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 535.1 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 706.1 et seq.
51. Id.
52. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Supervisory Guidance for Overdraft Protection Programs and Consumer Protection, FIL-81¬2010 (Nov. 24, 2010).
53. Office of Thrift Supervision Guidance on Overdraft Protection Programs, 70 Fed. Reg. 8428 (Feb. 18, 2005), available at http://files.ots.treas.gov/480028.pdf.
54. Center for Responsible Lending, "Overdraft Loans: Survey Finds Growing Problem for Consumers" (April 24, 2006), available at http:// www.responsiblelending.org/overdraft-loans/research-analysis/ip013-Overdraft_Survey-0406. pdf; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "Study of Bank Overdraft Programs" (November 2008), available at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/overdraft/FDIC138_ Report_Final_v508.pdf.
55. Id.
56. Pew Health Group, "Unbanked by Choice: A look at how low-income Los Angeles households manage the money they earn" (July 2010), available at http://www.lafla.org/pdf/Unbanked_PEW2010.pdf.
57. The Overdraft Protection Act of 2009: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Financial Services, 111th Cong. 7-9 (2009) (statement of Nessa Feddis, VP and Senior Counsel, American Bankers Ass'n).
58. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, 111 Pub. L. No. 24, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1665d(a).
59. Id.
60. 12 C.F.R. § 226.52(b).
61. Due to rapid developments related to bank re-ordering practices, Pew researchers continued to monitor changes for these practices until publication of this report in late April 2011.
62. Chase, Account Rules and Regulations—Your Guide To: Checking, Savings, Certificates of Deposit, Overdraft Protection, Privacy Notice (Jan. 1, 2011).
63. Dickler, Jessica, "Good news on overdrafts! Citi will pay small checks first," CNN Money, Apr. 4, 2011, available at http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/pf/citi_check_cashing/index. htm.
64. A few state laws address the issue, mostly with a "good faith" requirement.
65. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Supervisory Guidance for Overdraft Protection Programs and Consumer Protection, FIL-81¬2010 (Nov. 24, 2010).
66. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Wells Fargo's expert witness is quoted as follows: "Even if they were to read, word for word…some of those lengthy documents, such as the account agreement…it would be impossible for [customers] to predict the exact balance [of their checking accounts] at any particular point in time.").
67. Prior to Gutierrez, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080, numerous lawsuits challenged high-to-low posting order policies that increased the number of overdraft and NSF fees customers incurred. These lawsuits were brought under state contract and consumer protection laws. See, e.g., Hill v. St. Paul Fed. Bank for Savings, 329 Ill. App. 3d 705 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (consumer fraud, UCC, and deceptive business practices claims failed); Hassler v. Sovereign Bank, 644 F. Supp. 2d 509 (D. N.J. 2009) (consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and contract claims failed). Regardless of the legal theory presented, all of these plaintiffs failed in their lawsuit. Since the $203 million judgment was handed down in Gutierrez, several banks have settled similar class action suits for millions of dollars. See, e.g., Trombley
v. National City Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2509 (D.D.C. 2011). In addition, a multidistrict litigation case is pending in the Southern District of Florida. This case is a consolidation of many class action suits from around the country challenging various banks' high-to-low posting order policies. In total, 31 banks are or were defendants, including 27 of the 44 largest financial institutions by deposit volume and all ten Pew analyzed. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85494 (J.P.M.L. 2010).
68. E.g., In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla 2010).
69. The Overdraft Protection Act of 2009: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Financial Services, 111th Cong. 7-9 (2009) (statement of Nessa Feddis, VP and Senior Counsel, American Bankers Ass'n). See also, Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ("Some banks argued that most customers prefer high-to-low posting because it results in their largest bills being paid first.").
70. In his opinion, the judge in Gutierrez found that "the only motives behind the challenged practices were gouging and profiteering" and high to low processing is "a trap—a trap that would escalate a single overdraft into as many as ten through the gimmick of processing in descending order. It then exploited that trap with a vengeance, racking up hundreds of millions off the backs of the working poor, students, and others without the luxury of ample account balances." Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1112, 19 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
71. See, e.g., Larin v. Bank of America, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2010); Montgomery v. Bank of America, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
72. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2010). A federal court in Missouri also rejected the preemption argument in September 2010. Joseph v. Commerce Bank N.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97664 (W.D. Mo. 2010).
73. Gutierrez, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1124.
74. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
75. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, 111 Pub.
L. No. 24, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1665d(e); 12 C.F.R. 226.52(b).
76. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1032(d), 12 U.S.C.S. § 5532(d).
77. David S. Schwartz, "Mandatory Arbitration and Fairness," 84 Notre Dame Law Review 3 (June 1, 2009); Amanda Perwin, "Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Civil Injustice by Corporate America" (August 2005), Center for Justice & Democracy: New York, available at http:// www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-facts/ArbitrationWhitePaper.pdf.
78. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC § 2; Tillman v. Commer. Credit Loans, Inc., 655 S.E.2d 362, 370 (N.C. 2008). See Johnson v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n (In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.), 718F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
79. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 694F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla 2010); Johnson v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n (In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.), 718 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1358
(S.D. Fla 2010).
80. Big Lots Stores v. Luv N' Care, 302 Fed. Appx. 423, 426 (6th Cir. 2008); Miles v. The N.Y. State Teamsters Conf. Pension & Ret. Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 601-02 (2d Cir. 1983); Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Indus., 796 F.2d 291, 292-93 (9th Cir. 1986) (Noonan, J., concurring).
81. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 111 Pub. L. No. 203, § 1028(a), 12 U.S.C.S. § 5518(a).
82. Id. § 1028(b), 12 USCS § 5518(b).
83. U.C.C. § 4-403 (2005) "(b) A stop-payment order is effective for six months, but it lapses after 14 calendar days if the original order was oral and was not confirmed in a record within that period. A stop-payment order may be renewed for additional six-month periods by a record given to the bank within a period during which the stop-payment order is effective." Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/article4.htm#s4-303.
Date:
April 27, 2011
Project:
Safe Checking in the Electronic Age
Issues:
Checking & Banking

Related RESEARCH & ANALYSIS

PCS.PRODUCTION.1.20140221.1210 (PEWSUWVMWAPP01)