Photo of Bryan A. Fratkin

Bryan A. Fratkin

Subscribe to Bryan A. Fratkin's Posts

Bryan leads the firm’s class action practice group, focusing his national practice on consumer financial services litigation under the various "alphabet soup" statutes. He represents large financial institutions involved in credit card, auto finance, banking, and mortgage litigation, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Truth in Lending Act, Credit Repair Organizations Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Stay, and state law consumer protection statutes. He also represents financial institutions and business clients in disputes that include allegations of fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO, and breach of contract. More recently, Bryan has successfully defended employers in background check class actions, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s standalone and adverse action disclosure requirements.

Follow: Read more about Bryan A. Fratkin

The 7th Circuit recently vacated a 25% attorneys’ fee award in In re Stericycle Securities Litigation, No. 20-2055, 2022 WL 1564997, at *1–14 (7th Cir. May 18, 2022).  The Court’s reasoning focused on the previous litigation against the defendant.

Years before this litigation, a former Stericycle employee brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act with similar claims.  Various settlements with governments and private customers followed.…

Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Vacates 25% Attorneys’ Fee Award

In Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corporation, — F.4th —-, 2022 WL 391450 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2022), the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s sanction of law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”) related to class action attorney’s fees.

Lieff Cabraser, along with several other firms, represented a class of investors in a challenge to charges imposed on foreign exchange products.  After years of litigation and mediation, the parties reached a settlement of $300 million.  Relying on representations made by class counsel, the district court awarded class counsel almost $75 million—roughly 25% of the total settlement.…

Continue Reading First Circuit Upholds Sanctions Related to Attorney’s Fees

On June 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (“Ramirez”), holding that all plaintiffs, to include absent class members, must demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete harm in order to have Article III standing to sue for damages.  Building off its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, LLC, the Court confirmed that even where Congress passes a law creating an individual cause of action, uninjured plaintiffs do not have standing to sue in federal court simply because that law is violated.  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 5-4 majority, summarized the Court’s holding in five simple words: “No concrete harm, no standing.”
…
Continue Reading No-Injury Class Actions: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling (Part II)

On March 30, 2021, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297, a case that could have far-reaching implications on absent class member standing, particularly where the injuries of these absent class members would be impossible or difficult to establish.  The Court agreed to address whether Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury like what the class representative suffered.
…
Continue Reading Will No-Injury Class Actions Have Any Leg to Stand on? U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument in TransUnion v. Ramirez

On Jan. 29, 2019, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a strikingly broad decision, raised the bar for employers’ compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Gilberg v California Check Cashing Stores LLC, the court held that an employer violates the FCRA by including, in a pre-background check notice form,

…

For years, companies doing business in New Jersey have been plagued by an archaic statute— the Truth in Consumer Contract,  Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA,” pronounced Tick-wa-nah)—adored only by consumer class action lawyers.  Among other things, the statute prohibits companies from inserting provisions in their customer contracts and other notices that include harmless phrases like…