Discourse.net

Don't be so quick to eliminate option 3. If I recall correctly, the credit card issuers can supply the data to make a detailed claim, given the dates of travel.

In my case, I can claim it to the penny, because I have kept everything in Quicken for years.

I traveled to Canada (Cape Breton, very lovely) last year in October. I recall noticing that my statement showed explicitly that they were attaching a surcharge for each line item. I was irate. On an earlier trip to Italy, there was no such indicator.

And I found out when I looked into it that the charges are in two parts: MC/Visa started a while back charging 1% on foreign transactions. And then the issuing banks tacked on another 2% just for good measure. It turns out that my credit union does not add the extra 2% charge. In fact, until recently they were absorbing the 1% fee.

I came up about 220 days on option 2.

I, too, concluded that Option 3 would be too much work. Option 2 looks preferable, although there's no indication how the compensation will actually be calculated under this option. (The short questionnaire is telling, though; one assumes that visits to "friends/relatives" will be compensated at a lower rate than business travel days.)

Ah, but is business or leisure a bigger spender? I can't find the report on which the "algorithm" is based, much less the algorithm itself:

The Settlement Administrator will calculate the amount of the refund under Refund Option 2 using an algorithm. The algorithm is designed to provide an estimate of a Claimant’s refund using the information supplied in the Claimant’s Refund Option 2 claim form and other data, including from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s survey noted above. The algorithm calculation for a Refund Option 2 claim will be based on a 1% foreign transaction fee.

It's sort of interesting that a settlement offer could be sent out in a way that doesn't allow one to compute one's entitlement, surely a necessary element for deciding whether to opt-out. I guess option 3 is considered to fulfill that need.

So this is legitimate? My boss said it was a scam.

I got the same communication. It looks like a scam to me. I think they are fishing for bank account numbers. I would not send in these documents until they checked out.

There really is such a case. That doesn't prove the notices are real, but I have never heard of such an elaborate scam -- long printed form,mass mailing, web pages, 800 number, realistic looking legal documents...

And, for what it's worth, the Washington Post thinks it is real too (scroll to bottom of article).

I got the same communication. It looks like a scam to me. I think they are fishing for bank account numbers. I would not send in these documents until they checked out.

If they are, then perhaps they might have asked for them.

In anyevent, I did file the initial paperwork and I was kind of expecting it.

Aschop,

I did a Whois search and came up with the following:

Registrant:
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: CCFSETTLEMENT.COM

Domain servers in listed order:
NS41.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS42.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

For complete domain details go to:
http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?Domain=CCFSETTLEMENT.COM
Verio Inc. - Growing Your Business, One Click At A Time

Go Daddy's link provides the following info:

Registrant:
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP

1515 Market Street
Suite 1700
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: CCFSETTLEMENT.COM
Created on: 07-Jul-06
Expires on: 07-Jul-08
Last Updated on: 30-Oct-07

Administrative Contact:
McCann, Jeff jmccann@heffler.com
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
1515 Market Street
Suite 1700
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
United States
2156658870

Heffler, Radetich & Saitta is a CPA firm.

It looks on the up and up to me.

it is scam . they are fishing for bank account numbers

There really is such a case; there really is such a settlement. What evidence do you have for the claim that the people sending out the forms and/or running the web site are not in fact connected to the real case and/or the real settlement?

There's a caveat that refunds will be reduced if the volume of claims is too high. In the light of that, one might consider the cries of "scam" to be attempts to reduce the volume of claims. But perhaps I am too cynical.

My Mother received this letter today. It looks like a scam designed to make a settlement agreement look like something else. I am jumping to a conclusion on this one by presuming that the law firm Heffler et al are actually working for the affected credit card companies to fool a recipient into agreeing to an out-of-court settlement before investigating any further.

Two things jump out at me. 1 - There is a warning at the bottom right of the second page to not contact your credit card company or your bank. That does not make any sense to me, as I would want to contact my credit card company to find out more about this. 2 - MDL 1409 was terminated on August 17th, 2001, according to the cached google page from the United States Judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation site. The case is not mentioned anywhere else on that site as its archives go back only to 2002.

Is this a scam of some kind? Yes, it sure is. Of what kind? I really can't tell. It's fishy, it stinks, but I can't identify the smell. It might actually be lawful, but it is at best very misleading.

I've suggested to my Mom that she show this to her financial adviser for further investigation.

Maybe you should keep on looking a bit further down the google results for MDL 1409? Lots much more recent than 2001!

Westlaw has several opinions from the Southern District of New York dated 2006 relating to MDL 1409, captioned "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation". The case has received a lot of press in the last two years. It exists.

Has anyone attempted to contact the court regarding this matter? I know there is a warning not to at the bottom of the page, but when something is as fishy as this it might be a good idea.

I am jumping to a conclusion on this one by presuming that the law firm Heffler et al are actually working for the affected credit card companies to fool a recipient into agreeing to an out-of-court settlement before investigating any further.

Obviously, for if you had bothered to go their website you would have noticed that it's a CPA firm and not a law firm.

Looks legit.

Is there any potential benefit in opting out?

If submitting my claim request results in a demand for personal financial information, e.g., I will ignore it, disinfect my hands and burn my keyboard.

The MDL date you are discussing is the transfer date. An MDL is the consolidation of cases in multiple districts (Multi-District Litigation). To simplify the process and create one set of procedural and discovery rulings all of the cases are transferred into an MDL until they are ready to go to trial. MDLs usually take years to completely resolve.

This is an ongoing case that is being administered out of the federal court in the Southern District of New York. The attorneys are required to notify everyone who might be a claimant. If you opt out, your only recourse is to go after the credit card company directly. As with other class-type lawsuits, the attorneys get the best deal, but then most of us wouldn't even know about this except for the attorneys and most of us don't have enough in damages to file a separate lawsuit. If you join in the settlement, you will have an opportunity to object to the attorney's fees.

Re: "Two things jump out at me. 1 - There is a warning at the bottom right of the second page to not contact your credit card company or your bank. That does not make any sense to me, as I would want to contact my credit card company to find out more about this":

As a lawyer who has dealt in class action settlements before, I can tell you that this is standard. The customer service reps who answer calls will be clueless about this and it makes no sense to bug them. Besides, answering questions from class claimants is one way that class counsel earns its keep. From the defense side, I see no reason they should not take these calls - call 'em. I'm going to. Also, for those wondering why it says not to contact the court, the court doesn't need a bunch of class claimants tying up its phone lines. I am still investigating the facts of this particular class notice, but these things that are jumping out at people are NOT reasons to disbelieve it.
As to account number fishing . . . the form I'm looking at does not request my account number at all on option 1, only the last four digits on option 2. Option 3 is more invasive, so I won't be doing that until I contact the firms involved.

This is a legitimate case, although I also have my doubts about this letter.

Clicking on the link will go to the story {finally} on NPR about it. (again, in case it doesn't show: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17265338)

But the questions the letter raises for me are: what is the difference for me, in the consequences between choice 2 and choice 3? I lived for more than a year abroad and had to pull money out of the atms for EVERY expense, rent, school tuition, EVERYTHING, earning in the currency there or having a bank account there were not legal for someone on my visa. But the nightmare of calculating everything is RIDICULOUS, especially considering the quantity of people affected and the fact that choice 2 and 3 people will get their refunds reduced first if there is not enough money in the settlement.

The letter read to me as follows: We screwed you. And now we're going to screw you again, by, at a minimum, robbing you of your time for little or nothing.

I'm angry because I RESEARCHED WHAT CARDS GAVE THE BEST DEALS IN OVERSEAS TRANSACTIONS. I LOOKED. AND CHANGED CARDS, impacting my credit report. AND THESE PERCENTAGES WERE NOT DISCLOSED.

Has anyone found any SPECIFICS on the difference in calculations between choice 2 & 3?

You're all so paranoid. It is legit.

If you are worried about a scam, google the address you will be mailing to. Same for when you are given phone numbers you are asked to call. I was initially worried that someone was trying to get a copy of my signature.

Google gave me a better business bureau site that says the PO Box belongs to "U.S. District Court Settlement Administrator". Also some news sites. Not to say it couldn't still be a scam, but it would be a huge one.

It is legit; ample evidence of the case and the settlement are everywhere. Don't you think that a scam of this magnitude would have been investigated and hung out to dry in every mass media outlet by now? And no forms/fields ask for any personal information (SS#, account numbers, etc).

Anyway, I figured I had 75 days abroad in the past 10 years, filed online, took option 2, and hopefully someday some amount of money will grace my mailbox after we have all blissfully forgotten about the whole thing.

Posted by "Michael"

"Ah, but is business or leisure a bigger spender? I can't find the report on which the "algorithm" is based, much less the algorithm itself"

Well here is a link to the reports;
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/cat/f-2006-101-001.html

I'm guessing it would take an insider to get to the algorithim itself, but do post if you get a hold of it.

My guess is the equation will look like this

Total number of days outside of US:
Daily expenditure based on ITA's yearly report on travelers and average expenditures based on type of travel. Average out number of days over the 10 years. Each year has a different average expenditure
Multiple days time average expenditures for years.
Multiple this total by percent given by ITA for average expenses paid for by credit or debit
(example 1996 was 71% (CC) and 5% (DC))
Then multiple the total by 1%.

At least this is what my guess is on what the formula may be.

I cannot see why some of us are paranoid about this. Only Option 3 actually asks for any kind of account information. Options 1 & 2 don't even do that. I have filed it. Lets hope something shows up at my doorstep one fine morning.

I did not mind doing option 3. Put I did not provide them with my account numbers, nor do I intend to. What happens when that database turns up on a missing laptop like has happened too much already.