Subject to final Court approval, a settlement has been reached in “In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409).” If approved, this settlement extinguishes the many other cases now in process that question the legality of charging foreign transaction fees without proper disclosure. Forms available at ccfsettlement.com list these cases, in a fine print footnote, as being
Certified statewide classes:
1. Cavette v. MasterCard, CT-002506-03 (Shelby Cty., TN), W2005-02422-SC-S09-CV (TN Sup Ct) (conditionally decertified on May 23, 2007)
2. Schrank v. Citibank, 03 Civ. 2843 (SDNY, NY)
Proposed statewide classes:
1. Fischer v. MasterCard, 03600572/2003 (NY Cty., NY)
2. Friedman v. MasterCard, CV 04-539330 (Cuyahoga Cty., OH)
3. Gastineau v. MasterCard, CV 2004-283 (Lonoke Cty., AK)
4. Gillard v. MasterCard, 03 CH06659 (Cook Cty., IL), 05-3143 (IL Ct App, 1st Dist)
5. Hernandez v. MasterCard, C-1056-03-C (Hidalgo Cty., TX)
6. Johnson v. MasterCard, 62-C7-04-009691 (Ramsey Cty., MN)
7. Perry v. MasterCard, CV 2003-007154 (Maricopa Cty., AZ)
8. Rubin v. MasterCard, 03-09368 CA 20 (Dade Cty., FL), 3D05-2373 (FL Ct App, 3rd Dist)
9. Salkin v. MasterCard, 002648 (Phila. Cty., PA), 1741 EDA 2005 (PA Super Ct, Eastern Dist)
10. Sandera v. Bank of America, CG06-458404 (NDCA, CA) (transferred to MDL 1409, at 07-CV-05583)
11. Bildstein v. MasterCard, 03 Civ 9826 (SDNY, NY)
Proposed nationwide classes:
1. Clarken v. Diners Club, 01 Civ 10857 (SDNY, NY)
2. Gaffigan v. MasterCard, 042-07768 (St. Louis, MO) (nationwide, except IL and CA) (subject to signing the settlement agreement)
3. Mattingly v. Visa, RG05198142 (Alameda Cty., CA) (nationwide for Visa; CA for MasterCard)
4. Shrieve v. Visa, RG04155097 (Alameda Cty., CA) (nationwide for Visa; CA for MasterCard; also on behalf of general public). Includes proposed nationwide class: +Baker v. Visa, 06-CV-15447 (SDNY, NY) (coordinated or consolidated with MDL 1409).
General public nationwide:
1. Schwartz v. Visa, 822404-4 (Alameda Cty., CA) (CA general public only for MasterCard), A105222 (CA Ct App, 1st Dist), S-138751 (CA Sup Ct).
Bottom-line I’m still asking myself:
Why not wait until the confusion around this settlement offer is resolved? There’s a bit of time before claim submission deadlines, and lots of other cases remain in process. Would it be better to go for a different lawsuit settlement? On the other hand, I’d like to get my money back sooner rather than later, and more lawsuits could mean more money to pay lawyers rather than provide consumer refunds.
What will you do?
December 10, 2007 
Comments (1)
Just returned from a trip from Hong Kong and China
In HK, all the charges are in HK $, thus avoiding the 3% Dynamic exchange fee. The only one that charge Dynamic exchange fee is Bank of China subsidiary that process Visa CC transactions.
In China, things gets really bad. Each time I ask to be charged in RMB, it came out to be in US$. After protest, it still come up with a statement saying that I was offer to reject the US$ option (which I did not). The bank say all I have to do is to cross out the option line and all the fine prints and I will be fine and will be in RMB. When I came home and check my statements, it all had the 3% Dynamic Exchange rated added onto my Schwab Credit card.
It is a big scam by Bank of China.. Be careful when you use credit card in China.
All my charges including Shangri-la are in US $ even I crossed out all the options in the US$ option, also wrote big sign as RMB. Is you want, I can eMail you the credit card slips.