We know banking and finance, and it shows as we are and have been the South's leading financial services litigation firm for more than 20 years.
Our depth of knowledge and experience allows us to provide business oriented solutions to disputes ranging from thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars. We talk the business and produce the results.
Drawing on decades of in-depth industry experience in every dispute no matter the size resulting in more knowledgeable, creative, and effective solutions.
Triaging all disputes to bring the right solution in the most effective and efficient manner
Leveraging our years of experience as counsel for various financial institutions, mortgage originators, mortgage servicers, credit card issuers, subprime lenders, automotive finance companies, debt collection companies, debt-buying organizations, trust companies, insurance brokers, merchant services providers, securities broker/dealers, investment firms and many other industry participants
Analyzing your case from the perspective of opposing counsel and/or regulatory agencies, identifying cost-effective paths toward compromise or settlement whenever they might be available
Calling upon the insights and experience of the attorneys in Parker Hudson’s many other practice groups, including Fiduciary Litigation, Class Action, Corporate, ERISA / Employee Benefits, and others
Offering flexibility and pricing discretion to efficiently handle more routine litigation matters, in addition to complex, class action, or multi-million-dollar claims
Our knowledge and experience are Atlanta, GA-based, which distinguishes us from some of the larger financial services law firms, which may assign Georgia-based companies’ cases to attorneys who reside (or principally practice) in major markets outside of Georgia, e.g. Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Chicago, etc.
Parker Hudson is proud of its Financial Services team’s dynamic range of experience and its strong track record of successful outcomes, including an unblemished record in defeating large, “bet-the-company” claims against our clients.
Consumer financial services litigation
Checking account overdraft matters
Class Action / Mass Action lawsuits
Data security & data breach litigation
Wrongful foreclosure defense
Slander of Title defense
Non-compete and non-solicitation agreements
Errors & Omissions (E&O)
Insurance broker malpractice
Insurance coverage litigation & other insurance matters
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) issues
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
Fair Business Practices Act
Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices (UDAP / UDAAP)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)
Home Opportunity and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)
Successfully defended two major banks against putative class action claims in excess of $500 million as part of the nationwide Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL and obtained complete dismissals after four years of litigation before federal district courts, the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. Claims against both banks ultimately were dismissed.
Representing various national and regional banks in Georgia in lawsuits raising UCC, TCPA, FCRA, RICO, UDAP, conversion, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation issues.
Represented national bank in successfully vacating $950 million default judgment and obtained award of attorneys' fees against plaintiffs and their counsel.
Obtained a favorable ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming in its entirety an order by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissing with prejudice all of the plaintiff-borrower's claims against one of the firm's bank clients. The trial and appellate courts both held that the plaintiff-borrower could not state a private right of action under the federal government's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
Won a decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2016, confirming dismissal of a $4 million fraud claim involving the sale of a flexible premium life insurance policy.
Jury defense verdict for national bank in malicious prosecution action.
Represented a large financial services institution in a series of lawsuits with a major competitor that involved allegations of corporate raiding, misappropriation of trade secrets, and alleged violation of restrictive covenants. The competitor of our client and a former employee initiated a lawsuit in state court, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent our client from enforcing certain restrictive covenants. The firm removed the case to federal court and successfully defeated a motion to remand when the federal court found that the competitor had fraudulently joined an affiliate of our client in an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The competitor then withdrew its motion for temporary restraining order and instead filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The firm then asserted several counterclaims against the competitor and former employee, defending the enforceability of the restrictive covenants and asserting trade secret claims, tort claims, and claims for breaches of the covenants. After some discovery, the competitor and former employee withdrew their motion for preliminary injunction, and the case resulted in a substantial settlement in favor of our client.
Jury defense verdict for national bank in consumer deposit account action.
After two weeks of evidentiary hearings before a FINRA securities arbitration panel in New York City in March and May of 2018, the firm secured a complete victory for the broker-dealer client, which had been accused of various wrongdoing concerning a customer's account. The customer had claimed over $14,000,000 in damages and recovered nothing. The panel found that the claims were "false" and recommended that the supervisor's industry records be expunged of any reference to the customer's claims. The case was complicated because it involved over six years of trading and because of the absence of any testimony from the broker, who, tragically, passed away just a few weeks before the hearings began.
Defended national subprime lender in series of class actions and Attorney General enforcement action addressing novel loan issue requiring litigation and arguments in Federal District Court, Federal Circuit Court, Georgia Superior Court and Georgia Supreme Court. Matters resolved by comprehensive settlement.
Favorably settled a hotly contested action involving complex securities derivative products for a national bank.
Won a major victory on behalf of a securities broker-dealer in a customer case that was decided by a three-arbitrator FINRA panel. The case involved allegedly improper withdrawals from a trust account, which was depleted by the trustee for his own use. The customers sought $19 million in damages. After a week-long evidentiary hearing, the Panel rejected all of the customers’ claims, awarded our client $500,000 in attorney fees, and ruled that the individual brokers’ regulatory records should be “expunged” of all references to the “false” claims.
Obtained a complete dismissal of a putative class action filed against a major national bank client related to alleged misrepresentations regarding Vendor's Single Interest ("VSI") insurance for automobile loans.
Resolved series of pending West Virginia class actions through an omnibus settlement class and guided client through class settlement approval and terms compliance.
Represented largest Canadian defaulted debt recovery company in cross-border dispute regarding investments in several hundred million dollars of consumer debt portfolios. Matter settled after client prevailed in litigated injunctive relief hearing.
In multi-million dollar case of first impression challenging banking transactions arising out of large-scale cattle auction, client prevailed in Federal District Court and then again before Federal Circuit Court.