Household HSBC Watch

Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:45 pm      

The link which you are looking for is found in the HSBC job description.

You must prove that Best Buy and Household, aside from the normal course of business, attracted buyers into Best Buy stores for the purpose of enriching Best Buy and Household - HSBC through credit applications, while knowing that Household and HSBC were willfully and intentionally perpetrating the items set forth in Shea v Household, a matter of public record.

HSBC - Household job requirement, number 20658, sets forth requirements from the lowest level on up. The requirements include:

1. Being the principal liaison between Best Buy's retail stores, (Retail Services - Prospect Heights, IL) and Credit Card Services - Salinas, CA.

2. Managing the in-store execution of how employees offer the MasterCard product to customers

3. Being familiar with all aspects of the Best Buy credit card programs in-store and on-line at bestbuy.com.

4. Monitoring the secret shop and compliance program for all MasterCard related activities AND visiting 15 stores per month to validate performance metrics, development action plans and remediate behavior were necessary AND completing store audits as assigned.

5. Liaison between retail sales, marketing, and key corporate stakeholders. Conduct new store training and district level training when assigned. Driving program results to achieve objectives for sales volume, profitability and loan account growth.

These are the responsibilites set forth for a manager trainee. Knowledge goes all the way to the top.

For the issue of continuing ongoing compensation one must subpoena the records during the Shea v Household period 1994-2004. If an inordinate number of accounts reflect late payments, interest called due on interest free promotions, etc., you might be on track.

The big job will be cross checking the Shea records against FTC and State Attorney's General complaints for the period. Household Watch advised thousands of complaintants to file FTC complaints against the merchant, in this case Best Buy.

Other web sites, such as Ripoff Reports and The Complaint Station seem to post the complaints but it goes no further. Perhaps subpoena letters from Household Watch to the CEO's of Best Buy and Aldinger? Maybe you don't need them? Don't do a Ken Lay. Prove that Aldinger and Shultze and Anderson knew what was going on. Aldinger had to recertify earnings going back to 1994. Shea v Household goes back to 1994. If they already knew what was happening and recertified it anyway the SEC won't be happy.

Research the EchoSphere case. It describes ongoing compensation from Household to EchoSphere, and how Household didn't want to pay it after EchoSphere cancelled their contract with Household. It all in the legal record.

Referencing the case of EchoSphere, it proved time consuming and expensive to cancel Household as the account servicing company. In the Echosphere v Household case, EchoSphere ultimately won both the case and the appeal, forcing Houshold to pay in accordance to the contract terms that existed prior to EchoSphere not to renewing their contract with Household. In the original contract terms Household agreed to pay EchoSphere the initial purchase amount (discounted .85%), 30% of the consumer insurance premiums, between 6% and 10% of fees and interest collected.

Remember, HSBC (Household) agents identify themselves as "Best Buy" when they answer the phone. Emails from Household - HSBC give the appearance of coming from Best Buy. Just tie all the pieces together. Shareholders will. They remember the lawsuit just before HSBC bought Household. Speitzer will. Just keep doing the groundwork for him.

By the way, the job description is no longer available on the net. Their risk officer probably pulled it. Remember the flubbed Sak press release about ongoing compensation? Household tries to control what gets out but that one slipped past them. It could be costly.

If Shea v Household caused what we think it caused, and Household ongoing compensation to EchoSphere was between 6% and 10% of fees and interest collected, and Best Buy knew Household and HSBC were doing what they were doing, there is your case.

Regarding Echo, I reference:
Defendant Household Retail Services, Inc. ("HRSI" or "Household"), appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Echo Acceptance Corporation and Echosphere Corporation (collectively, "Echo") on Echo's breach of contract claim. The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291 and we affirm.

The link is:
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1167.htm

Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:12 am      

Baron v. Best Buy


Issue Code: Consumer

Attorney 1: Deborah Zuckerman

Attorney 2: Stacy Canan

Date Case Filed: 01/24/2000

Estimated Decision Date: 9/1/2001

History: Natalie Baron purchased items on credit from Best Buy. She subsequently filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that various insurance products sold in conjunction with Best Buy's credit card violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Florida's insurance law. Baron v. Best Buy, et al. A Florida federal court denied Best Buy's attempt to force Baron into arbitration because: (1) the arbitration clause was contained in the credit card agreement that customers receive in the mail after the purchase has already been completed; (2) the defendants (Best Buy, the financing company and the insurance company) had not shown that the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), which would administer all arbitrations, was a neutral, inexpensive, and efficient forum; and (3) the requirement that consumers pay their own attorneys' fees, even if they win at arbitration, defeated TILA's remedial purposes.

Best Buy and the other defendants appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. AARP, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the consumers. The brief focuses on evidence that NAF aggressively markets its services to the financial services industry and is not a neutral decision maker. Specifically, NAF solicits business with letters stating that arbitration can eliminate consumer class actions, and that NAF arbitration will have a "positive impact on the [company's] bottom line."

Other evidence showed that one of the defendants has brought more than 40,000 NAF arbitrations against consumers, while fewer than 10 consumers have initiated arbitrations against the company. The company-initiated arbitrations have generated at least $2 million in fees for NAF.

An increasing number of businesses are including mandatory arbitration provisions in their consumer contracts. These provisions deprive consumers of their ability to go to court and many of the rights and protections they would have in a court proceeding. In addition, the arbitrator's decision generally cannot be appealed, even if the decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. It is critically important that the impartiality and fairness of these proceedings be scrutinized.

Issue: Is an arbitration clause in a finance agreement enforceable when the consumer does not receive the terms of the agreement until after the transaction is completed, and there is strong evidence that the organization administering the arbitration is biased in favor of financial institutions?

Origination State: FL

States Affected: FL, GA, AL

End Results: The federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to invalidate an arbitration agreement that favored large corporate defendants over consumers. The court relied on a Supreme Court ruling and other 11th Circuit rulings handed down since Baron v. Best Buy, et al. was originally filed – rulings that upheld arbitration agreements, though they did not address all the issues in this appeal.

Natalie Baron purchased items on credit from Best Buy. She subsequently filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that various insurance products sold in conjunction with Best Buy’s credit card violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Florida’s insurance law. A Florida federal court denied Best Buy’s attempt to force Baron into arbitration because: (1) the arbitration clause was contained in the credit card agreement that customers receive in the mail after the purchase has already been completed; (2) the defendants (Best Buy, the financing company and the insurance company) had not shown that the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), which would administer all arbitrations, was a neutral, inexpensive, and efficient forum; and (3) the requirement that consumers pay their own attorneys’ fees, even if they win at arbitration, defeated TILA’s remedial purposes.

The defendants appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. AARP, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the consumers. The brief focused on evidence that NAF aggressively markets its services to the financial services industry and is not a neutral decision maker. Specifically, NAF solicits business with letters stating that arbitration can eliminate consumer class actions, and that NAF arbitration will have a “positive impact on the [company’s] bottom line.” Other evidence showed that one of the defendants has brought more than 40,000 NAF arbitrations against consumers, while fewer than 10 consumers have initiated arbitrations against the company. The company-initiated arbitrations have generated at least $2 million in fees for NAF.

The 11th Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph earlier this term (a case that also had made its way through the 11th Circuit) to uphold the arbitration requirement. The Supreme Court said that plaintiffs who want to avoid mandatory arbitration have to prove the arbitration process would be unduly burdensome and costly. The 11th Circuit ruled that Baron did not make that showing.

An increasing number of businesses are including mandatory arbitration provisions in their consumer contracts. These provisions deprive consumers of their ability to go to court and many of the rights and protections they would have in a court proceeding. In addition, the arbitrator’s decision generally cannot be appealed, even if it is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. It is critically important that the impartiality and fairness of these proceedings be scrutinized, and that the consumer not be required to pay costs that effectively deny them access to any forum in which they can vindicate their rights.

Contact persons:
Stacy Canan and Deborah Zuckerman
AARP Foundation
(202) 434-2060

6/18/2001

Closed Date: 6/1/2001

Case Results: The Eleventh Circuit upheld the enforceability of the arbitration clause under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The consumer had challenged the arbitration clause based on high costs, a prohibition of class actions and evidence that the National Arbitration Forum was biased because of its close ties to the businesses that use its services. However, the court rejected all her claims.

Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:54 am      

How does slick Willie handle Best Buy's chargebacks? Does anybody know?

Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:17 am      

Please let me know what you mean by "Chargebacks". Would it be, for instance, an amount that was included in a bankruptcy discharge? If so, they gave the account over to Beneficial, which immediately filled my husband's credit report with about 15 lates even after the bankruptcy took effect and included BB's account.

Until this happened (very recently) they were not reporting any lates. The viciousness of this company is beyond belief.

Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:09 pm      

Chargebacks - credits to the customer's account resulting from a reversal of charges for returned items or some other valid reason. Would it be, for instance, an amount that was included in a bankruptcy ? Good question. The answer depends on how Household handles the matter.