“Does any of what you wrote really make sense. I challenge to go back and read this and truly beleive it took BB&T 8 mths to releaize an error. Even if you were to accept that premis Mr Suanders signed a contract knew he had an obligation to pay a loan and did not meet that obligation.

He basically stole from the bank the value of the vehicle and decided that was not enough and walked into the vault and stole another amount in his settlement.

The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths and lied his way all the way through the trial. The money he won is stolen in money and I am really not sure how he sleeps at nigt.”

After the comment was posted we followed up with Mr. Holben via  email to see if he could clarify or provide further details, because what he said did not seem to be in line with any case notes we were aware of.  This was our reply via email to him:

——————————————
Tom,

You speak of this as if you have personal knowledge of the situation. Which in fact you do.

Your name is Thomas Holben, and you are not only a Independent Beach Body Coach and Distributor, but also currently hold the position of a Vice President at BB&T. The, Thomas Holben that was involved with this very case.

All of the information about the court case is in line with Mr. Saunders testimony to the best of my knowledge. I was unable to find anything to corroborate your statement: “The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths… ”

Further,  yes I do in fact believe it. The court did, and BB&T (you) even admitted their errors at trial.

“At trial, Thomas Holben [A BB&T Lending Officer] conceded that BB&T did not book the second loan into its computer system until March 4, 2004, and that BB&T did not provide Saunders with an account number until March 8. Holben also admitted that BB&T learned of the loan and the failure to record the loan because Saunders “kept contacting BB&T,” attempting to pay down the loan.  After the loan was booked into the computer system in March, BB&T documented numerous communications from Saunders and Saunders’ attorney. BB&T’s records entirely accord with Saunders’ testimony. The bank records reveal that Saunders sought to resolve the dispute, informed BB&T of its error in failing to communicate with him earlier, and told BB&T that he had not paid earlier because BB&T had not provided him with an account number for the loan.”

It is undisputed that BB&T erred in failing to book the account, erred in not providing Saunders with an account number to pay off his loan, erred in repeatedly informing Saunders that he owed nothing, and then informed Saunders that, in spite of BB&T’s errors, he owed the complete balance on the loan PLUS late fee’s and penalties.

What does not seem plausible to me is that BB&T had records of Mr. Saunders repeated contacts to inquire about the loan, yet the only thing presented at trial to dispute his testimony was yours. You gave contradictory testimony that you had tried to contact him in February, and conveniently/inconveniently no record was made of this. Which by the way may I remind you, is still 5-6 months after the loan was signed, and one month before BB&T entered it into the computer system.  By your own admission it was 7 months after the fact before BB&T entered the loan into the computers.

Perhaps there is other information I am not aware of?

I look forward to your reply.

——————————————

After this we received a blank reply. Not knowing if this was intentional or not we contacted Mr Holben to clarify. The email stated the following:

——————————————
Tom,

If you sent something with the last email I did not receive it. As you can see below it was blank. Please resend it.

Thanks,
——————————————

The following terse reply was what we received back. [note: this was in reference to our email address: staff@bbandtsucks.com]

——————————————

No thanks    STAFF?????

——————————————

To which we replied back in kind . . . [note: this was in reference to his email address]

——————————————

Ok.  COACH?????

——————————————

This is when things really started going down hill in our opinion.
This was the the reply we received next.

——————————————

Hey asshole you have my name. Why don’t you put your lap top down get out of your coffe and piss stained bath robe and get a fucking life…

——————————————

And our reply….

——————————————

Whats with the name calling and personal insults? I notice you still have had nothing to say when I reinforced the earlier commentary on the trial. I was giving you a chance to clear up the “confusion” if their was any. Instead you start in on the personal attacks. I will assume this means I was correct then, as was the court’s decision and its upholding of said decision on numerous appeals.

——————————————

His final reply came on the 9th and is as follows:

——————————————

and i have noticed in all of your emails you have never given a name other then staff,,,,,is it ok if i call you infection…..look whatever the court decision said is not what happened and it would be to hard to explain the FACTS to you and you believe them so I would just as well leave it alone… still Saunders never paid his loan which he signed for that is the bottom line.  by the way the second loan was signed in December so I am not sure how you think December to Feb is six months…..do me a favor now and leave me alone.

——————————————

At his request we have ceased email contact, however we will address his statements in the last email that have not previously been addressed.

Mr. Holben states that: “…it would be to hard to explain the FACTS to you and you believe them so I would just as well leave it alone.”

That is all well and good Mr. Holben, but in our opinion, it was apparently also hard to explain the facts to the court or the jury. You were given that opportunity. The jury found for Mr. Saunders, and in the court notes the judge’s’ stated they saw no reason to disagree with them. Which as noted previously is a verdict that still stands after many appeals.

As to your six months question, I based that off your eight months statement: “I challenge to go back and read this and truly beleive it took BB&T 8 mths to releaize an error.” I assumed the eighth month was the month BB&T repossessed the vehicle. Which working back would have made February the 6 month.

The bottom line is you stated: “The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths and lied his way all the way through the trial. ” Yet we could find nothing to back this up. So we gave you the opportunity to back it up, and were meet with ridicule and name calling.

Tom,
You speak of this as if you have personal knowledge of the situation. Which in fact you do.
our name is Thomas Holben, and you are not only a Independent Beach Body Coach and Distributor, but also currently hold the position of a Vice President at BB&T. The, Thomas Holben that was involved with this very case.
All of the information about the court case is in line with Mr. Saunders testimony to the best of my knowledge. I was unable to find anything to corroborate your statement: "The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths... "
Further,  yes I do in fact believe it. The court did, and BB&T (you) even admitted their errors at trial.
"At trial, Thomas Holben [A BB&T Lending Officer] conceded that BB&T did not book the second loan into its computer system until March 4, 2004, and that BB&T did not provide Saunders with an account number until March 8.  Holben also admitted that BB&T learned of the loan and the failure to record the loan because Saunders “kept contacting BB&T,” attempting to pay down the loan.  After the loan was booked into the computer system in March, BB&T documented numerous communications from Saunders and Saunders' attorney. BB&T's records entirely accord with Saunders' testimony.   The bank records reveal that Saunders sought to resolve the dispute, informed BB&T of its error in failing to communicate with him earlier, and told BB&T that he had not paid earlier because BB&T had not provided him with an account number for the loan."
It is undisputed that BB&T erred in failing to book the account, erred in not providing Saunders with an account number to pay off his loan, erred in repeatedly informing Saunders that he owed nothing, and then informed Saunders that, in spite of BB&T's errors, he owed the complete balance on the loan PLUS late fee's and penalties.
What does not seem plausible to me is that BB&T had records of Mr. Saunders repeated contacts to inquire about the loan, yet the only thing presented at trial to dispute his testimony was yours. You gave contradictory testimony that you had tried to contact him in February, and conveniently/inconveniently no record was made of this. Which by the way may I remind you, is still 5-6 months after the loan was signed, and one month before BB&T entered it into the computer system.  By your own admission it was 7 months after the fact before BB&T entered the loan into the computers.
Perhaps there is other information I am not aware of?
I look forward to your reply

The prerecorded message says this is due to issues with their phone provider.

We will let you know if we find out anymore information.

It has been further alleged that BB&T debits purchases from ATM, debit or check cards and checks written on the account before it credits deposits into the account for the same reason.

BB&T customers have complained that all of these alleged business practices are purportedly for the purpose of assessing customers overdraft fees and charges.

Consumer Legal Rights

State and federal consumer protection laws provide consumers who were victimized by unlawful business practices. In many consumer protection cases, however, the cost of prosecuting individual lawsuits for each consumer is prohibitive.

The law does not leave the consumer powerless. Individual consumers may band together in a class action lawsuit, thereby representing all consumers who were victimized by a deceptive business practice. A class action can provide an effective means for consumers to force a corporation to acknowledge its legal responsibilities, halt fraudulent practices and provide monetary relief to all members of the class.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

BB&T customers alleging they were assessed improper or excessive overdraft and checking fees and charges are welcome to contact a Lieff Cabraser consumer protection attorney for a review of their cases. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your claim.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a sixty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We have offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. We represent plaintiffs in class and group actions and in individual lawsuits in cases involving substantial losses. For the last seven years, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Website

We think it speaks for itself. . .

==================================================

You poor pathetic little person that probably was once fired from BB&T
and now have become bitter over the 9th largest Bank in the U.S. ,
whom of which could care less about a $40K or lower former employee.

Do you honestly believe that these insignificant court cases you
report on actually effect BB&T?! Let me enlighten your world – it’s
just a waste of time for the bitter, bored people like yourself and is
entertaining for the 300,000 +/- employees of the Bank. So go on,
have fun reporting these “significant” life altering cases – that in
all reality – do not effect BB&T Corporation.

If this is your only worth in the world – go for it. It’s a free
country, right?! I’m glad to know that BB&T does not hire or keep on
staff people of your caliber.

Enjoy.
=====================================================

Holly Rhines
Age: 25
Position: Real Estate Associate with BB&T
Tenure: 3 years and 3 months
Education: University of North Carolina at Wilmington
BA-Foreign Language , Spanish , 2002 — 2006

Activities and Societies: Alpha Phi, March of Dimes, JDRF, United Way

A lawsuit claims that BB&T Corp.’s Richmond-based investment banking subsidiary, Scott & Stringfellow LLC, conspired to take trade secrets when it recruited several employees from a competitor’s Richmond office.

Stephens Inc., a Little Rock, Ark.-based investment banking firm, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Richmond last week. It names Winston Salem, N.C.-based BB&T Corp. and Scott & Stringfellow as defendants.

Five of Stephens Inc.’s former employees — Thomas S. Albrecht, Kevin Sterling, Bradley D. Shiveley, Edward “Neal” Deaton and Alfred Rhem Wood Jr. — also are named as defendants.

The lawsuit claims that the men, who worked as a team of transportation industry analysts for Stephens Inc., violated their confidentiality agreements with the firm when they were recruited to join BB&T starting in May, after BB&T’s own chief transportation industry analyst left the company.

Attorneys for the five analysts declined to comment yesterday. A spokeswoman for Scott & Stringfellow referred questions to a BB&T corporate spokesman. A phone message left for the spokesman yesterday was not returned.

The lawsuit claims 12 counts against BB&T and the analysts, including business conspiracy, breach of contract and unfair competition. Among those charges, the lawsuit accuses the analysts, while they were still employed by Stephens, of contacting the firm’s clients and prospective clients to solicit them to move their business to BB&T, which was “aware and actively involved in these activities.”

Stephens also accuses the analysts of copying and removing proprietary electronic and print documents from its office for use by BB&T. One of the defendants, Wood, has returned three boxes of documents to Stephens but still has electronic records, according to the lawsuit.

Stephens fired Albrecht, Sterling, Shiveley and Wood on July 7, and Deaton resigned on July 8, the lawsuit says. Albrecht, Sterling, Shiveley and Deaton have since been employed by BB&T with a collective compensation package “believed to be in excess of $1.5 million” a year, the lawsuit says.

Stephens is seeking a court order against further use of its proprietary information. It also is seeking monetary and punitive damages.

– Link to Original Article –

U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton has denied Branch Banking & Trust’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a Warrenton business.

The bank’s attorneys said in the motion that the plaintiff simply doesn’t have a case.

In an order issued July 16, however, Hilton said Closing Connection LLC “states a claim on which recovery may be had.”

The business sued the bank claiming insufficient security measures resulted in the theft of several hundred thousand dollars from the business via fraudulent wire transfers.

No further hearings have been scheduled.

– Link to Original Article –