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

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 –

A Warrenton business is suing Branch Banking and Trust Co. (BB&T) in federal court for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

Closing Connection, LLC., a Warrenton-based business, is listed as the plaintiff. John M. Cheatwood is the owner and managing member of the company.

Filed Jan. 5, Closing Connection is seeking at least $328,540 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages from the bank.

Kevin Carter — also known as Kevin A. Carter, Kevin Anthony Carter, or Anthony Kevin Carter — of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., is listed as a co-defendant. Carter Advisors International, Inc., also of Bloomfield Hills, is named as another co-defendant.

As of Monday, no defense lawyers were identified in the court documents.

Rand Lewis Gelber, a Fairfax attorney representing Closing Connection, said the defendants may be granted additional time to respond to the suit since Carter and Carter Advisors International Inc., are not located in Virginia.

A.C. McGraw, a representative from BB&T’s corporate communications department, said before the suit was filed that an attorney representing Cheatwood had been in contact with the bank regarding alleged wire thefts in 2007.

“The gentleman’s attorney approached BB&T well over a year ago,” McGraw said when asked about the alleged thefts several weeks ago. The bank has “no reason to change its position,” she added.

According to Cheatwood, bank representatives told his lawyer at the time that they “weren’t optimistic” about recovering the funds.

The bank has allegedly denied liability and “has failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to where the wiring instructions originated and what user ID and passwords were used to access the account,” according to the lawsuit.

What happened?

Closing Connection, LLC handles real estate title insurance and settlement services in the Warrenton, Charlottesville and Fredericksburg areas.

The company maintained an escrow account at the BB&T branch in Warrenton for business purposes. In the lawsuit, Gelber said Closing Connection also used the bank’s wiring services, which allows customers to access their accounts through the Internet and wire funds to other banks.

On Jan. 8, 2007, Carter or someone acting at his direction, allegedly obtained access to Closing Connection’s Warrenton escrow account remotely. The perpetrator(s) then wired approximately $328,540 from that account to an account belonging to Carter Advisors International at the Fifth Third Bank in Michigan, Gelber said in the suit.

“Again, on Jan. 18, 2007, Carter or someone acting at his direction obtained access to [Closing Connection's] Warrenton escrow account remotely and wired funds in the amount of $452,540.52 to the account of Defendant Advisors [sic] at Fifth Third Bank in Michigan,” Gelber added.

Gelber said Cheatwood found out about the Jan. 18 incident that day and notified the bank, which was able to reverse the transaction. However, the first transaction couldn’t be reversed since “almost all” of the money had already been wired to a second bank in Russia, he added.

According to the suit, Cheatwood told the bank that the wires were not authorized and that Closing Connection maintained the security of the user ID and password required to access the escrow account.

An investigation performed by a computer forensic expert has determined that none of the Warrenton business’s computers were used to access the account and effectuate the wire transfers, according to Gelber

By failing to have sufficient security measures in place to prevent access to the escrow account, Gelber maintains the bank breached its “duty of care” to his client.

Furthermore, he claims that the bank breached its fiduciary duty to Closing Connection when it allegedly permitted an unauthorized person to access the account and transfer funds.

Finally, Gelber said his client and the bank had an agreement pertaining to the handling of the escrow account — including access for wiring funds — and that the bank broke that contract.

“Carter and Advisors, by gaining unauthorized access to [Closing Connection's] account and transferring $328,540.79…to Advisor’s account, converted [Closing Connection's] property to their own use…” the lawsuit alleges.

Closing Connection is suing them for at least $328,540.79 in compensatory damages, according to court documents.

A jury trial has been requested, but no hearings have been set.

– Link to Original Article –

BB&T asked Judge Jeffrey Tureck to keep the public and journalists out of the hearing about the failed $100 million Village of Penland development to protect the confidentiality of employees not involved in the case, “competitive information” about the bank and an ongoing criminal investigation.

But attorneys for Amy Stroupe, a former BB&T investigator who called the FBI after the Winston-Salem bank “refused to take action,” said that the bank filed the motion to protect its image.

“Obviously their motivation was they didn’t want the case to be subject to public scrutiny,” said John Yanchunis, one of Stroupe’s attorneys. “They wanted to preclude public access and I’ve never heard of that happening. The law is clear: Trials are to be public. We have a long history of public trials in this country.”

Tureck issued his decision Friday.

This is the latest twist in the case. Stroupe filed a “whistleblower” complaint nearly two years ago with the U.S. Labor Department. Her claim was dismissed by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, but her attorneys appealed the case to Tureck’s court. Under federal law, it’s illegal to retaliate against a worker for exposing wrongdoing. Her hearing is scheduled for June 15 in Winston-Salem.

Tureck could reject the complaint or award back pay and order BB&T to rehire Stroupe, a former Cleveland County sheriff’s deputy who has been unable to find steady work since she was fired. She has a separate unlawful-termination lawsuit pending in state court.

BB&T spokesman Bob Denham said that the judge “left open the option” that parts of the hearing could be closed to the public.

“The judge has agreed that there is legitimate information that needs to be protected and will preserve its confidentiality as we go through the hearing,” he said.

The Village of Penland scam — one of the largest fraud cases in North Carolina’s history — came to light two years ago when state Attorney General Roy Cooper shuttered the project, citing fraudulent business practices. But it was Stroupe’s behind-the-scenes role that exposed it.

Five people have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing for their roles in the bogus development that began in 2002 when developer Tony Porter recruited Frank Amelung and his brother, Richard, as partners in the project, envisioned as a sprawling complex with luxury homes, wide streets with shops and boutiques set in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

The Amelungs, who owned a Florida manufacturing business, wanted to get into real-estate development. They set up a company and bought 1,200 acres in Mitchell County, which they subdivided into more than 2,000 lots to create Penland.

They also devised a complicated scheme to attract investors to raise money for the development, according to federal documents and interviews.

Investors — doctors, lawyers and other professionals — were told they could borrow money from banks for the lots and that Penland would repay their loans. Each lot cost about $125,000. Porter and the others said the money would be used to develop Penland. In return, investors would receive money — at least 10 percent of the loan — at closing, and more money was promised once the lots were sold.

But investigators say the scam was a classic Ponzi scheme — in which money from new investors is used to pay high returns to earlier investors. They say that the lots were inflated and that the developers diverted the money to other projects, including a spa in Brazil.

Several banks, including BB&T, helped finance the project.

“– Link to Original Article –”

A former corporate investigator for BB&T filed suit Thursday against North Carolina’s third-largest bank, saying the company fired her in June for refusing to participate in the coverup of a $20 million loan fraud.

Amy Stroupe, a sheriff’s detective before she was hired by BB&T in 2005, said the loans were made as part of a failed real estate development in western North Carolina.

The development, the Village of Penland, collapsed in May with investors owing banks an estimated $120 million.

The banks involved in the development said they were duped, but Stroupe claims BB&T participated in the fraud by lending money for lots that were clearly overvalued. She said more than 120 BB&T loans used the same appraiser and lawyer and a picture of what appeared to be the same mountain lot.

She alleges that she was fired, in part, for contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation and insisting that all details be turned over to them. Stroupe said she knew her investigation had upset some supervisors but that she was still shocked by their reaction.

“I was floored,” she said. “I guess I thought if I was doing something wrong I would have received a written warning or something.”

BB&T spokeswoman A.C. McGraw said the bank has not seen the suit, which was filed in Cleveland County Superior Court, and could not comment on it. The BB&T office involved in the complaint is in Cleveland County.

Stroupe’s complaint is the second lawsuit filed in the past month claiming banks were involved in fraudulent loans involving the Mitchell County development.

Another suit filed against the developers earlier this year was amended in November to add BB&T, First Charter of Charlotte, Carolina First of Greenville, S.C., and United Community Banks of Georgia as defendants. That suit, filed by individual investors, was filed in Wake Superior Court.

BB&T has denied the allegations in that suit. “We are confident that over the course of the proceedings we will be vindicated,” McGraw said.

Stroupe’s complaint addresses only BB&T, saying she was wrongfully terminated and suffered emotional distress. She accuses the company of defamation, saying the firing will make it difficult for her to return to a successful career in law enforcement.

In building her argument for those charges, she alleges that BB&T was guilty of criminal acts such as obstructing justice, making false statements to law enforcement agents and deceptive trade practices. The suit, handled by James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich of Tampa, Fla., names only the bank as a defendant.

Smelling a rat

Stroupe’s involvement in the case began in February. That is when a BB&T employee at a branch office in Shelby got a call from an employee of the Peerless Development Group asking that money be transferred from the developer’s account to individual lot holders at Penland.

Peerless was the developer for a proposed community of exclusive homes and businesses that developers were promoting.

“The employee asked if the developer wanted to make a full payment on the individual accounts or just sort of catch them up,” Stroupe said in an interview. “The Peerless employee said to just catch them up so as not to raise any suspicion. The first employee thought that was sort of weird … and a second employee decided he should review some of the files.”

The first 10 files related to the Village of Penland were virtually identical, the suit said. All were handled by Bryan Drum, the BB&T Shelby branch manager, who had transferred from a nearby location about a month earlier. At that point, the second employee reviewed more than 120 files related to Penland. Many of those files were also virtually identical.

– Link to Original Article –