In January 2009, Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart filed a class action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (collectively, "Chase"), on behalf of a class of customers who have been charged a monthly service fee on balance transfers to their Chase credit cards that have low fixed APRs for the life of the loan.

I. Plaintiff's Factual Allegations

In Chase's original agreement, Chase represented to its customers that to keep the low interest rates, the customers must only make timely required payments to Chase and the customers' creditors. As set forth in the complaint, lead Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated customers, that Chase imposes, in violation of Federal and State law, a $10 monthly service charge and an increased minimum monthly payment on customers who wish to maintain the promised low fixed APR.

II. Recent Developments

A. CHASE'S INCREASE IN MINIMUM PAYMENTS

(updated June 26, 2009)

We have learned that Chase has recently imposed increased minimum payments on a large number of additional cardholders. We are currently considering the most effective strategy to deal with these developments. Please continue to check our website for updates.

B. CHASE'S REMOVAL OF THE MONTHLY SERVICE FEE

(updated April 10, 2009)

In a recent development, Chase has announced that it has stopped charging the $10 monthly service fee. While we believe the recent corrective action taken by Chase was in response to, and as a result of, our lawsuit, Chase has not offered to settle the lawsuit outright. Chase, moreover, has again reserved the right to change the terms (and presumably, impose the $10 service fee) in the future. We are thus continuing to pursue the lawsuit.

C. JUDGE DENIES GSAS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(updated February 21, 2009)

On February 20, 2009, United States District Judge George King denied Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). We had asked the Court to order Chase to stop increasing the APR's and minimum payments of cardholders who refused to give up the low "for the life of the loan" interest rates promised them by Chase.

While Judge King expressed sympathy for the many Chase cardholders who are suffering financial distress as a result of Chase's conduct, he held that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated the irreparable harm that is necessary for the issuance of a TRO.

While we are disappointed by the Court's decision, we understood that TROs are rarely granted and that we faced an uphill battle. We pursued our motion because we believed it necessary to make every effort to help our clients and the other class members affected by Chase's conduct. The Court did not rule one way or the other on whether Chase's conduct is unlawful and we still believe we will obtain compensation for our clients and the other Chase cardholders. We thank all the class members who provided us with information in connection with our TRO application.

III. Contact Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart

To obtain more information about the lawsuit, please use this form.

Note that Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart will handle all received information as strictly confidential.