Citibank has settled its lawsuit with the former claimant who has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the bank. Citibank has settled the claim for an undisclosed amount. The terms of the settlement agreement have not been disclosed. However, this may be one of the highest paid out claims in recent times. So what exactly has brought about such a massive settlement?

There is no certainty regarding the reasons for the settlement. However, there are certain common factors that are commonly attributed to such cases. The main factor that can be attributed to this case is the bank’s negligence in exercising care and caution while approving the loan application. Other factors that can also contribute to the settlement sum include the amount of risk involved for the bank, the presence of deceptive statements in the applicant’s application, and finally, the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the bank’s negligence. In addition, Citibank was sued by the applicants for breach of contract, for failing to disclose material risks on the loan application, and for advising them to settle the dispute with the lender rather than pursue a legal case.

Citibank was sued by the plaintiffs for not advising them to settle the dispute through arbitration instead of going to court. This meant that they were essentially asking the bank to settle the case without providing any form of due diligence or appropriate legal advice. The bank failed to conduct any analysis or calculation regarding the risk of pursuing the dispute through arbitration and did not undertake any investigation to determine the likely results of such a course of action. As such, Citibank was found liable for advising applicants to settle the lawsuit for a lesser amount rather than go to court.

Citibank was also found liable for advising applicants that the lawsuit against them would go to trial. It is important to note that this was inaccurate information provided to the applicant. It is irrelevant whether or not the information was correct as it was inherently wrong to provide such advice. It is also important to point out that under the settlement agreement, Citibank shall pay the plaintiff’s counsel fees and costs incurred in the settlement. This should ensure that the bank avoids future liabilities arising from litigation of this type.

Citibank was also found liable for advising the plaintiffs to settle their lawsuit before the case went to court. Again, the advice given was clearly inaccurate. There is no doubt that if the bank’s counsel had access to the relevant information at the time the lawsuit was filed that they could have advised the plaintiffs that a settlement might be a better option than pursuing litigation. However, the information provided to plaintiffs did not include such information. Therefore, Citibank was found liable for advising that the lawsuit would be better received through settlement rather than going to trial.

Citibank was also found liable for negligence in allowing an employee to engage in online activities while at work. The employee accessed the computer three to four times a day to access web sites that hosted pornographic material. Citibank was aware that it was illegal to access those sites and its employees were aware of this fact as well. Nevertheless, Citibank allowed the employee to access those websites. This meant that this company was found liable for its conduct of this employee.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *