Financial Services Class Action Settlements in Mississippi (2026)
60 active financial services settlements available to Mississippi residents. 35 No Proof Required 1 Mississippi-specific
🎯 1 settlement specifically name Mississippi
AAA Insurance $4.15M Class Action Settlement
AAA Insurance $4.15M Class
Individuals who purchased New Mexico AAA UM/UIM auto insurance or had a UIM claim offset between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible to claim up to $25,000.
Masimo $33.75 Million Class Action Securities Settlement
Masimo $33.75 Million Class
Investors who bought Masimo common stock between May 4, 2022, and Aug. 8, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Glacier Bank, Wheatland Bank $1.6M Class Action Settlement
Glacier Bank, Wheatland Bank
Job seekers who applied for a position with Glacier Bank or Wheatland Bank in Washington may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
AdaptHealth $35 Million Securities Class Action Settlement
AdaptHealth $35 Million Securities
Investors who purchased AdaptHealth common stock between Aug. 4, 2020, and Nov. 7, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
State Farm Bank, Afni $110M Repossession Settlement
State Farm Bank, Afni
If State Farm Bank, Afni or others repossessed an individual's property, they may be eligible to receive cash and debt relief from a class action settlement.
AlphaCentric $20M Securities Class Action Settlement
AlphaCentric $20M Securities Class
Investors who bought AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund shares from July 27, 2018, to March 22, 2020, may be eligible to claim a cash payment.
MetLife Auto Insurance $1.2M Class Action Settlement
MetLife Auto Insurance $1.2M
Individuals who had a UIM claim offset or bought UM/UIM coverage from MetLife in New Mexico may qualify for up to $25,000 or a premium refund from a settlement.
PharMerica Pharmacy Breach
PharMerica Pharmacy Breach
A 2023 ransomware attack exposed SSNs, medical info, and health insurance details of millions. Pro-rata cash without proof, up to $10,000 with documentation.
Veon Ltd. $19.97 Million Securities Class Action Settlement
Veon Ltd. $19.97 Million
Investors who bought Veon ADSs between June 30, 2011, and Nov. 3, 2015, and held them through March 12, 2014, may be eligible to claim a cash payment.
GMO-Z.com Trust $6.75M Gyen Class Action Settlement
GMO-Z.com Trust $6.75M Gyen
Investors who bought Gyen in New York or California when it was unpegged and lost money may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Liberty Mutual $6.5 Million New Mexico UM/UIM Settlement
Liberty Mutual $6.5 Million
Consumers who had Liberty Mutual or Safeco auto insurance with UM/UIM coverage in New Mexico may be eligible to claim up to $25,000 or a partial premium refund.
Acadia Healthcare $179M Securities Class Action Settlement
Acadia Healthcare $179M Securities
Investors who bought Acadia Healthcare stock between April 30, 2014, and Nov. 15, 2018, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
PHH Mortgage $1.5M Debt Collection Class Action Settlement
PHH Mortgage $1.5M Debt
Individuals who received a default notice from PHH Mortgage after Jan. 14, 2021, may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement.
District of Columbia $3.79M Title Insurance Settlement
District of Columbia $3.79M
Individuals who purchased title insurance in the District of Columbia through certain agents or companies may be eligible to claim $500 from a settlement.
PHH Mortgage - Default Notices
PHH Mortgage - Default
This settlement covers PHH residential mortgage borrowers who were sent default notices on or after January 14, 2021.
Highcape Capital $7.6M Securities Class Action Settlement
Highcape Capital
Those who held HighCape Class A common stock between May 10, 2021, and June 10, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Arqit Quantum $7M Securities Class Action Settlement
Arqit Quantum $7M Securities
Investors who held Centricus or Arqit securities between July 26, 2021, and Dec. 13, 2022, may be eligible to claim cash from a class action settlement.
Driven Brands $25M Securities Class Action Settlement
Driven Brands $25M Securities
Investors who purchased Driven Brands stock between Oct. 27, 2021, and Aug. 1, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
America First Credit Union $850K Wage and Hour Settlement
America First Credit Union
Individuals who worked as a nonexempt branch employee for America First Credit Union may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a collective action.
Mylan $60,000,000 Securities Class Action Settlement
Mylan $60,000,000 Securities Class
Investors who bought Mylan N.V. common stock between Feb. 16, 2016, and May 7, 2019, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Experience Sponsor EIC $17.75M Class Action Settlement
Experience Sponsor EIC
Investors who held EIC Class A common stock through May 3, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a $17.75 million class action settlement.
Westlake Financial Services - Fees
Westlake Financial Services
You may be included in this settlement if you were charged a fee for making a payment on a Westlake Services account through ACI payments between June 20, 2022 and August 18, 2025.
Doximity $31 Million Securities Class Action Settlement
Doximity $31 Million Securities
Investors who bought Doximity common stock between June 24, 2021, and Aug. 8, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Hayward Holdings $19.85M Securities Class Action Settlement
Hayward Holdings $19.85M Securities
Investors who bought Hayward Holdings Inc. stock between Oct. 27, 2021, and July 28, 2022, may be eligible to claim a class action settlement payment.
Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford Settlement
Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford
Hartford policyholders in New Mexico with underinsured motorist coverage between 2014 and 2022 may benefit from a class action settlement.
Hartford Insurance - Underinsured Motorist Insurance (New Mexico)
Hartford Insurance - Underinsured
If you were a New Mexico policyholder or had underinsured motorist coverage with Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford or Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, you may be covered by this settlement.
CMLS III $7.25M Securities Class Action Settlement
CMLS III $7.25M Securities
Investors who held CMLS III Class A Common Stock after Dec. 14, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Capital One Financial Corporation Associate Savings Plan
Capital One Financial Corporation
If you were a participant or beneficiary of the Capital One Financial Corporation Associate Savings Plan between November 11, 2018 and January 13, 2026, you may be included in this settlement.
Interactive Brokers $5M Securities Class Action Settlement
Interactive Brokers $5M Securities
Customers who had a margin account with Interactive Brokers liquidated by automated software may be eligible to claim cash from a class action settlement.
GSX Techedu $9.5 Million Securities Class Action Settlement
GSX Techedu $9.5 Million
Investors who bought GSX Techedu ADSs between June 6, 2019, and Oct. 20, 2020, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Fidelity Information Services $210M Class Action Settlement
Fidelity Information Services $210M
Investors who bought FIS common stock between May 7, 2020, and Feb. 10, 2023, may be eligible to claim a share of a $210 million class action settlement.
Expensify $9.5M Securities Class Action Settlement
Expensify $9.5M Securities Class
Investors who bought Expensify Inc. stock in its 2021 IPO may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Gores Guggenheim $25M Securities Class Action Settlement
Gores Guggenheim $25M Securities
Investors who held GGI Class A common stock between Sept. 27, 2021, and June 23, 2022, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Osprey BlackSky $7.5M Securities Class Action Settlement
Osprey BlackSky $7.5M Securities
Investors who held Osprey Class A common stock on Sept. 6, 2021, and did not redeem all of their shares may qualify to claim a cash settlement payment.
Hawaiian Electric $47.75M Securities Class Action Settlement
Hawaiian Electric $47.75M Securities
Investors who bought HEI stock between Feb. 28, 2019, and Sept. 4, 2023, may be eligible to claim cash from a class action settlement.
BioXcel Therapeutics $9.75M Class Action Settlement
BioXcel Therapeutics $9.75M Class
Investors who bought BioXcel Therapeutics stock between March 9 and June 28, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
State Farm $20.93M Vehicle Insurance Class Action Settlement
State Farm $20.93M Vehicle
Consumers who had New Mexico State Farm U coverage between 2010 and 2021 may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
PG&E Corp. $100M Securities Class Action Settlement
PG&E Corp. $100M Securities
Investors who bought PG&E securities from April 29, 2015, to Nov. 15, 2018, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Lifecore $3.75M Securities Class Action Settlement
Lifecore $3.75M Securities Class
Investors who bought Lifecore Biomedical securities between Oct. 7, 2020, and Mar. 19, 2024, may be eligible to claim cash from a class action settlement.
SunPower Corp. $11M Securities Class Action Settlement
SunPower Corp. $11M Securities
Investors who bought SunPower Corp. stock or options between May 3, 2023, and July 19, 2024, may be eligible to claim cash from a class action settlement.
PHH Mortgage Insurance Kickbacks Class Action Settlement
PHH Mortgage Insurance Kickbacks
Everything you need to know about the PHH mortgage insurance kickbacks settlement: eligibility, $875-per-loan benefit, deadlines, and how to claim by August 11, 2026.
PHH - Mortgage Service Kickbacks
PHH - Mortgage Service
You may be included in this settlement if you obtained residential mortgage loans that originated or were acquired by PHH or its affiliates between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009 and purchased private mortgage insurance in connection with the loan.
Nationwide Pet Insurance Robocalls
Nationwide Pet Insurance Robocalls
Nationwide sent unsolicited prerecorded calls about pet insurance renewals. If you received robocalls from Nationwide about pet insurance since Jan 2021, you may qualify.
Capital One 360 Savings
Capital One 360 Savings
Capital One underpaid interest on 360 Savings accounts. If you had a Capital One 360 account from Sept 2019 to June 2025, you may qualify for a cash payment.
KuCoin $22M New York Enforcement Action Settlement
KuCoin $22M New York
Investors who traded cryptocurrency on KuCoin in New York between 2017 and 2023 may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
Ejudicate, Inc., d/b/a Brief
Ejudicate, Inc., d/b/a Brief
On October 10, 2024, the Bureau issued an order against Ejudicate, Inc., d/b/a Brief, a company based in Los Angeles, California. Ejudicate is a private arbitration company that offers an online dispute resolution platform. In April 2022, Ejudicate commenced arbitration proceedings against consumers who had not agreed to be subjected to Ejudicate’s authority. These arbitration proceedings related to consumers’ alleged default on income share loans that had been extended by Prehired, LLC (Prehired), which operated an online training program. Prehired was the subject of a separate Bureau law enforcement action. The Bureau found that Ejudicate engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) by commencing arbitration proceedings without consumers’ consent. In fact, Ejudicate knew it did not have jurisdiction over Prehired’s claims because none of the income share loans contained an arbitration clause permitting arbitration by Ejudicate. The Bureau also found that Ejudicate committed deceptive acts and practices in violation of the CFPA by misrepresenting Ejudicate’s neutrality, the nature of the arbitration proceedings, and the consequences of consumers’ actions or inactions in the Ejudicate forum. For example, Ejudicate falsely represented itself as a neutral and impartial forum for consumer debt arbitrations and failed to disclose that Ejudicate had financial interests aligned with the creditor, Prehired, which filed the claim against the consumer. Finally, the Bureau found that Ejudicate engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of the CFPA by unlawfully attempting to bind consumers to Ejudicate’s terms of service and platform rules, which infringed on consumers’ ability to defend themselves against the claims lodged against them. The order permanently bans Ejudicate from arbitrating disputes that concern a consumer financial product or service. The order also prohibits Ejudicate from making misreprese
Mission Hills Federal Refunds
Mission Hills Federal
FTC sends second payment to people who paid for student loan debt relief
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
On January 7, 2025, the Bureau filed a lawsuit against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., one of the largest consumer reporting agencies in the country. Experian collects and organizes data on most adult Americans to generate consumer credit reports, which it sells to creditors and other businesses who are evaluating whether to offer consumers products, services, or opportunities such as credit lines, loans, jobs, and housing. To promote the accuracy and fairness of information in consumer credit reports, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information in their credit file and requires consumer reporting agencies like Experian to forward such disputes to the company that originally provided the information (called the “furnisher”) for investigation. FCRA also requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate such disputes and remove or correct any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC
On January 17, 2025, the Bureau issued an order against Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC (collectively, Equifax), one of the largest consumer reporting agencies in the country. Equifax collects and organizes data on most adult Americans to generate consumer reports, which it sells to creditors and other businesses that evaluate whether to offer consumers loans, jobs, housing, and certain other products. To promote the accuracy and fairness of information in consumer reports, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information in their credit file and requires consumer reporting agencies, like Equifax, to forward notice of the dispute to the company that originally provided the information (called the “furnisher”). FCRA also requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate such disputes and remove or correct any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. The Bureau found that Equifax violated FCRA, including by failing to properly conduct reinvestigations of disputed information in consumer files; failing to prevent the improper reinsertion of previously deleted information from consumer files; failing to provide adequate written notice to consumers of the results of its reinvestigations; failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information Equifax reports on consumers; and failing to block reporting of information consumers identified as resulting from identity theft and to provide appropriate notice when such blocks were declined or rescinded. The Bureau also found that Equifax engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by: (1) using ineffective systems, flawed processes, and excessive deference to furnishers to resolve consumer disputes and failing to adequately inform consumers of the results of reinvestigations; and (2) selling inaccurate consumer credit scores and credit
Wise US Inc.
Wise US Inc.
On January 30, 2025, the Bureau issued an order against Wise US Inc., a nonbank remittance transfer provider headquartered in New York, New York. Wise is a subsidiary of Wise PLC, a publicly traded, global electronic money services corporation headquartered in the United Kingdom. Wise offers and provides consumers international money transfer services, known as remittance transfers, in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Wise also offers a prepaid product to allow customers to store and receive money in multiple currencies, as well as spend money using an optional, attached debit card. The January 30, 2025 Order resolved the Bureau’s administrative proceeding against Wise US Inc. under 12 U.S.C. §§ 5563 and 5565, for (1) its use of deceptive marketing disclosures relating to ATM fees leading to ATM fee overcharges in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536, and (2) its failure to provide disclosures and notices, including change-in-term notices; failure to adhere to error resolution provisions and failure to correct errors; failure to comply with the retention of document requirements; and failure to develop and maintain policies and procedures that are designed to ensure compliance with error resolution requirements in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq., and its implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1005.
Performant Recovery, Inc.
Performant Recovery, Inc.
On December 9, 2024, the Bureau issued an order against Performant Recovery, Inc., to address its unlawful collection activities involving student-loan borrowers who were attempting to bring their student loans out of default. Student loan borrowers who have defaulted on Federal Family Education Loan Program loans have a one-time right to rehabilitate their loans and bring their loans back into good standing by entering into a rehabilitation agreement and making a series of reasonable and affordable payments. If a borrower enters into a loan-rehabilitation agreement within 65 days of defaulting on the loan, the borrower is also not required to pay collection costs associated with the default. From 2015 to 2020, Performant used its control over the rehabilitation process to delay borrowers’ loan rehabilitations so that collection costs would be added to their loans. If borrowers in default called Performant to rehabilitate their loans within 65 days from default, Performant’s agents were instructed to do whatever they could to delay the borrowers’ rehabilitation until after 65 days had passed, allowing for the imposition of collection costs on the borrowers. Through these practices, Performant generated fees for itself while causing individual borrowers to incur thousands of dollars in additional costs added to their loan obligations. This conduct constituted unfair and abusive acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect debts in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The order requires Performant to stop servicing and collecting on any student loan debt and to pay a $700,000 civil money penalty.
TD Bank, N.A.
TD Bank, N.A.
On September 11, 2024, the Bureau issued an order against TD Bank, N.A., a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. TD Bank furnishes credit information on consumer credit card accounts by sending monthly data files to consumer reporting agencies. TD Bank also furnishes consumer deposit account information to nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. The Bureau found that over several years TD Bank repeatedly furnished to consumer reporting agencies information containing numerous systemic errors and that it knew of many of these inaccuracies for a year or more before fixing them. In addition, the Bureau found that, for years, TD Bank failed to conduct reasonable and timely investigations of consumer disputes, including sometimes by not conducting any investigation at all. When TD Bank furnished inaccurate consumer information, it may have negatively affected consumers’ access to credit. Specifically, the Bureau found that with respect to its credit card accounts, TD Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation V, by failing to promptly correct and update information it furnished to consumer reporting agencies that it determined was not complete or accurate; failing to accurately report consumers’ participation in COVID-19 accommodations programs pursuant to the CARES Act; failing to provide the FCRA-required date of first delinquency on certain delinquent or charged-off accounts; failing to conduct reasonable and timely investigations of consumer disputes, including sometimes by not conducting any investigation at all; failing to properly notify consumers when deeming a dispute frivolous or irrelevant; and failing to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies. The Bureau also found that TD Bank’s failure to investigate consumer disputes and decision to divert resources away from investigating disputes to
Block, Inc.
Block, Inc.
On January 16, 2025, the Bureau issued an order against Block, Inc. (Block), a nonbank headquartered in Oakland, California which operates Cash App, a mobile payments application through which consumers can send and receive money through peer-to-peer transfers. The Bureau found that for years after the inception of Cash App, Block failed to provide effective customer service for Cash App, including by failing to provide live telephone agents, which prevented consumers from being able to have their financial issues addressed in a proper and timely fashion and resulted in fake customer service lines through which consumers’ information would be stolen, in a manner that was unfair in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The Bureau also found that Block failed to take timely, appropriate, and effective measures to prevent, detect, limit, and address fraud on the Cash App platform in a manner that was unfair in violation of the CFPA. The Bureau further found that Block used the card network chargeback process as a substitute for fulfilling its obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E to investigate and resolve disputes about unauthorized transactions in a timely manner in violation of the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair practices. In addition, the Bureau found that Block engaged in deception by misrepresenting that it protected consumers from unauthorized transfers and had a telephone line to report such unauthorized transfers. The Bureau also found that Block failed to comply in multiple ways with the requirements of EFTA and Regulation E, including regarding error resolution. The order requires Block to change its practices to comply with the law, pay at least $75 million in redress to consumers, up to $120 million. The order further requires Block to pay $55 million in civil money penalties.
VyStar Credit Union
VyStar Credit Union
On October 31, 2024, the Bureau issued an order against VyStar Credit Union (VyStar), a Jacksonville, Florida based credit union with approximately 850,000 members with deposit accounts. VyStar membership is open to, among others, those living or working in the 49 contiguous counties of Central to North Florida, 29 Georgia counties, and past and present military members and their families. In May 2022, VyStar attempted to launch a new online and mobile banking platform with a new provider. The Bureau found that VyStar’s planning and implementation of the conversion violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. The order required VyStar to come into compliance with the law, establish a governance committee to ensure proper management of projects involving consumer facing banking systems, ensure that all consumers owed redress have been paid, and pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty.
Climb Credit, Inc.; Climb Investco, LLC; Climb GS Loan Fund 2018-1, LLC; 1/0 Holdco LLC; and 1/0 Capital LLC
Climb Credit, Inc.; Climb Investco, LLC; Climb GS Loan Fund 2018-1, LLC; 1/0 Holdco LLC; and 1/0 Capital LLC
On October 17, 2024, the Bureau filed a lawsuit against Climb Credit, Inc.; its wholly owned subsidiary Climb Investco, LLC; its wholly owned sub-subsidiary Climb GS Loan Fund 2018-1, LLC; and the originators, initial owners, and initial operators of these entities, 1/0 Holdco LLC and 1/0 Capital LLC. 1/0 Holdco LLC and 1/0 Capital LLC are headquartered in New York and Climb Credit, Inc. was headquartered in New York during most of the time period relevant to this suit and continues to conduct a significant amount of its operations there. The Bureau alleged these entities (the Climb Enterprise) worked together in online student lending for short-term vocational programs at schools with whom Climb Credit, Inc. has partnered.
Global Tel Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies; Telmate, LLC d/b/a ViaPath Technologies; and TouchPay Holdings, LLC d/b/a GTL Financial Services
Global Tel Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies; Telmate, LLC d/b/a ViaPath Technologies; and TouchPay Holdings, LLC d/b/a GTL Financial Services
On November 14, 2024, the Bureau issued an order against Global Tel Link Corporation, d/b/a ViaPath Technologies (“Global Tel Link”), and its subsidiaries Telmate, LLC, d/b/a ViaPath Technologies (“Telmate”), and TouchPay Holdings, LLC, d/b/a GTL Financial Services (“TouchPay”). Together with its subsidiaries, Global Tel Link is one of the country’s largest providers of money transfer services to justice-involved consumers. Many consumers who are incarcerated rely on these money transfer services to receive from their friends and family the funds they need to pay for items in correctional facilities’ commissaries, including basic necessities such as food, medicine, and clothing. The Bureau found that Global Tel Link and its subsidiaries engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by blocking consumers’ accounts when a money transfer was charged-back, which prevented friends and family consumers from sending, and incarcerated consumers from receiving, funds via debit card or credit card transfer. To get an account unblocked, friends and family consumers had to pay the amount of the chargeback plus, in some circumstances, a fee, even though they had not filed the chargeback. The Bureau also found that Global Tel Link and its subsidiaries engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the CFPA when they failed to disclose to consumers complete fee schedules for money transfers, depriving consumers of information that would allow them to understand how the payment channel, payment method, or amount they deposit may impact the fee they are charged for the money-transfer transaction. In addition to money transfer services, Global Tel Link and Telmate also provide “Unified Accounts” to friends and family consumers to pay for online messaging, video visitation, and telephone services so they can communicate with people who are incarcerated. The Bureau found that Global Tel Link and Telmate engaged in abusive acts or
Bioness $8.9 Million Securities Class Action Settlement
Bioness $8.9 Million Securities
Investors who held Bioness Inc. common stock as of March 30, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement.
ALT5 Sigma Corporation (ALTS) Investigation
ALT5 Sigma Corporation (ALTS)
CLASS PERIOD N/A LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE N/A STOCK SYMBOL NASDAQ: ALTS CONTACT 844-916-0895 ALTS@hbsslaw.com
Consumer Defense Refunds
Consumer Defense
FTC sends second payment to people who paid for mortgage debt relief
Allergan Restasis Antitrust
Allergan Restasis
Allergan’s Motion to dismiss was denied on September 18, 2018. Discovery and expert reports were completed in December 2019. The direct purchaser class plaintiffs are currently seeking preliminary approval of a $51.25 million settlement with Allergan before the Court.
Browse Financial Services Settlements by State
Find financial services class action settlements open in every state.
Financial Services Class Action Settlements in Mississippi — FAQ (2026)
Are there financial services class action settlements open to Mississippi residents in 2026?
Yes. SettlementRadar is currently tracking 60 active financial services settlements open to Mississippi residents. Browse the list above, check eligibility, and file your claim — 35 require no proof of purchase.
Do I need proof to file a financial services settlement claim in Mississippi?
Many financial services settlements only require a sworn statement — no receipts, documents, or purchase history needed. SettlementRadar flags all "No Proof Required" settlements so you can file in minutes. Mississippi residents are eligible for the same national settlements as all other U.S. residents.
How much can Mississippi residents get from a financial services class action?
Payouts vary by settlement. Small cases may pay $5–$50 per person. Major financial services cases can pay $100–$2,000+. Check each settlement's estimated payout range above. File early — the more claims filed, the smaller the individual payout.
How do I file a financial services settlement claim in Mississippi?
Filing is free. Visit the individual settlement page, check eligibility requirements, and submit the claim form directly with the settlement administrator. SettlementRadar also offers a $9.99 assisted filing service where we handle everything for you.
