Skip to main content

Collins v. First Union Nat. Bank

Va.November 3, 2006No. Record 052647.Cited 52 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Charles S. Russell
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The trial court ruled in favor of First Union National Bank on all counts, finding that foreign investors who lost money in a fraudulent EB-5 visa scheme were neither customers of the bank nor third-party beneficiaries entitled to protection, and the appellate court affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**Collins v. First Union National Bank: Court Rules Against Foreign Investors** This case involved foreign investors who lost money in a fraudulent EB-5 visa investment scheme. The EB-5 program allows foreign nationals to obtain U.S. residency by investing in American businesses. The investors sued First Union National Bank, claiming the bank was negligent and breached its contract duties when their investments were lost to fraud. The investors argued they should be protected as either bank customers or third-party beneficiaries who deserved the bank's protection. However, both the trial court and appeals court disagreed. The courts ruled that the foreign investors were not actually customers of the bank and had no special legal relationship that would make the bank responsible for protecting their investments from fraud. **What This Means for Workers:** While this case specifically involved investors rather than employees, it shows how courts carefully examine whether someone has a legal right to protection from a financial institution. For workers, this reinforces that banks and employers have specific duties only to people with whom they have direct contractual relationships. Workers should understand that third parties generally cannot claim protection under contracts they weren't directly part of, emphasizing the importance of having clear, direct employment agreements.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Kahn
Cal. SupremeAug 2003
Plaintiff Win
Campbell
Va.Dec 2025

The language of the Virginia wage theft statute, Code § 40.1-29, specifically lists wages and salaries, but it does not expressly apply to commissions, and its context does not support an interpretation that extends the statute's protections to commissions. Resting its contrary conclusion on the remedial purpose of the statute, past decisions interpreting the term "wages" in other contexts, and an interpretation by an administrative agency contained in a field manual, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Code § 40.1-29 did not apply to commissions. However, neither the plain meaning of the terms "wages" or "commissions," nor the use of the term wages in the context of Code § 40.1-29, suggests that the use of that term sweeps in the concept of "commissions," and contentions to the contrary, while compelling, are properly addressed to the legislature. Therefore, the most plausible reading of Code § 40.1-29 is that the General Assembly did not intend for the wage theft statute to apply to commissions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Defendant Win
Ingleside
Va.Dec 2025

In an interlocutory appeal brought by medical staffing companies concerning a physician-plaintiff's claim against them under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act, Code § 40.1-27.3, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of their plea in bar to that claim because the alleged retaliatory action taken against the plaintiff -- removing her from the work schedule in March of 2021 -- took place more than one year prior to her filing suit on April 1, 2022. The fact that she only later discovered her injury to be greater than she first realized as a result of a June 2, 2021, termination letter confirming that the termination of her employment was effective as of March 3, 2021, is immaterial to when she first sustained that injury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.