ANTIQUES SHOPS

Over the past year, BNY Mellon has faced claims - from customers, the Justice Department, and state attorneys general - that the bank improperly charged customers for currency trading. Its settlement with Prudential indicates that the bank may be willing to settle with at least some customers.

The deal came to light in an amended lawsuit that the Justice Department filed earlier this month against BNY Mellon.

BNY Mellon agreed to repay more than half the revenue it generated from the Prudential currency trades in question, according to the amended Justice Department complaint.

Elsewhere in the complaint, the Justice Department said BNY Mellon generated more than $28 million from the trades with Prudential. A deal came in April after the insurer complained, and a bank executive said it heard "loud and clear."

The Justice Department in October sued BNY Mellon in federal court in New York, alleging the bank defrauded federally insured banks in handling foreign exchange. The Justice Department and state attorneys general have alleged that BNY Mellon clients were often given the worst rates of the trading day, or almost the worst rates, when they traded currency with the bank.

A Prudential spokesman declined to comment. BNY Mellon said in an emailed statement on Monday that it has done nothing wrong, and will continue to defend itself vigorously. It declined to comment about Prudential specifically, but said it "will be pragmatic in resolving these issues."

EXAMPLE

A foreign exchange trade for Prudential's trades was used as an example in the Justice Department's amended lawsuit this month. The U.S. government described an Oct. 23, 2008, transaction that BNY Mellon handled for Prudential in which it priced a deal that was "very close to the worst rate of the day."

"If the transaction had been performed according to best execution standards, per the bank's representations, Prudential would have received a more favorable rate," the lawsuit said.

Last month, BNY Mellon won a court victory when a state judge in Virginia dismissed a lawsuit that alleged the bank overcharged for currency transactions handled for pension funds in Virginia.

But in California, BNY Mellon won only a partial victory in a similar lawsuit, with some charges being thrown out and some not.

The Justice Department's lawsuit alleges that BNY Mellon defrauded custodial clients between at least 2000 and 2011 when it exchanged currencies using standing instruction.

From 2007 to 2010, the bank generated more than $1.5 billion from its top 200 standing-instruction clients, the lawsuit alleges. An appendix to the lawsuit lists state, local and corporate clients who used the bank to handle currency trades using standing instruction, a program allowing the bank to consistently handle trades for the client.

The Justice Department's latest lawsuit also singles out BNY Mellon executive David Nichols, alleging he "fraudulently misled customers about the foreign exchange service" the bank provided to clients.

BNY Mellon said in an emailed statement to Reuters that "the belated decision to single out one employee is deeply troubling." A lawyer for Nichols declined to comment.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

STANDING INSTRUCTION CLIENT

In 2011, as BNY Mellon drew scrutiny for how it traded money, Prudential representatives met with BNY Mellon executives to discuss how BNY Mellon determined its currency-exchange costs. The Justice Department lawsuit alleged that BNY Mellon didn't disclose it used at or near a least-favorable rate for clients.

BNY Mellon, the lawsuit alleged, "intentionally" sought to "mislead Prudential so that it would remain a standing instruction client. Indeed, Prudential would have looked elsewhere for foreign exchange services had (BNY Mellon) been truthful."

The two financial firms continued to discuss the currency-exchange costs, resulting in an August 2011 disclosure where BNY Mellon "admitted" it had made more than $28 million in revenue between 2006 and 2011 for handling standing-instruction currency transactions for Prudential. A month later, "representatives of Prudential expressed dissatisfaction with the way Prudential's standing instruction transactions had been priced."

The BNY Mellon executive in charge of the Prudential account "responded that Prudential's message had been heard loud and clear." (Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

* Bankers oppose identifying institutions

* Argue many complaints unjustified

By Dave Clarke

WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - The new U.S. consumer watchdog agency is launching a website on Tuesday where the public will be able to view complaints made by credit card customers against specific banks and other lenders.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said it is releasing the data to make the market for credit cards more transparent and so the public, researchers and the lending industry will have access to much of the data it receives from consumers.

"Each and every time we hear from American consumers about their troublesome transactions with financial products, it gives us important insight," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. "The information helps us and it should be available to help others too."

The banking industry, however, has fought the idea of naming specific institutions in the public database, arguing that anyone with a gripe, legitimate or not, can tar the reputation of a card issuer by simply submitting a complaint to the agency.

Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law the CFPB is allowed to create public consumer complaints databases. The industry has argued that nothing in the law, however, requires it to publicly name the institution receiving the complaint.

"Why publish the amount of complaints against a specific company when there are many complaints that at the end of the day are not justified," Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said in an interview. "There is a significant chance of a reputational hit."

Hunt also said there is a concern that the agency will only release complaints related to the banks it oversees, which are those with more than $10 billion in assets. This could make large banks look like the bad actors in the industry, he said, even if only a small percentage of their customers are filing complaints.

When receiving a complaint the agency determines if the consumer actually has a card with the bank in question and also seeks to determine if the same customer is filing duplicate grievances, a senior CFPB official told reporters on Monday.

No information about the consumer will be included in the public database, the agency said.

The database will provide some information on how the lender responded to the complaint, such as whether the customer received any compensation from the card issuer.

The website will allow users to search the database in a variety of ways, including by card issuer name, type of complaint and zip code, the agency said.

When launched on Tuesday the database will at first only contain complaints received since June 1, about 100 records. The senior official said the plan is to add data received by the agency before that date later this year, after the website has been live for a few months.

The agency is considering creating similar public databases for other types of consumer complaints about financial products and on Tuesday it put out a request for input on what type of products should be considered.

Also on Tuesday, the agency released a "snapshot" of some of the consumer complaints it has received since opening its door on July 21, 2011.

For instance, the agency said it has received approximately 45,630 complaints overall and of these 16,840 concern credit cards. The agency receives the complaints in a variety of ways including through its website and by phone.

The agency said the most common type of complaints on credit cards are billing disputes. (Reporting By Dave Clarke; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)