Little Rock signed on Wednesday with hundreds of other cities and companies - including Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. - that have objected to a multi-billion dollar settlement of an antitrust lawsuit against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against the two credit-card companies in 2005 in response to price-fixing claims concerning the fees charged to merchants to process credit-card transactions that are commonly known as “interchange fees.”

The proposed settlement was agreed to in a preliminary deal in U.S. District Judge John Gleeson’s court in the Eastern District of New York in November. More than 50 percent of the retailers and cities that have signed on to the law-suit over almost seven years of litigation had objected to the settlement agreement as of Wednesday.

Little Rock’s objection, which was dated Monday but filed in Gleeson’s court Wednesday, argues that the settlement does not stop the credit-card companies from raising the interchange fees in the future and does not address the price-fixing allegations.

“There is a standard statement of objection being filled out by a number of merchants,” Deputy City Attorney Beth Blevins Carpenter said. “The city manager made a decision to go ahead and sign on to that statement of objection. This is not a good deal that was presented for the merchants affected by this. The fees are still being charged.”

Legal analysts have estimated that the proposed settlement - worth more than$7.25 billion - would be the largest U.S. antitrust settlement in history. However, attorneys for the objecting parties have said after attorney fees and other court costs are paid, the settlement payout would amount to only 2 or 3 cents per dollar charged in interchange fees.

The lawsuit and proposed settlement would cover fees paid between Jan. 1, 2004, and Nov. 28, 2012.

Little Rock staff members said the city paid more than $120,000 in such fees between 2004 and 2010. In 2010, the city signed with Arkansas’ contracted vendor to process fines, fees and court costs - meaning the majority of online payments were then made through the state’s vendor, which does not charge interchange fees, Blevins Carpenter said.

If the settlement pays out 2 or 3 cents per dollar, the city would receive between $2,400 and $3,650 under the proposed settlement.

The city Finance Department said only two departments still pay the interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard transactions at a total cost of more than $45,000 per year. The Little Rock Zoo pays about $23,400 a year in interchange fees, and the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department pays about $21,800 a year in fees from credit-card transactions at the city’s golf courses.

The objection to the settlement filed Wednesday lists seven reasons for opposing the terms:

Companies can raise the interchange fees in the future.

The settlement doesn’t address the price-fixing allegation directly, instead allowing the city to pass on some surcharges to customers.

“Unacceptable obligations” of having to tell customers about the surcharge and explain it.

Overly broad language.

Lawyers who negotiated the settlement did not represent the city’s best interest.

The inability to pursue future or ongoing damages.

The city would have to cease accepting American Express credit cards because the settlement requires the city to charge surcharges on every credit-card transaction, and the city’s contract with American Express does not allow for those charges.

The objections were standardized on the form signed by hundreds of companies and cities across the country.

Dozens of Arkansas companies from large retailers such as Wal-Mart, medium-size businesses like the Landers automotive sales groups and small companies like the owners of The Pantry restaurant off Rodney Parham Road in Little Rock, have signed on as objectors.

There are more than 2,250 documents filed in the case, but the list of objectors changes daily.

Blevins Carpenter said she did not know of any other area cities that had filed objections as of Wednesday, but noted that there was still time for them to do so.

The deadline for objections was set for May 28. A hearing date of Sept. 12 has been set in Gleeson’s court to consider the objections and rule on whether the settlement will move forward, according to court records.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 05/16/2013