Legal Briefs
Lots of Tech Buzzwords, Scary Problems
April 16, 2019
A federal regulator cut through the shield of fintech buzzwords on Monday when it announced that a darling of online lending valued at $2 billion, failed to properly handle rudimentary loan practices. The lender is Chicago-based Avant, who reportedly settled with the FTC for $3.85 million.
According to the FTC, Avant struggled to accurately determine borrower loan balances and repeatedly mismanaged payments. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith said that Avant’s issues were systemic. “Online lenders need to understand that loan servicing is just as important to consumers as loan marketing and origination, and we will not hesitate to hold lenders liable for unfair or deceptive servicing practices,” he said in a press release.
The FTC alleged:
“When consumers got an email or verbal confirmation from Avant that their loan was paid off, the company came back for more – sometimes months later – claiming the payoff quote was erroneous. The FTC says Avant dinged consumers for extra fees and interest and even reported to credit bureaus that loans were delinquent after consumers paid the quoted payoff amount.”
The FTC further stated:
“The lawsuit also alleges that Avant charged consumers’ credit cards or took payments from their bank accounts without permission or in amounts larger than authorized. Sometimes Avant charged duplicate payments. One unfortunate consumer’s monthly payment was debited from his account eleven times in a single day. Another person called Avant’s customer service number trying to reduce his monthly payment only to be charged his entire balance. In other instances, Avant took consumers’ payoff balance twice. One consumer was stuck with overdraft fees and angry creditors when Avant withdrew his monthly payment three times in one day.”
In a subtle dig, the FTC said that online lending could be beneficial “if 21st century financial platforms abandon misleading 20th century practices.”
Under the settlement order, Avant, LLC will be prohibited from taking unauthorized payments and from collecting payment by means of remotely created check (RCC). The company also is prohibited from misrepresenting: the methods of payment accepted for monthly payments, partial payments, payoffs, or any other purpose; the amount of payment that will be sufficient to pay off in its entirety the balance of an account; when payments will be applied or credited; or any material fact regarding payments, fees, or charges.
Indicted Loan Brokers Out On Bond, 1 Still in Custody
April 5, 2019
Four of the five loan brokers indicted in a fake business loan scam that tricked an Ohio resident out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in upfront fees, have been released on bond. Only one, a defendant by the name of Haki Toplica, remains in custody. All of the defendants have entered pleas of not guilty.
In addition to the victim being asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars in upfront fees to apply for phony loans, he also signed over the title of 55 vehicles to the defendants to serve as the collateral. The vehicles included a Ford Mustang, several dump trucks, several tractors, several restored classic vehicles, a Freightliner motor home, and trailers.
Toplica was arrested in December and his co-conspirators in March. All of them are New York residents. The condition of one defendant’s release was that she remain working with her present employer. deBanked determined that her most recent employment was ironically that of a business loan broker.
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Brendan Ross, Direct Lending Investments, and Others
April 2, 2019
A class action lawsuit has been filed in California against Direct Lending Investments, LLC (DLI), Brendan Ross, Bryce Mason, Frank Turner, Rodney Omanoff, and Quarterspot Inc. alleging breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent inducement.
The claims are drawn from a series of revelations that have come out about the online lending hedge fund, namely that the fund lost nearly 25% of its value through a failed loan to VOIP Guardian Partners I (VOIP) and an SEC complaint that alleged DLI engaged in a scheme to misrepresent performance with the help of an online lender it invested in.
Plaintiffs point out many issues with the VOIP deal but hone in on the fact that the company engaged in risky behavior by taking DLI’s funds and lending out more than 75% of them to just two companies, Najd Technologies Ltd and Telacme Ltd. deBanked previously determined these now-defunct companies were headquartered in the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong. Documents obtained through VOIP’s bankruptcy filing indicate that both companies ceased making payments in October 2018. Despite this, DLI continued to report to investors that they were achieving very favorable monthly returns, the plaintiffs say, and no mention of VOIP’s distress was disclosed.
Bryce Mason and Frank Turner were named as defendants because they sat on DLI’s investment committee with Ross.
The plaintiffs are investment vehicles for a husband and wife that DLI last reported had a combined value of $758,000. They seek class action certification. They had only just begun investing with DLI last year.
On Monday, a judge in the SEC lawsuit ordered that DLI be placed in receivership. Bradley D. Sharp of Development Specialists, Inc. has been appointed to serve as permanent receiver for the fund’s estate.
You can download the full class action lawsuit complaint here.
Direct Lending Investments Charged With Fraud by the SEC
March 25, 2019
Update: DLI has agreed to the appointment of a receiver to marshal and preserve the assets of Direct Lending and the funds. The SEC has also published a press release on the matter.
One of the biggest online lending hedge funds has been accused of fraud by the SEC. On Friday, the SEC sued Direct Lending Investments (DLI) with perpetrating a multi-year fraud that misrepresented the value of loans in a segment of its portfolio.
A DLI employee told the SEC that CEO Brendan Ross helped engineer loans to be valued at par when they should’ve been valued at zero. Emails between Ross and the online loan platform suggest that this was intentional, the SEC argued. The effect of this was that between 2014 and 2017, DLI overstated the valuation of one of its loan portfolio positions by approximately $53 million and misrepresented the fund’s performance by about 2-3% annually.
The SEC seeks a preliminary injunction and appointment of a permanent receiver; permanent injunctions; disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
You can download the full SEC complaint here.
Below: DLI’s stated monthly returns 2013-2016
A 2017 DLI investor presentation touted “double-digit returns with no down months since inception” and a portfolio that has “exhibited little volatility.”
Analyzing Confessions of Judgment
March 4, 2019
Platzer, Swergold, Levine, Goldberg, Katz & Jaslow, LLP (“Platzer”) has built one of the leading Merchant Cash Advance practices in New York City. With years of experience handling traditional lending transactions, Platzer has expanded its representation to Merchant Cash Advance Companies (“MCA”) in all aspects of their business cycles, including Participation Agreements, Assets Utilization, Transactional related matters and litigation.
In the course of representing some of its MCA clients within the State of New York, Platzer has identified a potential issue in certain counties within New York State that are denying entry of Confessions of Judgment (“COJs”), notwithstanding language that has been contractually agreed upon and explicitly sets forth that the Confession of Judgment “may be entered in any and all counties with in the State of New York”, when the defendant is a non-resident.
The following is not a legal opinion but is our preliminary analysis:
It is Platzer’s position that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) 3218(a)(1) provides that when the defendant is a “non-resident” that judgment by confession may be entered in “the county in which entry is authorized.” Further, CPLR 3218(b) allows entry of judgment by confession as to a non-resident“ with the clerk of the county designated in the affidavit.” Platzer respectfully argued to the subject county that its jurisdiction is within the scope of authorization of “all counties” in the State of New York, and that the defendant “authorized” entry of judgment in the subject County, as contemplated by CPLR 3218(a)(1), and was also designated, as one of “all counties” in the State of New York, satisfying CPLR 3218(b), yet the Confession was denied entry.
As Platzer then noted, there is case authority for the proposition that non-resident defendants may subject themselves under CPLR § 3218 to the entry of judgment by confession in multiple counties. To Platzer’s knowledge, no Court has passed on the precise language of “all counties” or similar language. In the analogous situation where the confession of judgment executed by the non-resident defendant allowed entry in multiple but not “all” counties, Courts have routinely upheld entry of the judgment, while noting that there is no authority that would prohibit such entry under CPLR § 3218. Platzer has contended that this case law supports the notion that entry of confessions of judgment with “all counties” language is proper under CPLR § 3218.
As of March 4, 2019, Platzer is actively discussing these issues with the subject counties within the State of New York and hopes that its arguments will be persuasive based upon current New York law. Platzer is aware, however, of the state and national legislative efforts to curtail the entry of confessions of judgment and, specifically, the recent legislative proposal by Governor Andrew Cuomo to restrict entry of confessions of judgment to defendants doing business in New York and in amounts over $250,000.00. Platzer expresses no opinion as to these efforts.
Contacts:
Howard M. Jaslow
hjaslow@platzerlaw.com
Morgan S. Grossman
mgrossman@platzerlaw.com
Platzer, Swergold, Levine, Goldberg, Katz & Jaslow, LLP
475 Park Avenue South, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 593-3000 ext. 248
Facsimile: (212) 593-0353
1 Global Capital Issued Securities, Court Rules
February 17, 2019
1 Global Capital founder Carl Ruderman suffered a major setback in his case with the SEC earlier this month, when the Court ruled that his company’s Syndication Partner Agreements and Memorandums of Indebtedness were in fact, securities. Ruderman had filed a motion to dismiss the SEC’s claims against him personally but the Court struck it down.
1 Global sold its notes to more than 3,400 investors in at least 25 states, who collectively invested at least $287 million. The company declared bankruptcy last year amid parallel criminal and civil investigations that hampered its ability to raise capital. The SEC filed suit soon after but no criminal charges have been brought to date.
In the ensuing legal discovery, it was revealed that the company funded the largest merchant cash advance in history, a collective $40 million funded over several transactions to an auto dealership group in California. Those dealerships closed not longer after 1 Global Capital’s bankruptcy. Those closures have sparked a lawsuit of its own and with it the revelation that several of 1 Global Capital’s competitors had also funneled millions into the dealerships.
The Court’s ruling in the motion to dismiss whereby the investments were deemed securities can be downloaded here.
Coming Soon: The End of Confession of Judgments (COJs) in New York State
January 16, 2019
New York State plans to outlaw the use of Confession of Judgments (COJs) in small business loan contracts this year, according to details revealed in Governor Andrew Cuomo’s newly published Justice Agenda.
The proposal, dubbed “Stopping Predatory Merchant Cash-Advance Loans,” is a 3-part plan to:
- Codify an FTC rule that prohibits COJs in consumer loans
- Prohibit the use of COJs in small business loans under $250,000
- Stop lenders from exploiting New York courts for nationwide collections by requiring that any permissible confession of judgment enforced in New York courts have a nexus to business activity in New York
Cuomo’s proposal echoes calls from the State legislature in response to a series published in Bloomberg Businessweek late last year that speculated COJs were vulnerable to abuse.
Both the Assembly and Senate maintain a Democrat majority, the same party as Cuomo, increasing the likelihood that such a bill could become law.
The proposal is separate from a bill that was recently introduced at the federal level. The Small Business Lending Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Senators Marco Rubio and Sherrod Brown, call for a nationwide ban on COJs. That bill has not progressed, perhaps due in part to the government shutdown. Like New York, that initiative was a response to the series published in Bloomberg.
A review of Bloomberg’s facts by deBanked revealed highly questionable reporting. In one example, it’s claimed that a business owner had been so victimized by predatory lending that he’d been forced to sell his furniture just to feed himself. deBanked later determined that the “victim” was actually a multimillionaire TV station owner whose account of any such engagement with merchant cash advance companies was incredibly unlikely. The reporters have not responded to deBanked’s findings.
Zeke Faux, who co-authored the series with Zachary Mider, deleted his entire tweet history around the same time that deBanked uncovered strange ties between his editor and the New York Attorney General’s office. The AG is reported to have sent subpoenas to several companies in response to the stories.
On Monday, Faux and Mider reported that clerks in three New York counties, whose job, among other roles, is to enter legally compliant COJs into the public record, were revolting by refusing to process COJs submitted by merchant cash advance companies. Though a clerk’s duties is largely an administrative one, two that spoke on the record with Bloomberg were former state legislators. Erie County Clerk Michael Kearns, for example, who told Bloomberg News that he felt that the use of COJs was criminal, had actually drafted a bill in 2017 when he was an assemblyman that sought to regulate cash advances of a different sort in the litigation financing industry. Although Kearns is a Democrat, he has historically enjoyed support from the Republican Party.
Orange County Clerk Annie Rabbitt and Richmond County Clerk Stephen Fiala, who are rebelling along with Kearns by refusing to enter COJs, are registered as Republicans, demonstrating that the movement is crossing party lines.
According to deBanked, less than half of 1% of all MCA transactions have resulted in the filing of a COJ, despite Bloomberg’s insinuation that the outcome is common or typical.
Among the most prolific filers of merchant cash advance COJs, deBanked found, is Itria Ventures, LLC, a company affiliated with Biz2Credit. Itria filed more than 50 in the last two months. Biz2Credit’s CEO, Rohit Arora, is a writer for both CNBC and Forbes.
Former Merchant Cash Advance CFO Charged With Fraud by New York Attorney General
January 4, 2019
A former merchant cash advance CFO and executive for a fund that provides capital to merchant cash advance companies, has been charged with fraud by the New York Attorney General. The allegations against Stephen Brown stem from his role as CFO of Cardis Enterprises International, a company that claimed to possess patented and proprietary technology to make low-value credit card transactions less expensive for merchants. Brown is the former CFO for Capital Stack, LLC/eProdigy Financial in New York. In reality, Cardis was a massive fraud and a ponzi scheme, the Attorney General alleges. The company raised tens of millions of dollars from duped investors.
Brown is one of twelve defendants, but is described as the most senior financial executive of the firm whose principal role was to draft and send investor update letters, which contained a host of false statements and omissions.
Among the allegations against Brown is that he lied to investors about being close to finalizing deals with Sony, Warner, and Universal. “At the time of Defendant Brown’s representation, only one introductory meeting between Cardis and each music company had taken place, and the parties had not even executed non-disclosure agreements,” the complaint says. Several other business deals Brown announced were either imaginary, had never made it past a simple introduction, or had already been outright rejected by the prospective partner.
Despite being the CFO, Brown did not even maintain a basic income statement, a formal share registry, or comprehensive records of its debts and obligations. When the scheme was suspected by investors, Brown doubled down on the lies, the complaint says.
On September 24, 2015, a Cardis investor emailed Defendant Brown asking for the “latest on Cardis” and whether it was “a complete loss,” while mentioning a recent investor lawsuit. Defendant Brown, copying Defendant Rosenblatt, responded that the lawsuit claiming fraud was “frivolous,” while claiming that Cardis’ relationship with Roc Nation was “developing” and ongoing. In fact, the lawsuit had merit, and Cardis’ relationship with Roc Nation was long over.
On February 28, 2018, a Cardis investor recorded a telephone conversation with Defendant Brown. The investor asked “what happened to the cash” investors put into Cardis. Defendant Brown responded by detailing the Company’s large budget and staff, while failing to disclose the substantial misuse of investor funds. The investor also questioned Defendant Brown about various investor lawsuits against Cardis and its principals. The investor asked: “After reading those lawsuits, why should we think that the company has any future?” In response, Defendant Brown told the investor “the lawsuits were not the most credible lawsuits,” attributing them to “angry investors.” Defendant Brown later told the investor “none of those lawsuits have any merit to them.” In fact, there was substantial merit to the investor lawsuits.
These misrepresentations and omissions were material to investors because they bore directly on Cardis’ viability.
The New York Post ran a story that labeled Cardis a Bernie Madoff-style scheme that falsely claimed ties to Jay-Z’s entertainment company.
The defendants stand accused of Material Misrepresentations, Repeated and Persistent Fraud and Illegality, Actual Fraud, Equitable Fraud, and Constructive Fraud. The Attorney General is pursuing restitution for victims, a ban from the securities industry in the State of New York, and to liquidate the company.
The docket # is 452353/2018 in the New York Supreme Court. The allegations have not yet been proven. According to LinkedIn, Brown currently lists himself as the President of GMA USA, LLC, President of CoreFund Capital LLC, and the CFO of Nanovibronix. He also lists being the CFO of eProdigy Financial for almost 3 years until early 2017.
