Legal Briefs
Weigh In: Should The New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law Be Preempted by TILA?
December 7, 2022
The CFPB issued a statement on Wednesday to announce that it does not believe that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law is preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
In a simple sense, the question of whether or not commercial finance companies can potentially disregard portions of New York’s commercial finance disclosure law on the basis that a similar federal law (TILA) has the superior claim to the legalities surrounding APR disclosures, has been answered by the CFPB. It says no. The agency believes that the two laws do not conflict with each other on the stated basis that TILA regulates “consumer purpose transactions” hence New York’s law is not preempted by TILA. At this time this is merely the CFPB’s “preliminary determination.” Now it is asking for the public’s thoughts on the matter.
“The CFPB is requesting comment on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination that the New York law – as well as potentially similar laws in California, Utah, and Virginia – are not preempted.”
The formal Request for Comment and instructions to submit comment can be found here.
The timing is a bit curious given that this issue has just been legally raised in another state. The deadline to submit comment to the CFPB is January 20, 2023.
First Criminal Charges in MJ Capital Funding Saga
September 6, 2022
Criminal charges have finally been introduced to the MJ Capital Funding ponzi scheme saga. Last week, 29-year-old Pavel Ramon Ruiz Hernandez was charged by federal prosecutors with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud. According to the allegations, Hernandez helped manage the operations of MJ Capital and oversaw significant fundraising efforts for the company while knowing that the business was a ponzi scheme. All told, it’s alleged that he and his co-conspirators defrauded investors out of $42 million.
MJ Capital Funding pretended to be an MCA provider but did not actually operate an MCA business, nor was the company known within the MCA industry.
Much of the investigations have focused on Johanna M. Garcia, the CEO of the company, but to date she has not been criminally charged.
If Ruiz Hernandez is convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, the DOJ states. The MJ Capital ponzi scheme is reported to have affected over 9,000 investors.
Trial of Brendan Ross Postponed Again
July 17, 2022The criminal trial of Brendan Ross, the former alternative lending hedge fund operator accused of wire fraud, has been postponed to October 11, 2022. It had previously been set for July 26. Both sides agreed to the delay. Ross has been out on bond. He has pled not guilty.
Eight Charged in PPP Scheme in California
June 24, 2022
Another alleged SBA fraud scheme has met its end after eight defendants were recently charged in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The group netted $7 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and pre-pandemic Small Business Administration loans. Defendants Frank Hamilton, Michael Jones, Tina Chen, Kenny Tran, Tim Park, Peter An, Joseph Greco, and Edwin Bonilla are all California residents.
Specifically for PPP loans, the conspirators allegedly created transactions designed to give the appearance that the funds were being used for payroll. However, the companies had no payroll and no business activities. As part of the scheme, they allegedly created fake bank statements and false tax documents to prove legitimacy. The defendants are being charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Deal Gone Bad? Next Stop Arbitration
June 20, 2022
When a funder is unable to resolve a breach of contract with a customer on its own, litigation may seem like the only option left. But there may be an alternative, a process known as arbitration.
“Arbitration is a creature of contract,” said Zachary Meyer, a partner at a law firm. Meyer is also the co-founder and Chief Administrator of RapidRuling, an arbitration forum that has recently experienced an uptick in cases from the small business finance space. An arbitration forum is an alternative to the courthouse, where disputes are adjudicated by an arbitrator instead of a judge. It’s binding. The prevailing party, for example, can take an arbitrator’s award to the Court and turn it into a judgment.
Meyer told deBanked that part of the original vision for RapidRuling was an entirely online system that would prevent one or both parties from having to incur travel costs to participate. The overall cost of arbitration for a respondent in Montana, for example, would go up if they had to pay for a flight to New York City just to appear for it. “It’s beneficial for the [respondent],” Meyer said.
But in 2019 when RapidRuling first launched, the industry was already well accustomed to relying on AAA, the acronym for the American Arbitration Association. AAA, which was founded in 1926, resolved more than 300,000 total cases in 2019 alone. But then, Covid hit.
“It was like a perfect storm,” Meyer said. As the court system ground to a halt and struggled to move online, an all-online arbitration forum like RapidRuling suddenly had significant appeal. Meyer explained that the forum’s low filing fee compared to alternatives also grabbed attention. It understandably took off.
But the path to arbitration, including which forum to rely upon, may all hinge on the original contract itself, which a funding company’s attorney should carefully draft. Copying and pasting a random contract off the internet, for example, carries great risk, Meyer explained, because one may later discover a boilerplate arbitration clause to be limiting or disadvantageous.
RapidRuling’s website describes its arbitration process in four steps:
1. Submit Your Dispute
2. Wait For Opposing Party To Respond
3. Arbitrator Reviews Submissions
4. Receive An Arbitration Award
Contrast that value proposition to litigation, which depending on the circumstances could be drawn out for years.
RapidRuling seeks out arbitrators that are well-qualified, fair-minded, and diverse. “We have a panel of six arbitrators right now,” Meyer said, “and we’re looking to add more.”
David Picon the Recipient of the Greg Nowak Impact Award
June 16, 2022
The Alternative Finance Bar Association named Proskauer partner David A. Picon the recipient of the AFBA Greg Nowak Impact Award. Picon, who was also the keynote speaker of the AFBA conference, was selected by the association’s members for his all-around efforts for the legal community both on matters of law and outside of it.
Greg Nowak, who passed away suddenly last year, was a partner of Troutman Pepper and a beloved founding member of the AFBA. His wife and son were both present for the heartfelt moment in Nowak’s honor.
The Alternative Finance Bar Association Conference is SOLD OUT
June 7, 2022Next week’s Alternative Finance Bar Association Conference has already sold out. The exclusive go-to event for industry attorneys takes place on June 15th and 16th in New York City.
Thirteen organizations are sponsoring it, including deBanked. The AFBA provided the attached graphic to showcase who they are:
deBanked plans to have three representatives present. For information and inquiries about the event, please contact Lindsey Rohan at lindsey@lrohanlaw.com. This event is sold out.
RCG Advances Permanently Banned From MCA Business by FTC
June 6, 2022
It’s déjà vu. Five months after the FTC successfully banned someone from engaging in the MCA business, the agency has secured a similar outcome from additional defendants. This time it’s RCG Advances and its operator that are banned, according to the final settlement announced by the parties. In addition, RCG is required to make an upfront payment of $1.5M to the FTC and refund $1.2M to its previous customers that it had allegedly deceived.
The penalty may appear rather small in the big picture, but it is possibly as strong an outcome as the FTC could’ve hoped to obtain given the odd circumstances that befell the case. For example, the FTC filed its suit against RCG in June 2020 under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, one of the most common tools in its legal arsenal. Less than a year later, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that despite long-standing precedent, 13(b) did not give the FTC legal authority to obtain monetary relief, which from the FTC’s point of view, defeated the entire purpose of bringing such claims. In light of the ruling, the FTC was forced to change its strategy in the RCG case. In May 2021, the FTC asked the Court if it could amend its lawsuit to state that what the defendants had actually done all along was violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was perhaps a more difficult path forward.
By January, the first settlement was announced. This RCG settlement now follows that. One defendant in the case has not settled and the proceedings are still ongoing.
