College Education Services; Marcia Elena Vargas; and Frank Liz
Documents in this case
- Complaint · · 20 p.
- Consent order · · 15 p.
Case summary
CFPB took action to put an end to two student “debt relief” scams that illegally tricked borrowers into paying upfront fees for federal loan benefits. The CFPB, in a joint filing with Florida’s Attorney General, shut down student debt relief company College Education Services and separately filed a lawsuit against Student Loan Processing.US for illegally marketing student debt relief services.
Complaint ()
PDF of this document (20 pages)
Page 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Civil Action No. Office of the Attorney General, State of
S\4 cv 30> & lac Eas Florida, Department of Legal Affairs, “t
COMPLAINT Plaintiff,
Injunctive Relief Sought
Va
College Education Services LLC, Marcia Elena Vargas, individually, and Frank Liz,
individually, = cD . rca Defendants. C3 7 pre [~ m™ COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 2 ak
CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
Introduction
iA The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) and the Office of
the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs (Attorney
General of Florida) bring this action against College Education Services LLC (CES), Marcia Elena Vargas, and Frank Liz. The Bureau brings this action under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a), 5564, 5565, and the Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida together bring this action under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the Telemarketing Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c)(2), 6105(d), based on violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, and sections 1031(a) and
1036(a)(1) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1), in connection with |
Page 3
Defendants’ marketing and sale of student-loan debt-relief services. In addition, the Attorney General of Florida brings this action to enforce the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2013). Jurisdiction and Venue 2.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is “brought under Federal consumer financial law,” 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1), presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is brought by an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3.
The Attorney General of Florida is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings to enjoin telemarketing and debt relief activities that violate the TSR pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Attorney General of Florida’s state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 because those claims are so related to the claims asserted by the Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida under the TSR that they form part of the same case or controversy.
4.
Venue is proper because Defendants reside and transact business in the Tampa Division of this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c); 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f); M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.02.
Parties 5.
The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a) and charged with regulating the offering and provision of consumerfinancial products and services under federal consumer-financial laws, including the
Page 4
Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c)(2), 6105(d), the TSR, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, and the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1). The Bureau is authorized to initiate civil actions in federal district court, by its own attorneys, to address violations of “Federal consumer financial law” and to secure such relief as may be appropriate. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5564(a)-(b), 5565.
6.
The Attorney General of Florida is an enforcing authority of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2013), pursuant to Section 501. 203, Florida Statutes. The Attorney General of Florida has conducted an investigation of the matters alleged herein, and the head of the enforcing authority, Attorney General of Florida Pamela Jo Bondi, has determined that this enforcement action serves the public interest. Pursuant to FDUTPA, the Attorney General of Florida is authorized to pursue this action to enjoin FDUTPA violations and to obtain legal, equitable, or other appropriate relief, including restitution, civil penalties, and relief pursuant to Sections 501. 207 and 501. 2075, Florida Statutes. The Attorney General of Florida is authorized to bring this action and to seek injunctive and other statutory relief to enforce the TSR under 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a).
7.
CES, including its predecessor College Defaulted Student Loan LLC, was a Florida corporation headquartered in Tampa, Florida. At all times material to this Complaint, CES transacted business in this District, providing financial-advisory services to consumers and purporting to assist consumers with managing, including altering the terms of, their student-loan debt. CES initiated and received telephone
Page 5
calls to and from consumers and provided services by use of one or more telephones. CES is therefore a “covered person” under the CFPA and a “telemarketer” engaged in “telemarketing” under the TSR. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6), (15)(A)(viii); 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(cc)-(dd).
8.
Marcia Elena Vargas was an owner, the chief financial officer, and a manager of CES. At all times material to this Complaint, Vargas managed, formulated, directed, controlled, or had the authority to control CES and materially participated in the conduct of its affairs. Vargas is therefore a “related person” under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i)-(ii). Because Vargas is a “related person,” she is deemed a “covered person” for purposes of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). Vargas resides in Tampa, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacted business in this District.
9.
Frank Liz was an advisor to and employee of CES. At all times material to this Complaint, Liz managed, formulated, directed, controlled, or had the authority to control CES and materially participated in the conduct of its affairs. Liz is therefore a “related person” under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i)-(ii). Because Liz is a “related person,” he is deemed a “covered person” for purposes of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). Liz resides in Tampa, Florida, and in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacted business in this District.
Page 6
Factual Background 10.
From on or about September 2010 through February 2013, Defendants marketed and advertised debt-relief services to financially distressed student-loan borrowers whose loans were in default or garnishment. 11.
CES targeted these consumers through expensive Google AdWords online marketing campaigns. When consumers conducted Google searches using phrases such as “defaulted student loan,” “student loan garnishment,” “student loan forgiveness,” and “paying student loan tough,” CES ads making the following types of claims would be displayed on their screens: Default of Student Loan
Student Loan Forgiveness Call 877-730-5368 Money Back Apply Now To Get Your Student Loan Guaranteed Get Out 4-8 weeks! Forgiveness, Friendly Staff Waiting
Stop Wage Garnishment
Student Loan Relief Guaranteed-Stop Wage Garnishment Cut Your Student Loan Monthly With a Minimum Monthly Payment Payment Up to 50% - Save Today!
12.
The ads directed consumers to one of CES’s websites, including CollegeDefaultedStudentLoan.com or HelpStudentLoanDefault.com. On those websites, CES asserted that “[w]e can help you fix your student loans” and encouraged consumers to “[l]et us find the best Solution to all of Your Federal Student Loan Troubles!”
13.
CES’s websites further claimed that the company’s services would enable distressed student loan debtors to: Join thousands of college graduates who’ve already:
Cut their monthly payments by as [sic] 50 percent! Removed wage garnishment and monetary judgments against them!
Page 7
Consolidated countless loans into just one streamlined monthly payment! Dramatically improved their credit rating and score!
14.
CES portrayed its mission as “help[ing] individual [sic] and families, regardless of circumstance, end financial crisis and solve money management problems caused by outstanding student loans.” CES promised to “establish customtailored programs and plans for your specific individual needs.” 15.
CES’s websites listed a toll-free number and instructed consumers either to call or input their contact information into a form on the website. 16.
For consumers who submitted contact information through a website, a CES telemarketer called them back within five minutes. If the telemarketers could not reach a consumer, they would call twice a day for up to 10 days to get the consumer on the phone.
17.
When speaking with consumers, CES’s telemarketers introduced themselves as student loan “counselors” or “advisors.” CES telemarketers claimed they had the knowledge and expertise necessary to “custom-tailor[] programs and plans” to meet each consumer’s “individual needs” and free consumers from “financial misfortune.”
18.
CES’s loan “counselors” pledged to assist consumers in “securing a new Federally-backed consolidated loan,” which they claimed would result in, among other things, lower monthly payments, freedom from default or garnishment in eight weeks or less, and improved credit scores.
Page 8
19.
CES instructed its loan “counselors” to emphasize the following in its initial calls with borrowers in default: This program will have you out of default in 4-6 weeks. The benefits of getting out of default are significant to people in default (GIVE 4-5 EXAMPLES THAT ARE RELEVENT [sic] TO THE CALLER'S SITUATION).
1. Prevent or Stop Wage Garnishment 2. Prevent or Stop IRS Tax Seizures 3. Improve your Credit Score- will show that defaulted loans are now paid in full and you will have a new loan with a new lender showing in good standing. (FYI-Info is not erased) 4. Avoid suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of Professional Licenses 5. Prevent Litigation and Judgment Costs 6. Become Eligible for Unlimited Forbearances & Deferments 7. Stop the Harassing phone calls from Bill Collectors 8. Obtain your Diploma & Transcripts 9. Become Eligible for Financial Aid (Federal Student Loans & Pell Grants).
20.
Regardless of the borrower’s student-loan issues or particular circumstances, CES telemarketers assured the borrower that “from looking at your loans and situation, you do qualify for our program and services.” 21.
CES’s telemarketers exploited consumers’ financial distress, pressuring consumers into paying significant advance fees by repeatedly promising that CES could resolve all their student-loan woes. 22.
CES charged consumers between $195 and $2,500 based on the amount of student-loan debt at issue, with the average fee being about $500. CES required all or a substantial portion of its fee to be paid before it would perform any debt-relief services on the consumer’s behalf. 23.
CES collected millions in advance fees from consumers seeking student-loan debt-relief services.
Page 9
24.
After receiving payment details, the telemarketers would thank the consumers for “trusting CES with providing a solution to your Student Loan situation” and again promised that “the result [was] . . . 100% guaranteed.” CES Failed to Provide the Guaranteed Services 25.
Despite its promise of “guaranteed” results, CES could not and did not resolve all of the student-loan issues faced by the consumers who paid for its services.
26.
CES often failed to (1) provide any services to borrowers, (2) deliver the “guaranteed” lower monthly payments, relief from default or garnishment, loan forgiveness, or improved credit scores, or (3) obtain relief in less than six or eight weeks as promised. Indeed, CES exacerbated the student-loan difficulties of some of the financially distressed consumers it promised to help. 27.
CES did not perform the promised individualized assessments of consumers’ student-loan situations to determine the best debt-relief options. To the extent CES provided any debt-relief services, they consisted nearly exclusively of applying for student-loan consolidation and subsequent repayment plans. 28.
As purported experts, CES knew or should have known that loan consolidation was not an option for every student-loan borrower, and even when available, could not resolve all the student-loan issues CES’s customers faced or provide the relief CES “guaranteed” in every instance. 29.
CES did not explain to consumers the requirements for loan consolidation or the relative benefits and risks of different consolidation options.
Page 10
Specifically, CES did not advise consumers that: (1) certain federal and private loans could not be consolidated; (2) certain consolidation-repayment plans could result in higher monthly payments or other negative consequences; (3) consolidation might lead to other unfavorable results, such as the loss of grace periods; (4) loans in default often could not be consolidated until after the successful completion of months-long trial-repayment plans; and (5) other debt-relief strategies or options might better meet the customer’s needs.
30.
In fact, in a number of cases, CES did not even assess whether the consumer had loans that were eligible for consolidation before taking advance fees. 31.
Further, for some consumers who qualified for loan consolidation, CES selected monthly repayment plans that increased their monthly payments – the exact opposite of what those borrowers expected and desired when they engaged CES’s debt-relief services.
32.
CES also misled consumers about its ability to obtain loan forgiveness. CES could not “guarantee” loan forgiveness; all it could do was, at most, assist certain consumers in establishing eligibility for such relief. 33.
Further, CES had no basis to assert that its services would lead to improved credit scores. CES did not check consumers’ credit scores before or after the company performed debt-relief services on their behalf, and had no way of knowing how, or to what extent, even a successful loan consolidation would impact a consumer’s credit score.
Page 11
34.
Thus, through false promises and “guarantees,” CES raked in millions in advance fees from consumers while leaving many of them in the same or a worse student-loan predicament than before.
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE (Asserted by the Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida) 35.
In 1994, Congress passed the Telemarketing Act and directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and deceptive telemarketing acts or practices. 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-08. In 1995, the FTC adopted the TSR, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, which became effective on December 31, 1995. On August 10, 2010, the FTC promulgated amendments to the TSR to include provisions specifically directed at debt-relief services.
36.
Through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress amended the Telemarketing Act to give the CFPB the authority to enforce the TSR. 15 U.S.C. 6102(c)(2). The Attorney General of Florida is authorized to enjoin telemarketing and enforce compliance of the TSR pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §6103(a).
37.
As defined by the TSR, Defendants are “seller[s]” or “telemarketer[s]” engaged in “telemarketing” and the provision of “debt relief service[s].” 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.2 (m), (aa), (cc), and (dd).
Count I Abusive Telemarketing Acts or Practices Related to Advance Fees in Connection with Debt-Relief Services
38.
The Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-34.
Page 12
39.
It is an abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of the TSR for any seller or telemarketer to request or receive payment of any fee or consideration for any debt-relief service until and unless: a.
The seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customer; b.
The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector; and c.
To the extent that debts enrolled in a service are renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered individually, the fee or consideration either (1) bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for renegotiating, settling, reducing, or altering the terms of the entire debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the entire debt amount; or (2) is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i).
40.
In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing student-loan debt-relief services, Defendants requested and received payment of a fee or consideration for a debt-relief service before (a) they renegotiated, settled, reduced,
Page 13
or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customer; and (b) the customer made at least one payment pursuant to that agreement.
41.
Therefore, Defendants’ acts and practices as alleged in paragraph 40 constitute abusive telemarketing acts or practices in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i).
Count II Deceptive Telemarketing Acts or Practices 42.
The Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-34.
43.
It is a deceptive telemarketing act or practice for any seller or telemarketer of debt-relief services to misrepresent, directly or by implication, in the sale of the services, any material aspect of any debt-relief service, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x), or to fail to discloses truthfully the amount of time necessary to achieve the represented results, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(A).
Page 14
44.
In numerous instances, in the course of telemarketing debt-relief services, Defendants misrepresented, directly or indirectly, material aspects of the debt-relief services they sold, including: a. that their services would result in lower monthly student-loan payments;
b. that consumers who used Defendants’ services would improve their credit scores; and c. that Defendants would achieve results in less than eight weeks. 45.
In numerous instances, in the course of telemarketing debt-relief services, before consumers consented to pay for services, Defendants failed to disclose truthfully the amount of time necessary to achieve the represented results. 46.
In truth and in fact, Defendants did not always reduce consumers’ monthly student-loan payments; had no basis to claim consumers’ credit scores would improve; and did not achieve results in the time promised. 47.
Therefore, Defendants’ acts and practices as alleged in paragraphs 44 to 46 constitute deceptive telemarketing acts or practices in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(A) and (a)(2)(x). VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT (Asserted by the Bureau) 48.
The CFPA prohibits any covered person from engaging in any deceptive or abusive act or practice. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B).
Page 15
49.
As stated above, Defendants are covered persons under the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), 15(A)(viii), and therefore are liable for acts and practices that violate the Act. 12 U.S.C. 5536(a).
Count III Deception 50.
The Bureau realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-34. 51.
In numerous instances, in connection with the offering or providing of student-loan debt-relief services, Defendants represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:
a. their services would result in lower monthly student-loan payments; b. that consumers who used their services would improve their credit scores; and c. that Defendants would achieve results in less than eight weeks. 52.
The material representations set forth in paragraph 51 were false and misleading and unsubstantiated.
53.
Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in paragraph 51 constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B).
Count IV Abusiveness 54.
The Bureau realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-34.
Page 16
55.
An act or practice is abusive under the CFPA if it “takes unreasonable advantage of . . . the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer.” 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(C). 56.
In numerous instances, in connection with the offering or providing of student-loan debt-relief services, CES targeted financially distressed consumers by using sophisticated and expensive Internet-marketing campaigns aimed at attracting consumers whose student loans were in default or garnishment or whose monthly payments were otherwise unaffordable.
57.
CES’s telemarketers held themselves out as loan counselors and advisors with the expertise to establish custom-tailored programs to address each student-loan debtor’s specific needs. CES created the illusion of expertise and individualized advice to induce consumers to reasonably rely on the company to act in their interests in seeking and selecting student loan debt-relief plans. 58.
CES did not undertake the promised individualized assessment of each consumer’s student-loan situation. Instead, to the extent CES provided services, it primarily sought to consolidate its customers’ student loans. 59.
CES took unreasonable advantage of the reasonable reliance of consumers by enrolling and taking fees from consumers whose loans were ineligible for consolidation or who did not otherwise qualify for the relief the company promised.
60.
For example, CES took advance fees to consolidate private loans that were not eligible for consolidation with federal loans. CES also took upfront fees to
Page 17
enroll some consumers in income-based repayment plans or loan forgiveness programs for which they were not eligible. In addition, CES placed some consumers in repayment plans that increased their monthly student-loan payments, leaving those consumers in a more financially precarious position than before. 61.
Therefore, the acts and practices set forth in paragraphs 56 to 60 constitute abusive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B).
VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Asserted by the Attorney General of Florida) 62.
Section 501.204(1) of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, states that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” Count V Deceptive and Unfair Acts and Practices 63.
The Attorney General of Florida realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-34.
64.
CES, at all times material hereto, engaged in a “trade or commerce” pursuant to Section 501.208, Florida Statutes, by engaging in the advertising, soliciting, and telemarketing of student loan debt relief services. 65.
At all times material hereto, Defendants have engaged in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in offering or providing student loan-debt relief services including but not limited to that Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication that Defendants’ student loan debt relief services would
Page 18
result in lower monthly student loan payments for consumers; that Defendants would achieve the represented results in less than eight weeks; ad that such results were guaranteed.
66.
Defendants representations identified in paragraph 65 were false and misleading and unsubstantiated, and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 501.204, Florida Statutes.
67.
Defendants Vargas and Liz have directly participated in the acts and practices alleged as unlawful herein, have directed or controlled, or have had the authority to direct or control, the practices engaged in by CES and and had actual or constructive knowledge of the acts and practices alleged herein or exercised a reckless indifference to the conduct of CES as alleged herein. 68.
Defendants willfully engaged in the acts and practices alleged herein when they knew or should have known that such acts and practices are deceptive or unfair or otherwise prohibited by law.
69.
Defendants have committed and are committing acts or practices in trade or commerce which shock the conscience, have engaged in or are engaging in representations, acts, practices, or omissions in trade or commerce which are material and which are likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and have engaged in or are engaging in acts or practices that are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which are not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves or outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
Page 19
70.
Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices alleged herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Bureau and the Attorney General of Florida request that the Court:
1. permanently enjoin Defendants to prevent future violations of the CFPA, TSR, FDUTPA, or any provision of “Federal consumer financial law,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 5481(14);
2. grant additional injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper; 3. award restitution against Defendants in the amount of all unlawfully collected fees;
4. order disgorgement of ill-gotten revenues against Defendants; 5. award civil money penalties against Defendants; and 6. award costs and fees against Defendants and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
Page 20
Dated: December 11, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony Alexis (DC Bar #384545) Acting Enforcement Director
Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich (FL Bar #51561) Deputy Enforcement Director
Natalie R. Williams (NY Bar #2422590) Assistant Litigation Deputy
—
CalserrL. Christopher (CA Bar #231508) Trial Counsel Telephone: (202) 754-0329 E-mail: [email protected]
Rebecca Smullin (CA Bar #250274) Telephone: (202) 435-7178 E-mail: [email protected]
Kimberly J. Ravener (NY #4504569) Telephone: (212) 328-7007 E-mail: [email protected]
Enforcement Attorneys
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20552
Facsimile: (202) 435-7329
Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Page 21
Pamela Jo Bondi Attorney General
Julia A. Harris (FL Bar #0884235)
~ Trial Counsel Senior Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 3507 East Frontage Road, Suite 325 Tampa, Florida 33607 Telephone: (813) 287-7950 Facsimile: (813) 281-5515 E-mail: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal
Affairs
Consent order ()
PDF of this document (15 pages)
Page 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs,
Plaintiffs,
v.
College Education Services LLC, Marcia Elena Vargas, and Frank Liz,
Defendants.
Case No: 8:14-cv-3078-T-36EAJ
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) and the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs (Attorney General of Florida) commenced this civil action on December 11, 2014, to obtain injunctive relief, civil money penalties, and other relief from College Education Services LLC, Marcia Elena Vargas, and Frank Liz (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, deceptive and abusive acts in violation of sections 1031(a) and 1036(a)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1), and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2013), in connection with Defendants’ marketing and sale of student-loan debt-relief services. The Parties, by and through respective counsel, have requested Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 70
Page 23
that the Court enter this Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Money Penalties, and Other Relief (Order). FINDINGS 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
2. Venue is proper as to all parties in this District and Division. 3. The Parties agree to entry of this Order, without adjudication of any issue of fact or law, to settle and resolve all matters in dispute arising from the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
4. Defendants neither admit nor deny any allegations in the complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. For the purposes of this Order, Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of this action.
5. Defendants waive service under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and waive all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Order. Defendants also waive any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action. Each Party will bear its own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, except as otherwise provided in Section IV.A of this Order.
6. Entry of this Order is in the public interest.
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 15 PageID 71
Page 24
DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to this Order: 1. “Affected Consumers” includes any consumer who paid an Advance Fee to CES.
2. “Advance Fee” means any fee or consideration requested or received by an entity, whether directly or indirectly, that occurs before: a. that entity has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debtmanagement plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the consumer;
b. the consumer has made at least one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector; and c. to the extent that debts enrolled in a service provided by the entity are renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered individually, the fee or consideration either (1) bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for renegotiating, settling, reducing, or altering the terms of the entire debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the entire debt amount; or (2) is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration. Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 15 PageID 72
Page 25
3. “CES” means College Education Services LLC, its predecessor College Defaulted Student Loan LLC, and its successors and assigns. 4. “Consumer financial product or service” has the same meaning set forth in the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5). 5. “Corporate Defendant” means CES.
6. “Debt-Relief Service” means any program or service represented, expressly or impliedly, to (1) assist a consumer with debt management or debt settlement, (2) modify the terms of any extension of credit, or (3) renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the terms of payment or any other terms of a debt between a consumer and one or more creditors or debt collectors. 7. “Defendants” means the Corporate Defendant and the Individual Defendants, individually, collectively, or in any combination. 8. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Order is issued. 9. “Enforcement Director” means the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or his or her designee.
10. “Individual Defendant(s)” means, individually or collectively, Marcia Elena Vargas, also known as Marcia Vargas, Elena Vargas, Elena Marcia Vargas, or Marcia Elena Vargas Liz; and Frank Liz, also known as Frank C. Liz or Francisco Cabrera Liz.
11. “Related Consumer Action” means a private action by or on behalf of one or more consumers or an enforcement action by another governmental agency Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 15 PageID 73
Page 26
brought against Defendants based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Complaint.
ORDER I.
BAN ON DEBT-RELIEF SERVICES IT IS ORDERED that Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from (1) offering, marketing, selling, or providing any Debt-Relief Service, whether directly or indirectly, (2) assisting any person offering, marketing, selling, or providing any Debt-Relief Service, including by consulting, brokering, planning, investing, or advising, and (3) receiving any monies or consideration from, holding any ownership interest in, providing services to, or working in any capacity for any person engaged in or assisting in the offering, marketing, selling, or providing of any Debt-Relief Service.
II.
CONDUCT PROHIBITIONS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in connection with offering, marketing, selling, or providing any consumer financial product or service, Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them who have actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly or by assisting others, are permanently enjoined and
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 5 of 15 PageID 74
Page 27
restrained from misrepresenting any material aspect of the product or service, including, but not limited to:
A. The benefits that a consumer will receive from the product or service; B. The time required to achieve benefits from the product or service; or C. The total costs or any other material term, restriction, limitation or condition of the product or service.
III.
CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. Defendants, jointly and severally, must pay a civil money penalty of $25,000 to the Bureau.
B. Within 14 days of the Effective Date, Defendants must pay the civil money penalty by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau’s agent in compliance with the Bureau’s wiring instructions.
C. The civil money penalty paid under this Order will be deposited in the Civil Penalty Fund of the Bureau as required by Section 1017(d) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5497(d).
D. Defendants must treat the civil money penalty paid under this Order as a penalty paid to the government for all purposes. Regardless of how the Bureau ultimately uses those funds, Defendants may not: 1. Claim, assert, or apply for a tax deduction, tax credit, or any other tax benefit for any civil money penalty paid under this Order; or Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 6 of 15 PageID 75
Page 28
2. Seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification from any source, including but not limited to payment made under any insurance policy, with regard to any civil money penalty paid under this Order.
E. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil money penalty in any Related Consumer Action, Defendants may not argue that they are entitled to, nor may Defendants benefit by, any offset or reduction of any monetary remedies imposed in the Related Consumer Action because of the civil money penalty paid in this action (Penalty Offset). If the court in any Related Consumer Action grants such a Penalty Offset, Defendants must, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting the Penalty Offset, notify the Bureau, and pay the amount of the Penalty Offset to the U.S. Treasury. Such a payment will not be considered an additional civil money penalty and will not change the amount of the civil money penalty imposed in this action. F. The facts alleged in the Complaint establish all elements necessary to sustain an action by the Bureau under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). For such purposes, this Order will have collateral estoppel effect against Individual Defendants, even in an Individual Defendant’s capacity as debtor-in-possession.
G. The civil penalty imposed by the Order represents a civil penalty owed to the United States Government, is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 7 of 15 PageID 76
Page 29
and, thus, as to Individual Defendant, it is not subject to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
IV.
RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE FDUTPA IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. Defendants, jointly and severally, must pay the Attorney General of Florida $15,000 for investigative and attorney’s fees incurred as well as a civil penalty of $10,000. Collection of the foregoing amounts by the Attorney General of Florida is deferred.
B. The Attorney General of Florida’s agreement to this Order and the deferment of payment of the judgment is expressly premised upon the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of Defendants’ sworn financial statements and related supplemental documents submitted to the Attorney General of Florida and to the Bureau.
C. The Attorney General of Florida reserves the right to collect payment as to any Defendant if, upon motion by the Attorney General of Florida, the Court finds that the Defendant failed to disclose any material asset, materially misstated the value of any asset, or made any other material misstatement or omission in the financial representations identified in Section IV.B. V.
CUSTOMER INFORMATION IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons who are in active concert or Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 8 of 15 PageID 77
Page 30
participation with any of them, who have actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not disclose, use, or benefit from consumer information, including the name, address, telephone number, email address, social security number, other identifying information, or any data that enables access to a consumer’s account (including a credit card, bank account, other financial account, or the National Student Loan Data System), that Defendants obtained in connection with CES’s debt-relief services. However, information about a particular consumer may be disclosed: a) to the Bureau; b) to another government agency; or c) as required by law, regulation, or court order.
VI.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. For 10 years from the Effective Date, Defendants must notify the Bureau of any development that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order, including but not limited to a dissolution, assignment, sale, merger, or other action that would result in the emergence of a successor company; the creation or dissolution of a subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order; the filing of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding by or against any Defendant; or a change in any Defendant’s name or address. Each Defendant must provide this notice at least 30 days before the development or as soon as practicable after learning about the development, whichever is sooner.
B. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, each Defendant must: Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 9 of 15 PageID 78
Page 31
1. Designate at least one telephone number and email, physical, and postal address as points of contact, which the Bureau may use to communicate with the Defendant;
2. Identify all businesses for which any Defendant is the majority owner, or that any Defendant directly or indirectly controls, by all of those businesses’ names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and Internet addresses;
3. Describe the activities of each business identified in (b), including the products and services offered, and the means of advertising, marketing, and sales;
4. Identify the Individual Defendants’ telephone numbers and all email, Internet, physical, and postal addresses, including all residences; and 5. Describe in detail the Individual Defendants’ involvement in any business for which either performs services in any capacity or which either wholly or partially owns, including the relevant Individual Defendant’s title, role, responsibilities, participation, authority, control, and ownership.
C. For 10 years from the Effective Date, Defendants must report any change in the information required to be submitted under Section VI.B at least 30 days before the change or as soon as practicable after learning about the change, whichever is sooner.
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 10 of 15 PageID 79
Page 32
D. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, and again one year after the Effective Date, Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director an accurate written compliance progress report (Compliance Report), which, at a minimum:
1. Describes in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with this Order; and 2. Attaches a copy of each Order Acknowledgment obtained under Section VII, unless previously submitted to the Bureau. E. After the one-year period, and continuing for 10 years from the Effective Date, Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director additional Compliance Reports within 14 days of receiving a written request from the Bureau. VII.
ORDER DISTRIBUTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, each Defendant must submit to the Enforcement Director an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order, sworn under penalty of perjury.
B. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, each Defendant, for any business for which the Defendant is the majority owner or directly or indirectly controls, must deliver a copy of this Order to each of its board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives who have responsibilities related to the subject matter of this Order.
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 11 of 15 PageID 80
Page 33
C. For 5 years from the Effective Date, each Defendant, for any business for which the Defendant is a majority owner or directly or indirectly controls, must deliver a copy of this Order to any business entity resulting from any change in structure referred to in Section VI, any future board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives who will have responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Order before they assume their responsibilities. D. Defendants must secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of this Order, ensuring that any electronic signatures comply with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq., within 30 days of delivery, from all persons receiving a copy of this Order under this Section. VIII.
RECORDKEEPING IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. Each Defendant must create, for at least 5 years from the Effective Date, all documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this Order, including for any business in which either Individual Defendant is a majority owner or directly or indirectly controls, as well as all submissions to the Bureau.
B. Defendants must retain the documents identified in Section VIII.A for at least 5 years.
C. Defendants must make the documents identified in Section VIII.A available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request.
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 12 of 15 PageID 81
Page 34
IX.
NOTICES IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise directed in writing by the Bureau, Defendants must provide all submissions, requests, communications, or other documents relating to this Order in writing, with the subject line, “In re College Education Services LLC, No. 2013-0623-02,” and send them either: A. By overnight courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) and contemporaneously by email, as follows:
Assistant Director for Enforcement Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement 1625 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006
B. By first class mail to the below address and contemporaneously by email to:
Assistant Director for Enforcement Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ATTN: Office of Enforcement 1700 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20552
X.
COOPERATION WITH THE BUREAU IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, A. Defendants must preserve consumer records and cooperate fully to help the Bureau determine the identity and location of, and the amount of injury sustained by, each Affected Consumer. Defendants must make available or Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 13 of 15 PageID 82
Page 35
turn over to the Bureau such information in their or their agents’ possession or control within 14 days of receiving a written request from the Bureau. B. Defendants must cooperate fully with the Bureau in this matter and in any investigation related to or associated with the conduct described in the Complaint. Defendants must provide truthful and complete information, evidence, and testimony. The Individual Defendants must appear and the Corporate Defendant must cause the its officers, employees, representatives, or agents to appear for interviews, discovery, hearings, trials, and any other proceedings that the Bureau may reasonably request upon 5 days written notice, or other reasonable notice, at such places and times as the Bureau may designate, without the service of compulsory process. XI.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to monitor Defendants’ compliance with this Order, A. Within 14 days of receipt of a written request from the Bureau, Defendants must submit additional compliance reports or other requested information, which must be made under penalty of perjury; provide sworn testimony; or produce documents.
B. For purposes of this Section, the Bureau may communicate directly with any Defendant, unless that Defendant retains counsel related to these communications.
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 14 of 15 PageID 83
Page 36
C. Defendants must permit Bureau representatives to interview any employee or other person affiliated with Defendants who has agreed to such an interview. The person interviewed may have counsel present. D. Nothing in this Order will limit the Bureau’s lawful use of civil investigative demands under 12 C.F.R. § 1080.6 and other compulsory process. XII The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of January, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
All parties of record including unrepresented parties, if any
Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 15 of 15 PageID 84