Freedom Stores, Inc., Freedom Acceptance Corporation, Military Credit Services LLC, John F. Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr.
Documents in this case
- Complaint · · 29 p.
- Stipulation · · 20 p.
Case summary
CFPB and the Attorneys General of North Carolina and Virginia took action today to protect military servicemembers from illegal debt collection practices.
Complaint ()
PDF of this document (29 pages)
Page 2
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJCT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division lUiq OEC i 8 A ;Q: 2 ~~ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; State of~orth Carolina, ex rel. Roy Cooper, Attorney General; and Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Plaintiffs, v.
Freedom Stores, Inc., Freedom Acceptance Corporation, Military Credit Services LLC, John F. Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~ CIVIL ACTION No.CY.' JJ-/.Cvfd./,3 j A)JA-JTE-rA ) ) ) ________________________________ ) Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("Bureau"), the State of North Carolina, ex ref. Roy Cooper, Attorney General (''North Carolina"), and the Commonwealth ofVirginia, ex rel. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General ("Virginia") (together, "States"), allege the following against Freedom Stores, Inc. ("Freedom"), Freedom Acceptance Corporation ("F AC"), Military Credit Services LLC ("MCS"), John F. Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr.: Introduction 1.
The Bureau brings this action under section 1054 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of2010 ("CFPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5564, section 918 ofthe Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1693o, and section 108 of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1607, based on Defendants' unfair and abusive practices in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531,5536, and their violations of EFTA's implementing regulation, Regulation E, 12
Page 3
C.P.R. § 1005.10(b), and TILA's implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.6(b), in connection with providing credit to and collecting debts from members of the United States military and other consumers.
2.
The States bring this action against F AC, MCS, John Melley, and Leonard Melley based on their violations of the state and federal laws enumerated below. (a) North Carolina brings this action against FAC, MCS, Jolm Melley, and Leonard Melley under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, which prohibits debt collectors from bringing debtcollection lawsuits against the debtor in any county other than (i) where the debt was incurred or (ii) where the debtor resides ifthe distances and amounts involved would make it impractical for the debtor to defend the claim, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-55, and from publicizing or communicating the debtor's indebtedness to third parties, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53. (b) North Carolina and Virginia bring this action against FAC, MCS, John Melley, and Leonard Melley under section 1042 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5552, which authorizes state attorneys general to bring civil actions to enforce provisions of the CFP A, based on Defendants' unfair and abusive practices in violation of sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 ' 5536.
Jurisdiction and Venue 3.
This Court has subject-matterjurisdiction over this action because it is brought under Federal consumer-financial law, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5552(a)(l), 5565(a)(l), presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is brought by an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
Page 4
4.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over North Carolina's state law claims because they are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
5.
Venue is proper in this district because Freedom, FAC, and MCS are located, reside, and do business here, John Melley resides and does business here, and Leonard Melley does business here. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b); 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f). Parties 6.
The Bureau is an agency of the United States created by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a). It has independent litigating authority, including the authority to enforce the regulations promulgated under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o, and TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1607. 12 U.S.C. § 5564(a)-(b); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(12), (14) (defining "Federal consumer financial law" to include EFTA and TILA).
7.
The States have independent authority to enforce provisions of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5552. The State ofNorth Carolina has authority to bring suit to enforce its state consumer-protection laws and acts through its Attorney General, Roy Cooper, pursuant to authority granted by Chapters 75 and 114 of the North Carolina General Statutes. 8.
Freedom is a Delaware corporation that is located, resides, and does business in this district. Freedom sells consumer goods and electronics and provides financing for those purchases.
9.
FAC is a Virginia corporation that is located, resides, and does business in this district. F AC acquires, purchases, or services extensions of credit to consumers made by Freedom. FAC also collects debts owed under consumers' contracts with Freedom or MCS. Therefore, F AC offers or provides a consumer-financial product or service that is covered by the
Page 5
CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(15)(A)(i), (15)(A)(x). FAC is a "covered person" under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6)(A).
10.
MCS is a Virginia limited-liability company that is located, resides, and does business in tills district. MCS extends credit to consumers and collects debts owed under consumers' contracts with MCS. Therefore, MCS offers or provides a consumer-financial product or service that is covered by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(15)(A)(i) . .MCS is a "covered person" under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6)(A).
11.
John Melley is the president and chlef executive officer ofF AC, the president and chief executive officer ofMCS, and the vice president and chief operating officer of Freedom. Given his status as an officer, John Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i). Because he is a related person, John Melley is deemed a "covered person" for purposes of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). 12.
Leonard Melley is the president and chlef executive officer of Freedom and the chief operating officer of both F AC and MCS. Given his status as an officer, Leonard Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i). Because he is a related person, Leonard Melley is deemed a "covered person" for purposes of the CFP A. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B).
Goods and Services Provided to Consumers by Freedom, FAC, and MCS 13.
Freedom is a nationwide retailer of consumer goods, including household appliances, jewelry, furniture, electronics, airline tickets, and stereo equipment. The company sells merchandise online at http://www.shopfreedom.com and at its fourteen retail stores, which are all located near military bases, including in North Carolina and Virginia.
Page 6
14.
From January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2013, Freedom financed its customers' retail purchases through retail-installment contracts, which established monthly payments that were typically due on the second of each month. Many of the consumers who obtained credit from Freedom were current or former members ofthe United States military or their family members.
15.
Freedom immediately assigned the retail-installment contracts it issued to PAC, which was responsible for servicing and collecting consumers' Freedom-related debts. 16.
From January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2013, MCS extended credit to consumers who purchased retail goods at over 300 independent retailers ("MCS Dealers") within MCS's dealer network, some of which were located in North Carolina and Virginia. 17.
MCS's credit contracts were revolving-credit agreements. The MCS agreements disclosed a "maximum" aruma} percentage rate ("APR") but not each periodic rate actually used to compute the fmance charge and the corresponding nominal annual percentage rate. The MCS account-opening disclosures were not provided in the form of a table. 18.
Like the Freedom contracts, MCS's revolving-credit agreements typically required payment by the second of each month. Also like Freedom, MCS Dealers catered to consumers on or near military bases. Most of MCS 's customers were current or former members of the United States military or their family members. MCS and PAC both collected consumers' MCS-related debts.
Companies' "Double Payment" Practices 19.
Many military members elected to repay their Freedom- and MCS-related debts by allotment, or automatic deductions from their pay.
Page 7
20.
When military consumers obtained credit from Freedom or MCS, employees of Freedom, MCS, or the MCS Dealers directed these consumers to an in-store computer terminal where they could log into a Department of Defense ("DoD") website to set up a recurring direct transfer of funds from their pay to Freedom, FAC, or MCS. 21.
In addition, when consumers elected to repay their Freedom- or MCS-related debts by allotment, Freedom, MCS, or the MCS Dealers gave consumers the forms required to establish a bank account with a third-party military-allotment-processing bank ("Allotment- Processing Bank").
22.
Once the forms were completed, Freedom, MCS, or the MCS Dealers forwarded them to the Allotment-Processing Bank.
23.
The Allotment-Processing Bank arranged for the DoD to transfer funds directly from servicemembers' pay to the Allotment-Processing Bank twice each month. The bank, in turn, paid the consumers' monthly allotment to FAC or MCS on the contract due date. 24.
The amount of the monthly allotment equaled the consumers' monthly payment obligation under the credit agreements.
25.
The companies allowed servicemembers at the time of contracting to provide F AC and MCS an alternative payment method in the event their allotments ceased. 26.
Specifically, FAC's and MCS's credit applications contained the following provisions regarding ACH authorizations ("ACH Pre-Authorization"): a. "I (we) hereby authorize [FAC/MCS] to use my Credit Card ... or my Visa/MasterCard Check Card, or my (our) checking or savings account (identified below) to pull my (our) monthly payment if my allotment does not start on time or is stopped for any reason. The depository named below is also
Page 8
authorized to charge the same to my (our) account. . . . Payments must be drafted on or before the contractual due date and may be subject to a $25.00 service charge for all non-sufficient funds pursuant to state law[;]" and b. "[T]his authority is to remain in full force and effect until [F AC/MCS] has received written notice from the authorized party(s) to terminate in such a manner as to afford FAC reasonable opportunity to act on it." 27.
Through the ACH Pre-Authorization form, FAC and MCS obtained routing and account numbers for consumers' checking or savings accounts ("Back-Up Accounts"). 28.
On or about the 26th of each month, the Allotment-Processing Bank gave F AC and MCS reports ("Look-Ahead Reports") that identified consumer accounts the Allotment- Processing Bank predicted had stopped allotments or had insufficient allotments to cover the amount due to FAC or MCS.
29.
Collectors reviewed the Look-Ahead Reports in an attempt to identify the consumers whose next allotment payment may fail to come through or fall short because of stopped or partial allotments.
30.
To protect against the risk of a missed payment, collectors initiated electronicfunds transfers out of the Back-Up Accounts ofthe consumers identified on the Look-Ahead Reports before the payment was due.
31.
The companies did not require that the collectors contact consumers before taking money from Back.:. Up Accounts.
32.
Sometimes the Look-Ahead Reports incorrectly predicted that the allotments would not go through or would be insufficient to make a full payment. In those cases, the allotments would be paid in full on the due date, but because the companies required the
Page 9
collectors to preemptively withdraw funds from the Back-Up Accounts without waiting to see if the allotments actually failed, F AC and MCS would end up collecting more than - and sometimes double - what the consumers actually owed in a single billing cycle ("Double Payment").
33.
In other cases, the Look-Ahead Reports correctly predicted that the allotments would cease, but the consumers took steps to make timely payments by other means. The conduct ofFAC and MCS resulted in Double Payments in these cases because the collectors preemptively withdrew from Back-Up Accounts without waiting for the consumers' payment to come in when due.
34.
Many consumers, including those deployed overseas, did not know that F AC and ..
MCS: (i) had access to Look-Ahead Reports that revealed the Allotment-Processing Bank's predictions related to their allotments or (ii) in reliance on the Look-Ahead Reports, had electronically withdrawn funds from their Back-Up Accounts before the allotment came due. 35.
Sometimes consumers became aware of the Double Payment after it occurred and contacted F AC and MCS to complain. In some instances, F AC and MCS issued refunds to consumers. However, the companies did not issue any refunds until after the allotment posted, which typically occurred two to five days after they pulled the Double Payment. 36.
FAC's and MCS's practice of debiting Back-Up Accounts before the payment due date was likely to cause affected consumers to overdraw their bank accounts, incur insufficient-funds fees, or otherwise experience disruptions to their household finances and cash flow.
Page 10
Companies' Practice of Taking Unauthorized Payments from Third Parties 37.
Collectors handling FAC- and MCS-related debts withdrew funds from checking or credit card accounts of consumers' parents, significant others, or other payors ("Related Payors") without prior authorization.
38.
From time to time, a Related Payor would authorize a one-time payment on behalf of a consumer. Despite the fact that the authorization was for onehtime use, the payment processor used by F AC and MCS retained this payment information in .its system. 39.
The companies permitted and encouraged their collectors to withdraw funds from any account for which a card number was "on file" in the companies' records. As a result, collectors withdrew payments using the stored information without additional authorization beyond the initial authorization for one-time use. 40.
This practice caused a risk of substantial financial harm to Related Payors, including a risk of: overdrawing bank accounts, incurring insufficient-funds and bounced-check fees, and higher credit-card interest payments.
41.
Collectors were awarded monthly bonuses based on the number of delinquent accounts that became current.
42.
This bonus structure, coupled with strict deadlines and heavy workloads, created little incentive for collectors to ensure that the monies they pulled from Related Payors' accounts or consumers' Back-Up Accounts were authorized and appropriate at the time· of the withdrawals.
43.
Moreover, collectors were not required to inform the Related Payor- either before or after the funds were debited- of the electronic funds transfers. Related Payors did not know that any charges - beyond the one that was authorized - would occur and often never
Page 11
learned that the charges had occurred. As a result, Related Payors were unknowingly subjected to unauthorized withdrawals from their checking or credit-card accounts and could not reasonably avoid the harm caused by the practice.
Companies' Practice of Contacting Third Parties, Including Chain-of-Command 44.
Collectors for F AC and MCS debts called or sent written communications to third party references, including the chain-of-command of consumers who were servicemembers. By phone or in writing, FAC and MCS revealed the existence of servicemembers' debts and delinquencies and requested that the chain-of-command intervene so that F AC and MCS could receive payments from their subordinates.
45.
Disclosing consumers' debts to their military employers was likely to cause substantial injury to those consumers. For members of the military, consumer-credit problems can result in disciplinary proceedings, lead to loss of supervisory authority or promotion potential, tarnish a soldier's reputation or honor, erode the trust of leadership, and trigger revocation of a security clearance.
46.
Buried in FAC's and MCS's credit contracts was a provision that purported to secure servicemembers' permission for the companies to contact their chain-of-command if they fell behind on payments.
4 7.
When consumers signed the contracts, they were given a very brief opportunity to scroll through multiple pages of dense contract language set out in small font on a computer screen and were instructed to sign and initial the relevant blanks using an electronic signing pad. 48.
The companies did not require store employees to explain to consumers that by agreeing to accept financing, F AC or MCS would be allowed to call the consumer's chain-ofcommand to discuss delinquencies.
Page 12
49.
Many consumers did not know that the contracts contained a provision regarding chain-of-command contact, and consumers had no ability to bargain or negotiate to remove the provision.
Companies' Practice of Filing Collection Suits in a Distant Forum 50.
FAC and MCS filed debt-collection lawsuits against consumers when their accounts fell behind by 60 days. Staff members in the "legal department" ofFAC's and MCS's collections unit prepared warrant-in-debt actions to be filed in Virginia courts. 51.
The F AC and MCS credit contracts contained a non-negotiable, venue-selection clause that designated the state or federal courts of Virginia. 52.
Although no one in the legal department was a lawyer, the companies tasked employees in that department with determining whether the debt was time-barred under applicable state statutes of limitation, calculating the amounts due, and preparing lost-note affidavits with those amounts for John Melley's signature. 53.
John Melley signed the lost-note affidavits but did not verify, or require others to verify, that the amounts reported were actually owed or that the debts were not eligible for debtcancellation under policies purchased by many consumers at the time of sale. 54.
From January 1, 2010, through November 1, 2013, FAC and MCS filed all of their debt-collection lawsuits in Norfolk General District Court, even against consumers who lived far away from Norfolk, Virginia, at the time of the suit, rather than in a judicial district where the consumers lived or where the consumers were physically present when they executed the financing contracts. F AC, MCS, Freedom, and the MCS Dealers did not require their staff to inform consumers, at the time of contract, that they would be su.ed in Virginia if they became delinquent.
Page 13
55.
Many consumers were sued in Virginia without actual knowledge of the lawsuit. 56.
Whether or not they had actual notice of the lawsuit, consumers who lived far away from Norfolk, Virginia, found it difficult or impossible to travel to defend FAC's and MCS's actions.
57.
From July 21,2011 to December 31,2013, FAC and MCS filed over 3,500 lawsuits in Norfolk, Virginia, against consumers who lived in distant venues and who were not physically present in Norfolk, Virginia, when they executed the underlying financing contract; ahnost all of the lawsuits resulted in a default judgment. 58.
Upon obtaining those default judgments, F AC and MCS attempted to garnish consumers' wages or impose liens on their bank accounts. 59.
Certain consumers did not learn they had been sued until they unsuccessfully attempted to withdraw cash from their bank accounts, which had been garnished. Activities of John Melley and Leonard Melley 60.
John and Leonard Melley delegated all responsibilities concerning the collection ofFAC- and MCS-related debts to their vice president of collections ("VP-Collections"). John and Leonard Melley were aware that: (i) consumers were systematically sued in Virginia courts no matter where they resided or were physically present when the lawsuit was filed or when the contract was signed; (ii) the collectors routinely contacted military chain-of-command to get assistance with delinquent accounts; and (iii) F AC and MCS charged Double Payments by relying on Look-Ahead Reports and surreptitiously pulling funds from Back-Up Accounts. As owners and executive officers of the companies, they had the authority to control these practices and the collections staff charged with implementing them.
Page 14
61.
John and Leonard Melley also delegated to the VP-Collections all responsibilities concerning compliance, including the review of consumer contracts, applications, and authorizations to conform to applicable consumer-protection laws. They knew or should have known that: (i) the boilerplate contracts used by F AC and MCS included non-negotiable venueselection clauses and non-negotiable provisions purportedly permitting collection agents to contact commanders about servicemembers' debts; (ii) the MCS form contracts omitted the actual APR charged; and (iii) F AC and MCS obtained routing and checking account numbers for Back-UpAccounts using the ACH Pre-Authorization. As owners and executive officers of the companies, they had the authority to ensure that their contracts complied with federal and state laws governing the consumer-finance industry.
Count One (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Distant Forum Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against FAC and MCS 62.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 63.
Section 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA prohibits "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices." 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(l)(B). An act or practice is unfair if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers" that "is not reasonably avoidable by consumers[) and ... is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." 12 U.S.C. § 553l(c)(l).
64.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from July 21, 2011, to November 1, 2013, FAC and MCS filed debt-collection lawsuits in Norfolk, Virginia, against consumers who (i) had signed contracts far away from Norfolk, Virginia, and (ii) resided far away from Norfolk, Virginia, when the lawsuits were commenced.
Page 15
65.
Many consumers were unaware that the credit contracts contained a venueselection clause; they had little opportunity to review the credit contracts at the time of signing. 66.
Even if the consumers read and understood the venue-selection clause, there was no opportunity to bargain for its removal because the clause was non-negotiable. 67.
The practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits in a distant forum when the consumer does not live in that forum and was not physically present in that forum when the contract was executed is likely to cause substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit. 68.
FAC's and MCS's practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits in a distant forum when the consumers did not live in that forum and were not physically present in that forum when they executed the financing contract is unfair. Because F AC and MCS are "covered persons," their conduct is uruawful under sections 1031 and 1 036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 , 5536(a)(1 )(B).
Count Two (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Distant Forum Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against John Melley and Leonard Melley 69.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 and 63-68 are incorporated here by reference. 70.
John Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits in a distant forum, in violation of sections 1031 and 1 036( a)(l )(B) of the CFP A, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 , 5536(a)(1)(B).
71.
Leonard Melley is a "related person" to F AC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of filing debt-collection
Page 16
lawsuits in a distant forum, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B).
Count Three (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Distant Forum Abusiveness Claim -Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against FAC and MCS 72.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 73.
Section 1 036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA prohibits ''unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices." 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). An act or practice is abusive if it "takes unreasonable advantage of .. . the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer fmancial product or service." 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(B). 74.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from July 21, 20i 1, to November 1, 2013, FAC and MCS filed debt-collection lawsuits in Virginia courts against consumers who (i) had signed contracts far away from Norfolk, Virginia, and (ii) resided far away from Norfolk, Virginia, when the lawsuits were commenced. 75.
Many consumers were unaware that the credit contracts contained a venueselection clause; they had little opportunity to review the credit contracts at the time of signing. 76.
Even if consumers read and understood the venue-selection _clause, there was no opportunity to bargain for its removal because the clause was non-negotiable. 77.
The practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits based on the venue-selection clause at issue was almost certain to produce default judgments and lead to garnishments against consumers who were unable to appear and assert a defense. This practice took unreasonable advantage of the inability of consumers to protect their interests while using or choosing credit agreements.
Page 17
78.
FAC's and MCS's practice of filing debt·collection suits in a distant forum is abusive. Because F AC and MCS are "covered persons," their conduct is unlawful under sections 1031 and 1036(a)(l)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(l)(B). Count Four (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Distant Forum Abusiveness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against John Melley and Leonard Melley 79.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 and 73-78 are incorporated here by reference. 80.
John Melley is a "related person" to F AC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's abusive practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits in a distant forum, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B).
81.
Leonard Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's abusive practice of filing debtcollection lawsuits in a distant forum, in violation of sections 1031 and 1 036(a)(l )(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(l)(B).
Count Five (Violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Improper Third-Party Contacts Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against FAC and MCS 82.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 83.
Section 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA prohibits ''unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices." 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(l)(B). An act or practice is unfair if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers" that "is not reasonably avoidable by consumers[] and . . .
Page 18
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." 12 U.S.C. § 5531(c)(1).
84.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from July 21, 2011, to November 1, 2013, PAC and MCS contacted third parties, including consumers' military chain-of-command, to discuss the delinquency of consumers. 85.
Many consumers were unaware that the credit contracts contained a waiver regarding third-party contacts, and they had little opportunity to review the credit contracts at the time of signing.
86.
Among consumers who had read and understood the third-party contacts clause, there was no opportunity to bargain for its removal because the clause was non-negotiable. 87.
Under these circumstances, contacting third parties, including military chain-ofcommand, to discuss the debts owed by consumers is likely to cause substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit. 88.
Accordingly, FAC and MCS committed unfair acts or practices. Because PAC and MCS are "covered persons," their conduct is unlawful under sections 1031 and 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 , 5536(a)(l)(B). Count Six (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Improper Third-Party Contacts Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against John Melley and Leonard Melley 89.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 and 83-88 are incorporated here by reference. 90.
John Melley is a "related person" to PAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 54S1(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of contacting third parties, including military chain-of-command, to discuss the debts owed by consumers, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(l)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B).
Page 19
91.
Leonard Melley is a "related person" to F AC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of contacting third parties, including military chain-of-command, to discuss the debts owed by consumers, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B). Count Seven (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Withdrawing Payments from a Related Payor without Authorization Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the ~ureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against FAC and MCS 92.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 93.
Section 1036(a)(1)(B) ofthe CFPA prohibits ''unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices." 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(l )(B). An act or practice is unfair if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers" that "is not reasonably avoidable by consumers[] and . .. is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." 12 U.S.C. § 553l(c)(l).
94.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from Ju1y 21 , 2011, to November 1, 2013, FAC and MCS withdrew payments from Related Payors' credit cards and checking accounts without authorization.
95.
Although the Related Payors previously had provided their account information for a one-time payment, the companies accessed their accounts for subsequent payments without getting the Related Payors' authorization to do so. 96.
The Related Payors were given no notice that payments would be taken and thus could not take steps to avoid the charges.
97.
The practice of withdrawing payments from Related Payors' accounts without authorization is likely to cause substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit.
Page 20
98.
The practice by FAC and MCS of withdrawing payments from Related Payors' accounts without authorization is unfair. Because F AC and MCS are "covered persons," their conduct is unlawful under sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(l)(B).
Count Eight (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Withdrawing Payments from a Related Payor without Authorization Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against John Melley and Leonard Melley 99.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 and 93-98 are incorporated here by reference. 100.
John Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of withdrawing payments from Related Payors' accounts without authmization, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B). 101.
Leonard Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of withdrawing payments from Related Payors' accounts without authorization, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 , 5536(a)(l)(B). Count Nine (Violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Double Payments Unfairness Claim - Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against FAC and MCS 102.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 103.
Section 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA prohibits "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices." 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(l)(B). An act or practice is unfair if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers" that "is not reasonably avoidable by consumers[] and . . .
Page 21
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." 12 U.S.C. § 5531(c)(l).
104.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from July 21, 2011, to November 1, 2013, F AC and MCS collected more than- sometimes double- what was owed in a single billing cycle.
105.
Many consumers were unaware that F AC and MCS were pulling funds from their Back-Up Accounts at the time the electronic funds transfers were made. 106.
There was no meaningful opportunity for consumers to avoid a double payment before it occurred.
107.
The practice of electronically withdrawing more than the payment owed in a single billing cycle without notice to consumers is likely to cause substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit. 108.
The practice by F AC and MCS of electronically withdrawing more than the payment owed in a single billing cycle without notice to consumers is unfair. Because F AC and MCS are "covered persons," their conduct is unlawful under sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(I)(B).
Count Ten (Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act) Double Payments Unfairness Claim- Asserted by the Bureau, North Carolina, and Virginia Against John Melley and Leonard Melley 109.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 and 103-108 are incorporated here by reference.
110.
John Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of electronically
Page 22
withdrawing more than the payment owed in a single billing cycle without notice to consumers, in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(l)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B). 111.
Leonard Melley is a "related person" to FAC and MCS and a "covered person." 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). He is liable for FAC's and MCS's unfair practice of electronically withdrawing more than the payment owed in a single billing cycle without notice to consumers, inviolationofsections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B)oftheCFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1)(B). Count Eleven (Violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) Asserted by the Bureau Against Freedom 112.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 113.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2013, Freedom used ACH Authorization forms that did not comply with the requirements of EFT A and Regulation E.
114.
For consumers whose allotments failed, FAC withdrew funds from the consumers' Back-Up Accounts.
115.
The transfers of funds made by FAC out of consumers' Back-Up Accounts are electronic-funds transfers authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals; the transfers are preauthorized electronic-fund transfers ("Preauthorized EFTs"). 12 C.F.R. · § 1 005.2(k).
116.
Because transfers from the Back-Up Accounts are Preauthorized EFTs, EFTA and Regulation E require that the ACH Authorization be valid; to be valid, the terms ofthe ACH Authorization must be clear and readily understandable. 15 U.S.C. § 1693c; 12 C.P.R. pt. 1005, Supp. I, Official Stafflnterpretation, § 1005.10(b)-6.
Page 23
117.
FAC routinely used Look-Ahead Reports, which were received at month-end, before the next due date, to determine which allotments will fail in whole or in part. 118.
The ACH Authorization, however, does not state when the debits from the Back- Up Accounts will be made. Instead, it merely states that the debit will be made "on or before" the contractual due date.
119.
Many consumers were unaware that FAC was electronically withdrawing funds from their Back-Up Accounts at the time the electronic-funds transfers were made. 120.
Accordingly, the ACH Authorization did not explain the preauthorized transfer in clear and readily understandable terms. Freedom, which obtained the ACH Authorization, failed to disclose requisite information to consumers, in violation of EFTA and Regulation E. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693c, 1693e; 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b).
Count Twelve .
(Violations of the Truth in Lending Act) Asserted by the Bureau Against MCS 121.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 122.
In the course of extending open-end credit from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2013, MCS used revolving-credit agreements that omitted the account-opening disclosures required by TILA in the form required by Regulation Z. 123.
TILA specifies that material terms must be disclosed to the consumer before an open-end credit account is opened. 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a). "Where one or more periodic rates may be used to compute the finance charge, each such rate, the range ofbalances to which it is applicable, and the corresponding nominal annual percentage rate" must be disclosed. 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a)(4).
Page 24
124.
Regulation Z requires certain account-opening disclosures, including each APR, to be provided "in the form of a table with the headings, content, and format substantially similar to any of the applicable tables in[] appendix G." 12 C.F.R. § 1026.6(b)(l). The APR must be in at least 16-point type. 12 C.P.R.§ 1026.6(b)(2)(i). 125.
The MCS credit agreements disclose only a "maximum" APR, and it is not in the required 16-point type. The actual APR is not disclosed at all. The finance charge, range of balances to which the periodic rate is applicable, and corresponding nominal APR are not disclosed in a manner that comports with Regulation Z. 126.
The MCS credit agreements violate TILA and Regulation Z. 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a); 12 C.F.R. § 1026.6(b)(l)-(2).
Count Thirteen (Violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act) Distant Forum Claim - Asserted by North Carolina Against FAC and MCS 127.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 128.
Section 75-55 of the North Carolina General Statutes prohibits a debt collector from collecting or attempting to collect any debt from a North Carolina consumer "by use of any unconscionable means." Such unconscionable means include, but are not limited to "[b ]ringing suit against the debtor in a county other than that in which the debt was incurred or in which the debtor resides if the distances and amounts involved would make it impractical for the debtor to defend the claim." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55(4).
129.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2013, FAC and MCS filed debt-collection lawsuits in Virginia courts against North Carolina consumers who (i) had signed contracts outside of Virginia and (ii) did not reside in Virginia when the lawsuits were commenced.
Page 25
130.
FAC's and MCS's practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits in Virginia courts, rather than in the county ofNorth Carolina consumers' residence or where the debts were incurred is unlawful under the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55(4). 131.
As the president and chief executive officer ofF AC, president and chief executive officer ofMCS, and chief operating officer of Freedom, John Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-55(4), and is liable thereunder. 132.
As the chief operating officer of both F AC and MCS, and the president and chief executive officer of Freedom, Leonard Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-55(4), and is liable thereunder. Count Fourteen (Violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act) Unreasonable Publication Claim- Asserted by North Carolina Against FAC and MCS 133.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 134.
Section 75-53 of the North Carolina General Statutes prohibits a debt collector from unreasonably publicizing information regarding a North Carolina consumer's debt. Such unreasonable publication includes, but is not limited to "any communication with any person other than the debtor or his [or her] attorney," except in very limited circumstances, such as a communication with a debtor's spouse, or a communication "for the sole purpose oflocating the debtor, if no indication of indebtedness is made." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53(1). Unreasonable publication also includes "using any form of communication which ordinru.ily would be seen or heard by any person other than the consumer that displays or conveys any information about the
Page 26
alleged debt other than the name, address and phone number of the debt collector." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53(2).
135.
In the course of extending credit and collecting on credit contracts from January I, 2010, to November I, 2013, FAC and MCS contacted third parties, including North Carolina consumers' military chain-of-command, to discuss the delinquency ofNorth Carolina consumers.
136.
FAC's and MCS's practice of contacting third parties, including military chainof-command, to discuss debts owed by North Carolina consumers is unlawful under the North Carolina DebtCollection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53. 137.
As the president and chief executive officer ofFAC, president and chief executive officer ofMCS, and chief operating officer of Freedom, John Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53, and is liable thereunder. 138.
As the chief operating officer ofboth FAC and MCS, and the president and chief executive officer of Freedom, Leonard Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53, and is liable thereunder. Count Fifteen (Violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act) Asserted by North Carolina Against FAC, MCS, John Melley and Leonard Melley 139.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated here by reference. 140.
North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-l.l(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" in the State ofNorth
Page 27
Carolina. "Commerce," for purposes of the Act, "includes all business activities, however denominated." N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-l.l(b).
141.
F AC and MCS have engaged in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce in connection with their debt collection activities in North Carolina, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Engaging in violations of North Carolina's Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55, by filing debt collection lawsuits in Virginia against North Carolina consumers, which, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-56(a), constitute violations ofN.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-1.1. b. Engaging in violations ofNorth Carolina's Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-53, by unreasonably publicizing information regarding North Carolina consumers' debts through FAC's and MCS's practice of contacting third parties, including military chain-of-command, to discuss the debts owed by consumers, which, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75- 56(a), constitute violations ofN.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-1.1. c. Withdrawing payments from Related Payors' accounts in North Carolina without obtaining the Related Payors' authorization to do so, and failing to provide Related Payors in North Carolina with notice that payments would be taken from their accounts.
d. Withdrawing Double Payments from the accounts of North Carolina consumers, and failing to provide North Carolina consumers with notice of such practice.
Page 28
142.
As the president and chief executive officer ofF AC, president and chief executive officer ofMCS, and chief operating officer ofFreedom, John Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations ofthe North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 , and is liable thereunder.
143.
As the chief operating officer ofboth FAC and MCS, and the president and chief executive officer of Freedom, Leonard Melley directed, managed, and is responsible for, the illegal acts ofFAC and MCS, including FAC's and MCS's violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, and is liable thereunder. Demand for Relief Wherefore, the Bureau and the States request that the Court: l .
permanently enjoin F AC and MCS from committing future violations of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-50, et seq., including N.C. Gen. Stat.§§ 75-53 and 75-55; and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 ;
2.
permanently enjoin Freedom from committing future violations of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., 3.
permanently enjoin MCS from committing future violations ofTILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1631, et seq.;
4.
permanently enjoin John Melley and Leonard Melley from engaging in future violations ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 75-50, et seq., and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1;
5.
grant additional injunctive relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper;
Page 29
6.
award restitution against all Defendants in the amount of all unlawfully obtained or collected judgments, interest, and fees and all unlawfully collected debts; 7.
award damages or other monetary relief against all Defendants; 8.
order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains against all Defendants; 9.
award civil-money penalties against all D efendants; 10.
award costs against all Defendants; and 11.
award additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ANTHONY M. ALEXIS Acting Enforcement Director JEFFREY PAUL EHRLICH Deputy Enforcement Director NATALIE R. WILLIAMS Assistant Deputy Enforcement Director /:
__ ~ ~.MILLER (Vtrg1ma Bar No. 47821) MEGHAN SHERMAN CATER Enforcement Attorneys Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20552 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (202) 435-7825 Fax: (202) 435-7329 Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Page 30
MARK R. HERRING Attorney General of Virginia CYNTHIA E. HUDSON Chief Deputy Attorney General RHODES B. RITENOUR Deputy Attorney General (Virginia Bar No. 23 Senior Assistant Attorney General STEPHEN JOHN SOVINSKY (Virginia Bar No. 85637) Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Section Office of the Attorney General of Virginia 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (804) 823-6341 Fax: (804) 786-0122 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Commonwealth ofVirginia and State ofNorth Carolina (local counsel) ROY COOPER Attorney General of North Carolina M. LYNNE WEAVER Special Deputy Attorney General Consumer Protection Division North Carolina Department of Justice 114 W. Edenton Street Raleigh, NC 27603 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (919) 716-6039 Fax: (919) 716-6050 Attorney for Plaintiff State ofNorth Carolina
Stipulation ()
PDF of this document (20 pages)
Page 31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; State of ) North Carolina, ex rel. Roy Cooper, Attorney ) General; and Commonwealth ofVirginia, ex rel ) Mark R. Herring, Attorney General.
) Plaintiffs, ) )CIVIL ACTIONNO^/^MS Freedom Stores, Inc., Freedom Acceptance ) <A/vA//^» Corporation, Military Credit Services LLC, John F.
) ' Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr..
) Defendants.
) ) STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("Bureau"), the State ofNorth Carolina, ex rel. Roy Cooper, Attorney General ("North Carolina"), and the Commonwealth ofVirginia, ex rel Mark R. Herring, Attorney General ("Virginia") (together, "States") filed this civil action on December 18, 2014, to obtain injunctive relief, restitution, civil money penalties, and other equitable reliefagainst Freedom Stores, Inc. ("Freedom"), Freedom Acceptance Corporation ("FAC"), Military Credit Services LLC ("MCS"), John F. Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr. The Complaint alleges violations ofsections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ("CFPA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536. section 918 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. §1693o, section 108 ofthe Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §1607, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §75- 1.1, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-53, 75-55, in connection Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 37
Page 32
with extending credit to and collecting debts from members ofthe United States military and other consumers.
The parties, by and through their respective counsel, agree to the entry ofthis Stipulated Final Judgment and Order ("Order").
THEREFORE, it is ORDERED:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter ofthis action. 2.
The parties agree to entry ofthis Order, without adjudication ofany issue offact or law, to settle and resolve all matters in dispute arising from the conduct alleged in the Complaint to the date ofthis Order.
3.
Defendants neither admit nor deny any allegations in the complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. For purposes ofthis Order, Defendants admit only those facts in the complaint necessary to establish the Court'sjurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter ofthis action.
4.
Defendants waive service under Rule 4(d) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and waive all rights to seekjudicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity ofthis Order.
5.
Defendants waive any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412, concerning the prosecution ofthis action to the date ofthis Order. 6.
Each party will bear its own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees.
7.
Entry ofthis Order isinthe public interest.
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID# 38
Page 33
DEFINITIONS 8.
"Affected Consumers" means consumers who were subjected to Distant Forum Actions between July 1,2011, and December 31, 2013. a.
"Virginia Affected Consumers" means Affected Consumers who resided in Virginia at the time aDistant Forum Action was filed against them. 9.
"Affected Debt" means all debt, including any interest and fees, resulting from a Distant Forum Action between July 1,2011, and December 31, 2013. 10.
"Back-up Account" means achecking account, savings account, or other method ofpayment authorized byaconsumer to be used to pay the consumer's debt to Freedom, FAC, or MCS iftheir primary method ofpayment fails. 11.
"Corporate Defendants" means Freedom Stores, Inc., Freedom Acceptance Corporation, and Military Credit Services LLC, and their successors and assigns. 12.
"Defendants"means all ofthe Individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendants, individually, collectively, or in any combination. 13.
"Distant Forum Action" means adebt-collection action or proceeding filed against aconsumer in aforum other than one in: (i) the city, county, or parish where the consumer resides at the time the action is filed; (ii) the city, county, or parish where the consumer was physically present when the contract on which the action is based was signed; or (iii) acity, county, or parish contiguous to, adjacent to, or within 50 miles of(i) or (ii). 14.
"Effective Date" means the date this Order is entered. 15.
"Enforcement Director" means the Assistant Director ofthe Office of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or his or her delegee. 16.
"Individual Defendants" means John F. Melley and Leonard B. Melley, Jr. Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID# 39
Page 34
17.
"Proper Forum" means aforum in: (i) the city, county, or parish where the consumer resides at the time the action is filed; (ii) the city, county, or parish where the consumer was physically present when the contract on which the action is based was signed; or (iii) acity, county, or parish contiguous to, adjacent to, or within 50 miles of(i) or (ii). 18.
"Related Consumer Action" means aprivate action by or on behalfofone or more consumers or an enforcement action by another governmental agency brought against Defendants based on substantially the same facts as described in the Complaint. ORDER A.
Conduct Relief 19.
Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with them and who have actual notice ofthis Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the extension ofcredit and collectionof debts, are enjoined from:
a.
filing Distant Forum Actions;
b.
filing debt-collection actions against consumers unless the actions are filed in aProper Forum and in accordance with all applicable statutes oflimitations and other laws;
c.
garnishing the wages ofNorth Carolina consumers following ajudgment; d.
in attempting to collect adebt, contacting any person or entity other than the consumer for any purpose other than ascertaining the consumer's contact information or requesting that the consumer contact Defendants; for purposes ofthis subparagraph: i.
"consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (ifthe consumer is aminor), guardian, executor, administrator, the consumer's attorney, Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID# 40
Page 35
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 5 of 20 PagelD# 41
and any person the consumer expressly requests be contacted, unless that contact is prohibited by state law;
ii. “contact information” means the address of the consumer’s residence, the consumer’s phone number at that residence, the consumer’s mobile phone number, or the consumer’s place of employment;
ili. | the contact must not:
(1) disclose that the consumer owes any debt;
(2) disclose that the communication relates to the collection of a debt; or
(3) occur more than once to the same third party unless requested by that party or unless Defendants reasonably believe that the earlier response of that person is erroneous or incomplete and that the person now has correct or complete contact information,
iv. for consumers serving in the United States military, Defendants may not contact the consumer’s chain-of-command under this subparagraph without first obtaining the consumer’s written consent; the written consent must:
(1) be on a page separate from all other contract terms;
(2) be separately signed by the consumer; and
(3) clearly and conspicuously state that “providing this consent is voluntary, and this transaction is not conditioned on your
providing consent”,
Page 36
v.
for consumers residing in North Carolina,contactmaybe made only for the sole purposeof locatingthe debtor,providedthat Defendants do not reveal or disclose the debt or any information about it; vi.
the limitations ofthis subparagraph do not apply to contacts made by order ofa court of competentjurisdiction or as reasonablynecessary to effectuate a postjudgmentjudicial remedy;
e.
for 5 years from the Effective Date, charging any third-partyaccount (credit card,debitcard, bank account, prepaid card,or other form of payment) without thethird-party's written authorization forsuch a charge, including thenumber of times the third-party is authorizing payment from the account; and f.
collecting, selling, or transferring for collection any portion ofthe debt that is refunded or credited under this Order. 20.
Defendants and their officers,agents,servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are inactive concert orparticipation with them and who have actual notice ofthis Order, must:
a.
within 60 days ofthe EffectiveDate, adjust all balancesowedby each Affected Consumer in accordance with the redress calculations specified in paragraph 26 Of this Order;
b.
within 60 days ofthe EffectiveDate, send Bureau-approved noticesto all Affected Consumersfor whom balance adjustments are made under subparagraph20.a. to inform them ofthe credit resulting from this Order; the notices must be submitted to the Bureau for approval within 30 days ofthe Effective Date; Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID# 42
Page 37
c.
within 60 days ofthe Effective Date, furnish to all credit reporting agenciesthe adjustment to the balances owed by the Affected Consumers as a result of this Order;
d.
within 60 days ofthe Effective Date, take any steps necessary to amend or stop payment arrangements previously entered into with any Affected Consumer for paymentsno longer necessary after the adjustment to the balances owed by Affected Consumers as a result of this Order;
e.
within 60 days ofthe Effective Date, implement procedures to prevent Double Payments, including:
i.
prohibiting collection of payment from a consumer's Back-up Account until the seventh (7th) day after the payment due date, unless the consumer's express consent is obtained after the due date passes with no payment or with an incomplete payment; and ii. requiring a one-time notice to the consumer at least three (3) days before collecting the first payment from a consumer's Back-up Account, stating the date payment will be taken if the account is not current; each time a primary payment method is resumed or a new primary payment method is created to pay the debt at issue, the notice specified in this subparagraphmust be provided before the Back-up Account can be accessed;
f.
within 60 days of the Effective Date, implement procedures to prevent charging any third-party account without authorization, including: Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 43
Page 38
i.
requiring the third-party's written consent for a charge, that describes the procedure for withdrawing the third-party's authorization and includes the number of times the third-party is authorizing payments from their account (credit card, debit card, bank account, prepaid card, or other form ofpayment);
ii.
providing written confirmation by mail or electronic means (e-mail) to those third-parties stating the amount and recipient ofthe payment and the procedure for withdrawing the third-party's authorization for future payments:
(1) at the time the written consent referred to in subsection (i) is received; and (2) each time a payment is made;
g.
ensure that all contract provisions include the account-opening disclosures required by TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1631, etseq., in the form required by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R.pt. 1026; and h.
ensure that all contract provisions related to electronic fund transfers include the disclosure ofinformation required by EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693c, 1693e, and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b).
21.
If Defendants sell all or part ofthe "Affected Debt," Defendants must: a.
obtain the purchaser's express written agreement to comply with the provisions ofthis Order with respect to the Affected Debt; and b.
provide a copy ofthis Order to the purchaser. Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID# 44
Page 39
B.
Order to Pay Redress 22.
Judgment for monetary relief is hereby entered in favor ofthe Bureau and the States and against the Defendants in the amount of $2,596,124.14 plus the amount ofredress due to Virginia Affected Consumers under paragraph 26, the total to be calculated within 7 days of the Effective Date.
23.
Within 21 days ofentry ofthis Order, Defendants must pay to the Bureau, by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau's agent, and according to the Bureau's wiring instructions, $373,279.06 plus the amount to be refunded to Virginia Affected Consumers under paragraph 26, in satisfaction ofthe non-credit portion ofthe judgment as ordered in paragraph 22 and for the purpose ofproviding redress to Affected Consumers, as required by this section B. This amount shall be the total of the amounts required to be refunded to Affected Consumers pursuant to subparagraphs 26.a. and 26.b. of this Order. Defendants must relinquish all dominion, control, and title to the funds paid to the fullest extent permitted by law, and no part of the funds may be returned to Defendants.
24.
Any funds received by the Bureau in satisfaction ofthis judgment will be deposited into a fund or funds administered by the Bureau, or to the Bureau's agent according to applicable statutes and regulations, to be used for redress for Affected Consumers, including but not limited to refund ofmoneys, restitution, damages, or other monetary relief, and for any attendant expenses for the administration ofany such redress. 25.
Defendants must provide all information that the Bureau or its agent may require to locate all Affected Consumers and to administer redress. Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID# 45
Page 40
26.
Redress to Affected Consumers against whom a default judgment was entered in a Distant ForumAction between July 1, 2011, and December 31,2013, will be calculatedas follows:
a.
for Affected Consumers withjudgmentsthathavebeenfully satisfied: a refund to the Affected Consumer equal to 30% ofthe total collected from the Affected Consumer from the date ofthe judgment to the time of satisfaction; b.
for Affected Consumers withjudgmentsthathavebeenpartially satisfied: a reduction of theAffected Consumer's Total Outstanding Balance (default judgmentamount plus accrued interest) in an amountequalto (i) 30%of the total collected from the Affected Consumer between the date ofthe judgment and November 1,2014, plus (ii)30% of theTotal Outstanding Balance asof November 1,2014; if the sum ofthose amounts exceeds the Total Outstanding Balance, the difference will be refunded to the Affected Consumer; and c.
for Affected Consumers with nopayments on theirjudgments: a 30% reduction ofthe Affected Consumer's Total Outstanding Balance as ofNovember 1, 2014.
27.
If Defendants fail to identifyall Affected Consumersto the Bureauor if Defendants make any error in thecalculations under paragraph 26, within 14days of learning of the omission or error, Defendants must notify the Bureau of it and must adjust any Affected Consumer's outstanding balanceand provide any additional funds to the Bureau required to satisfy the redress ordered herein.
28.
Ifthe Bureau determines, in its sole discretion, that additional redress to Affected Consumers is wholly or partially impracticable, or otherwise inappropriate, or if funds remain Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID# 46
Page 41
after the additional redress is completed, the Bureau may use any remaining funds for equitable relief, including consumer-information remedies, as determined to be reasonably related to the violations described in the Complaint. Any funds not used for equitable reliefwill be deposited in the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement. Defendants will have no right to challenge any actions that the Bureau or its representatives may take under this paragraph. 29.
Defendants may not condition the payment ofany redress to any Affected Consumer under this Order on that Affected Consumer waiving any right. C.
Civil Money Penalties 30.
Under section 1055(c) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §5565(c), taking into account the factors in 12 U.S.C. §5565(c)(3), judgment for acivil penalty is entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of$100,000.
31.
This civil money penalty is imposed based on the violations oflaw described in the Complaint.
32.
Within 10 days ofthe 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. Defendants must relinquish all dominion, control, and title to the funds paid to the fullest extent permitted by law, and no part ofthe funds may be returned to Defendants. 33.
The civil money penalty paid under this Order will be deposited in the Civil Penalty Fund ofthe Bureau as required by section 1017(d) ofthe CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §5497(d). 34.
Defendants must treat the civil money penalty paid under this Order as apenalty paid to the government for all purposes. Regardless ofhow the Bureau ultimately uses those funds, Defendants may not:
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID# 47
Page 42
a.
claim, assert, or apply for atax deduction, tax credit, orany other tax benefit for any civil money penalty paid under this Order; or b.
seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification from any source, including but not limited to payment made under any insurance policy, for any civil money penalty paid under this Order.
35.
To preserve the deterrent effect ofthe civil money penalty, in any Related Consumer Action, Defendants may not argue that Defendants are entitled to, nor may Defendants benefit from, any offset or reduction ofany compensatory monetary remedies imposed in the Related Consumer Action because ofthe civil money penalty paid in this action ("Penalty Offset"). Ifthe court in any Related Consumer Action grants aPenalty Offset, Defendants must, within 30 days after entry ofafinal order granting the Penalty Offset, notify the Bureau, and pay the amount ofthe Penalty Offset to the U.S. Treasury. Such apayment will not be considered an additional civil money penalty and will not change the amount ofthe civil money penalty imposed in thisaction.
D.
Default or Delinquency 36.
In the event ofany default on Defendants' obligations to make payment under this Order, interest, computed under 28 U.S.C. §1961, as amended, will accrue on any outstanding amount not paid from the date ofdefault to the date ofpayment, and will immediately become due and payable.
37.
Under 31 U.S.C. §7701, Defendants must furnish to the Bureau their taxpayer identifying numbers, which may be used for purposes ofcollecting and reporting on any delinquent amount arising out ofthis Order.
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID# 48
Page 43
E.
Reporting Requirements 38.
For 5years from the Effective Date, Defendants must notify the Bureau ofany development that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order, including but not limited to adissolution, assignment, sale, merger, or other action that would result in the emergence ofasuccessor company; the creation or dissolution ofasubsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order; the filing ofany bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding by or against Defendants; or achange in Corporate Defendants' names or addresses. Defendants must provide this notice at least 30 days before the development or as soon as practicable after learning about the development, whichever is sooner. 39.
Within 21 days ofthe Effective Date, Defendants must: a. designate and provide to the Bureau at least one telephone number and an email, physical, and postal address as points ofcontact that the Bureau may use to communicate with Defendants;
b. identify in writing to the Bureau all businesses for which any Defendant is the majority owner, or that Defendants directly or indirectly control, by all oftheir names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, e-mail, and Internet addresses; and c. describe in writing to the Bureau the activities ofeach business identified in response to paragraph 39.b., including the products and services offered and themeansof advertising, marketing, and sales.
40.
Within 120 days ofthe Effective Date, and again one year after the Effective Date, Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director an accurate written complianceprogress report ("Compliance Report"), that, at aminimum: Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID# 49
Page 44
a. describes in detail the Defendants' compliance with this Order; and b. attaches acopy ofeach Order Acknowledgment obtained under Section Fof this Order, unless previously submitted tothe Bureau. 41.
After the one-year period, and for aperiod of5years, Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director additional Compliance Reports within 30 days ofreceiving awritten requestfromthe Bureau.
F.
Order Distribution and Acknowledgement 42.
Within 7days ofthe Effective Date, Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director an acknowledgment ofreceipt ofthis Order, sworn under penalty ofperjury. 43.
Within 30 days ofthe Effective Date, Defendants must deliver acopy ofthis Order to each ofits board members and executive officers, as well as any persons with responsibilities related to the injunctive reliefdescribed in Section Aofthis Order, whether they are managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives. 44.
For 5years from the Effective Date, Defendants must deliver acopy ofthis Order to any business entity resulting from any change in structure referred to in Section E, any future board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service providers, and other agents and representatives who will have responsibilities related to the injunctive relief described in Section Aofthis Order before they assume their responsibilities. 45.
Defendants must secure asigned and dated statement acknowledging receipt ofa copy ofthis Order, ensuring that any electronic signatures comply with the requirements ofthe E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. §7001 et seq., within 30 days ofdelivery ofthe Order, from all persons receiving acopy ofthis Order under this Section.
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID# 50
Page 45
G.
Recordkeeping 46.
Defendants must retain, for at least 5years from the Effective Date, all documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this Order. including:
a.
all documents and records pertaining to the Affected Consumers. b.
all contracts and credit applications entered into with consumers. 47.
Defendants must make the documents identified in Paragraph 46 available to the Bureau within 30 days upon the Bureau'srequest. H.
Notices 48.
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, "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al. v. Freedom Stores, Inc. e, al File No. 2013-0624-02" and send them either: by overnight courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) to: a.
Assistant Director for Enforcement Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement 1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20006; or b.
by first class mail to the below address and contemporaneously by email to Enforcement Compliancefoicfpb.gov: Assistant Director for Enforcement Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement 1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20552 Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID# 51
Page 46
I.
Cooperation with the Bureau 49.
Defendants must cooperate fully to help the Bureau determine the identity, location, and the amount due each Affected Consumer under Section Bofthis Order and respond to any other requests from the Bureau for information about relief, monitoring, compliance, or any other purpose. Defendants must provide all requested information in its or its agents' possession or control, submitted as asworn statement under penalty ofperjury, within 21 days of receiving a written request from the Bureau.
50.
Foraperiod of5years from the Effective Date, 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. Defendants must require its officers, employees, representatives, or agents to appear for interviews, discovery, hearings, trials, and any otherproceedings that the Bureau may reasonably request upon 14 days written notice, or other reasonable notice, at such places and times as the Bureau may designate, without the service ofcompulsory process. J.
Compliance Monitoring 51.
Foraperiod of5years from the Effective Date, for purposes ofcompliance monitoring, the Bureau may communicate directly with Defendants and Defendants may, at their election, have counsel present during such communications and may consult with counsel prior to responding to such communications.
52.
Foraperiod of5years from the Effective Date, Defendants must permit Bureau representatives to interview any employee orother person affiliated with Defendants who has agreed to such an interview. The person interviewed may have counsel present. Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 52
Page 47
53.
Nothing in this Order limits the Bureau's lawful use ofcompulsory process under 12 U.S.C. § 5526 and 12C.F.R. § 1080.6.
54.
For aperiod of5years from the Effective Date, Defendants agree to be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. §5514. Consistent with 12 C.F.R. §1091.111, Defendants may not petition for termination ofsupervision under 12 C.F.R. § 1091.113.
55.
The Bureau and the States release and discharge Defendants from all potential liability for law violations that the Bureau or the States have or might have asserted based on the practices alleged in the Complaint, to the extent such practices occurred before the Effective Date and the Bureau or the States know about them as of the Effective Date. Notwithstanding this release, the Bureau or the States may use the practices alleged in the Complaint in future enforcement actions against the Defendants or their affiliates to establish apattern or practice of violations or the continuation ofapattern or practice ofviolations or to calculate the amount of any penalty. This release does not preclude or affect any right ofthe Bureau or the States to determine and ensure compliance with the Order, or to seek penalties for any violations of the Order.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 56.
The Court will retain jurisdiction ofthis matter for purposes ofconstruction, modification, and enforcement of this Order.
It is SO ORDERED.
DATED this Oday of;
§ United States District Judge Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 53
Page 48
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 18 of 20 PagelD# 54
Consented and agreed to:
FOR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU:
ANTHONY M. ALEXIS Acting Enforcement Director
JEFFREY PAUL EHRLICH Deputy Enforcement Director
NATALIE R. WILLIAMS Assistant Deputy Enforcement Director
-
ARA K. MILLER (Virginia Bar No. 47821) MEGHAN SHERMAN CATER Enforcement Attorneys Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20552 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (202) 435-7825 Fax: (202) 435-7329 Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Page 49
Case 2:14-cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 19 of 20 PagelD# 55
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:
MARK R. HERRING Attorney General of Virginia
CYNTHIA E. HUDSON Chief Deputy Attorney General
RHODES B. RITENOUR Deputy Attorney General
DAVIDA. IR (Virginia Bar No. 23927) Senior Assistant Attorney General STEPHEN JOHN SOVINSKY
(Virginia Bar No. 85637)
Assistant Attorney General
Consumer Protection Section
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia 900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: (804) 823-6341
Fax: (804) 786-0122
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Commonwealth of Virginia
and State of North Carolina (local counsel)
ROY COOPER Attorney General of North Carolina
M. LYNNE WEAVER
Special Deputy Attorney General Consumer Protection Division North Carolina Department of Justice 114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (919) 716-6039
Fax: (919) 716-6050
Attorney for Plaintiff
State of North Carolina
Page 50
Case 2:14-cv- cv-00643-AWA-TEM Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 20 of 20 PagelD# 56
FOR DEFENDANTS:
" L Aw.
L. JEAN NOONAN
JAMES CHAREQ
Hudson Cook, LLP
1020 19th Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: (202) 327-9711
Fax: (202) 223-6935
Attorneys for Defendants
Freedom Stores, Inc., Freedom Acceptance Corporation, Military Credit Services LLC, John F. Melley, and Leonard B. Melley, Jr.