Class Action/Consumer Finance Litigation

Experience

• Defended business funding company in Maryland state court against allegations that the client's financing of a small business that had an outstanding loan from a competitor constituted "tortious interference." The suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
• Counsel SEC-registered alternative investment firm on identifying regulatory and litigation risks in the consumer finance companies and vendors to which it provides financing.
• Successfully represented a payment solutions provider before a state attorney general avoiding that state’s attempt to apply its laws to our client as a processor of payments. We also represent the client in response to confidential subpoenas.
• Represent more than 30 credit unions and several banks in a series of class action lawsuits filed in various courts around the country, including federal and state courts in Alaska; California; Arizona; New York; Florida; Washington, DC; Maryland; Georgia; Pennsylvania; Illinois; and Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege our clients improperly charge overdraft fees in violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. We have obtained involuntary dismissals of some cases, resolved others and are actively litigating the remainder.
• Represent entity before the CFPB. Includes responding to multiple CIDs, as well as information meetings with the CFPB and the filing of a Petition to Set Aside the original CID and a challenge to the original appointment of Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB.
• Represent multiple entities in response to CIDs from the CFPB. In some instances, the CFPB has chosen not to pursue enforcement actions against our clients. We also work with clients to prepare for CFPB supervisory exams.
• Represent client before the FTC in an effort to prevent filing of an action against it for alleged violations of federal consumer protections laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
• Represented title lending company in putative class action in Circuit Court for City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff alleged that although company was licensed by State of Missouri to make small, short-term "payday loans," its practices were unconscionable and violate the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. We were hired mid-case to try question of whether class action waiver contained in client's arbitration clause was enforceable. Trial court found that class waiver itself was inherently unconscionable. On direct appeal, Supreme Court of Missouri reversed trial court, and remanded with specific instructions to examine unconscionability again (on grounds that had already been addressed by the trial court).
• Represent individuals in case of first impression. Florida Supreme Court sided with our clients, reversing court below and rejecting plaintiffs' argument that arbitration agreement including class waiver is unenforceable under Florida law.