Broward Firm Sues Company Charging Disabled Vets $168,000 in Exchange for $12,000
Court documents allege the company targets disabled and retired military veterans with pensions.
January 18, 2018 at 04:20 PM
4 minute read
Military veterans Anthony and Gloria Harrison thought they'd found a brief reprieve from mounting financial troubles when they secured $12,000 to cover medical and emergency personal expenses, according to court documents.
Pensioned, disabled and out of work due to illness, Anthony Harrison googled financial service providers who might lend to a family in such straits, his court filings read. He found Nevada-based FIP LLC, which does business as Future Income Payments LLC and markets itself as “the nation's pension cash-advance leader.”
But now, a suit filed on the Harrisons' behalf in federal court by a Broward law firm alleges FIP took advantage of the vulnerable couple, duping them into a deal requiring $168,000 to repay a $12,000 loan. The deal required 84 monthly payments of $2,000 each—the equivalent of a nearly 186 percent annual interest rate, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
“This is a company that is engaged in the business of targeting and marketing to military veterans, retried people, disabled people and others who receive pensions,” plaintiffs counsel Marc A. Wites, of the Wites Law Firm in Lighthouse Point, Florida, said. “They're looking for a subset of those people who are in financial straits. They are making usurious loans to them. I would even go so far as to say wildly usurious loans.”
Cash advance companies often lend to clients who traditional lenders classify as high-risk borrowers.
It appears FIP purchases pensions, offering upfront lump sums to clients willing to assign it the rights to their income stream. Its website describes it as “America's largest pension cash flow originator,” with more than $300 million in completed transactions. The company buys and sells secondary-market pension cash flows, or structured cash flows, and manages a broad range of assets. It has more than 200 employees and a global presence, according to its marketing material.
FIP did not immediately return a phone call to its corporate headquarters seeking comment. No attorney has entered an appearance on its behalf in the Florida case. And North Carolina attorney Ripley Rand, the Womble Bond Dickinson partner who has represented the company or its affiliate in the past, did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
FIP has also been the focus of regulatory action in multiple states, including an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit in a suit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Since 2015, the Los Angeles City Attorney and officials in Colorado, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, Washington, Iowa and Pennsylvania have taken regulatory action over the corporation's lending practices. In Minnesota, Attorney General Lori Swanson filed suit in August against Future Income Payments LLC of Delaware and FIP LLC of Nevada, alleging the firms violated state lending laws by issuing loans without a license.
“The companies sought to evade state lending laws by falsely characterizing the transactions as 'purchase agreements' of a pension, not a loan,” a notice from Swanson's office stated.
Future Income Payments LLC relocated to Nevada, but was once based in Irvine, California, where the state Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency issued a desist and refrain order, barring it from engaging in lending or brokerage services without the proper license.
In September, JTB Law Group, Sommers Schwartz, and Finkelstein & Krinsk—law firms from New Jersey, Michigan and California, respectively—filed suit in federal court in California on behalf of retired and disabled veterans alleging “a massive fraud.”
FIP's critics call it a predatory lender, but its marketing material suggest the company does not make loans, but instead purchases pensions as an asset.
The Florida suit is the latest.
“It's not as if the states and federal government are not aware of this firm and what they're doing,” Wites said. “They are going to continue doing business until either a) a government entity tells them to stop, … or until a significant number of cases or a class causes them to stop.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250