This is a state UDAP action brought by the North Carolina attorney general for an injunction, restitution, and civil penalties involving the purchase and lease back of real property that utilized misrepresentations and other unfair and deceptive practices targeting and exploiting vulnerable consumers, most of whom were experiencing financial distress and/or other personal hardships.
This is a charge letter sent by the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation to Fortiva Finanical, Bank of Missouri, and Atlanticus warning them of an administrative hearing concerning unlicensed lending activity involving instalment loans. Even if Bank of Missouri was the true lender, and could avoid the licensure requirement, Fortiva and Atlanticus under Maryland law were required to obtain a license to assist consumers in obtaining a loan extension and to collect on such loans.
This is a settlement of an administrative action before the California Department of Business Oversight where the department claimed that litigation advance contracts were loans under California law and that the company’s offerings violated California loan law.
The California Superior Court denies a high-cost installment loan creditor's (Opportunity Financial) attempt to dismiss a cross-complaint brought by the state alleging that the creditor was not the true lender in a rent-a-bank scheme with Finwise. The case is notable for a discussion of other cases dealing with whether a bank in a rent-a-bank scheme is the true lender.