ILNews

Settlement reached in online payday loan class action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 6,500 Hoosiers will share $1.35 million in a class-action settlement reached in long-running litigation against an online payday lender that in some cases charged finance fees that exceeded 1,000 percent annual percentage rates.

Average class members in the suit against LoanPoint USA should receive checks early next year of about $200, though payments to some class members will exceed $1,000.

The settlement approved by Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg Thursday entitles to relief anyone who received a payday loan from LoanPoint USA between March 23, 2008, and March 23, 2010. The settlement also voids more than $5 million in outstanding loans the lender made to Hoosiers during that period. Plaintiffs allege those loans violated Indiana’s payday-loan statutes, I.C. 24-4.5-7-101 through -414.

Cohen & Malad LLP if Indianapolis is class counsel and announced the settlement Thursday. LoanPoint USA sought to enforce arbitration with class members in appeals that the Indiana Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear.

“We are glad that some of Indiana’s most financially distressed citizens will be getting meaningful checks to compensate them for the overcharges,” Cohen & Malad class counsel Vess Miller said in a statement.

“This case is a good example of why class actions are so important,” Miller said. “None of LoanPoint’s victims could reasonably afford to bring a lawsuit over their few hundred dollars, but because we were able to bring a class action we were able to make sure that thousands of people will get back the money they deserve and that LoanPoint is held accountable.”

The LoanPoint USA defendants, who include Mark Curry and affiliated companies Geneva-Roth Ventures Inc., and Geneva-Roth Capital Inc., also are barred from originating loans in Indiana until they register with the Department of Financial Institutions and comply with payday lending laws, according to the settlement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT