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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT