Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall, Inc. et al
Case Number:
2:15-cv-07522
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Bulkley Richardson
- Gibson Dunn
- Jenner & Block
- Keller & Anderle
- Law Office of Thomas J. Nolan
- Skadden Arps
Government Agencies
-
March 14, 2023
CashCall Asks To Stay $157M Order As High Court Eyes CFPB
CashCall Inc. wants to avoid paying a $157 million judgment in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while it appeals, telling a Los Angeles federal judge who penalized the company for deceptive loan practices that a stay is warranted as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the CFPB's legitimacy.
-
February 13, 2023
CFPB Wins $134M Restitution, $33M Penalty From CashCall
CashCall Inc. must pay $134 million in restitution and a $33 million penalty for a deceptive loan scheme, a California federal judge ruled Friday, finding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's request of nearly $200 million overstates the tribe-linked lender's unjust gains.
-
October 04, 2022
CFPB, CashCall Lock Horns Over Bid For $200M In Restitution
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has renewed its push for nearly $200 million in restitution from CashCall Inc. to borrowers, while the tribe-linked lender countered that a U.S. Supreme Court decision limits the agency's available relief, according to briefs filed this week in California federal court.
-
September 20, 2022
Tribe-Linked Lender Rejects CFPB's Call For Restitution
Tribe-linked lender CashCall Inc. is pushing back on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's argument that the company should pay $197 million in restitution for a deceptive loan scheme, telling a California federal court it owes nothing at all.
-
January 19, 2018
CashCall Owes $10M After CFPB Sought $287M At Trial
CashCall Inc. will have to pay a $10 million penalty for offering high-interest loans via a tribal lands-based firm in states where payday loans are barred, but a California federal judge Friday denied the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's bid for $287 million in restitution and penalties.
-
November 21, 2017
CFPB, CashCall Spar Over Possible $287M In Restitution
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau squared off against CashCall Inc. and its affiliates in California federal court on Monday about whether it would be appropriate to make the online lender pay as much as $287 million for deceiving consumers, with the CFPB calling the company's loans "financial snake oil" and CashCall saying its business was legitimate.
-
October 18, 2017
CFPB Stresses CashCall CEO's Wealth In $287M CFPA Trial
CashCall Inc.'s founder and CEO earned a $1 million salary and at least $2.5 million annually in interest for loans he made to the company, he testified Wednesday in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $287 million suit accusing the lender of illegally offering subprime loans through a firm based on tribal land.
-
October 17, 2017
CashCall GC Blames Katten As $287M CFPA Trial Starts
CashCall's general counsel defended the company against a $287 million suit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday, testifying on day one of the California federal trial that outside counsel from Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP assured him CashCall's business offering subprime loans from a Native American reservation was legally sound.
-
July 10, 2017
CashCall Can't Pause CFPB Suit For 9th Circ. Ruling
A California federal judge on Friday rejected CashCall Inc.'s bid to pause a lawsuit in which it was found to have flouted federal law by offering high-interest loans through a firm based on tribal lands in states where such loans were barred, pending a potentially relevant Ninth Circuit ruling.
-
June 06, 2017
CashCall Wants Payday Loan Suit Paused For 9th Circ. Ruling
CashCall Inc. has urged a California federal judge to freeze a ruling, which said that the company violated federal law when it offered high-interest loans through a firm based on tribal lands in states where such loans were barred, as it awaits a relevant Ninth Circuit ruling.