Deal Proposed in CFPB Structured Settlement Action

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and defendants it sued over allegedly unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices related to the transfer of consumers’ future structured settlement payments have reached a proposed settlement that will see the defendants pay $50,000 in fines and penalties and be permanently banned from making any referrals related to structured settlement transaction advice.

A copy of the proposed settlement between the CFPB and Access Funding, Access Holding, Lee Jundanian, Raffi Boghosian can be accessed by clicking here.

The CFPB sued the defendants — including Reliance Funding, Charles Smith, and Michael Borkowski — back in 2016, alleging that Access Funding steered consumers to Smith, an outside attorney, to provide advise on structured settlement transactions. Smith, however, was being paid by Access and indicated to consumers that the transactions — whereby Access would provide consumers with a lump-sum payment in exchange for rights to the future payments from the structured settlements — received little scrutiny.

Under the terms of the settlement, Access, Jundanian, and Boghosian would pay $40,000 in disgorgement and a civil penalty of $10,000. Jundanian and Boghosian will also be permanently barred from referring consumers to a specific individual or for-profit entity for advice concerning any structured settlement transaction, including for independent professional advice.

Last month, the District Court approved a stipulated judgment with Smith, in which he paid a disgorgement of $40,000 and a civil penalty of $10,000 while also agreeing to not participate or assist others in participating in structured settlement transactions, and to not misrepresent the relationship between any defendant and any provider of independent professional advice. A copy of that settlement can be accessed by clicking here.

Check Also

Judge Grants MJOP in FDCPA Case Over Time-Barred Claim

A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X